Review of Environmental Factors - Transport for NSW - NSW ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• GRN would require a substantial upgrade, including new base stations, to ensure 100% network coverageof the rail corridor.• The cost of this upgrade is comparable to the development of an entire new network.The radio communications marketplace responded with three systems: APCO-25, TETRA and GSM-R.APCO-25 is a proven standard for emergency services but was rejected for the reasons listed below.• It has no proven history of usage in a rail environment.• It does not support a functional addressing system that maps train run numbers to mobile subscribers’numbers, which is a key requirement.• It does not meet the interoperability requirements.• It relies on a dispatch terminal for functionality, which does not meet RailCorp’s reliability requirements.• It is not scalable in regard to the future growth of the rail network.TETRA is also a proven emergency services communications system and is deployed in a number metropolitanrail networks. However, it was rejected for the reasons listed below.• This application is confined primarily to underground metro networks that are not comparable to RailCorp’snetwork.• It relies on a dispatch terminal for functionality, which does not meet the RailCorp reliability requirements.• It does not meet the interoperability requirements.• There is no commercialised Automatic Train Protection (ATP) solution available.GSM-R was deemed the platform most suitable for RailCorp’s train network and system requirements for thereasons listed below.• It is the only rail-specific communications standard and has the highest levels of safety and reliability in itsdesign.• It is an open standard with a large number of equipment suppliers.• It achieved a higher level of compliance with the RailCorp functional requirements when compared to theother systems.• It is deployed by major rail operators in Europe and Asia, some with networks comparable in size andcomplexity to RailCorp’s network.• It operates on a spectrum of 1800 MHz which was available for purchase by RailCorp. The other optionswould have required the leasing of a radio spectrum from a telecommunications licence holder.• It is a scalable network that can grow in step with RailCorp operations and network.• It is compatible with the Australian Rail Track Corporation’s communication system.Page 26 of 67
• It provides a platform for future enhancements and increased operational safety, including a Level 2Automatic Train Protection (ATP) System, as per the recommendations of the Waterfall inquiry.• It will deliver the best value for money solution with the least risk.3.5 Alternatives to the Fairy Meadow SiteThe following options were considered for the development of the Fairy Meadow site:• to do nothing; or• install a new BTS further north bound or south bound.The do nothing option was rejected for the reasons listed below.• The inability to meet the requirement of 100% network coverage.• A ‘black spot’ in the DTRS network, resulting in a significant safety issue in the event of an emergency callor a train incident.• The increasing maintenance costs of the MetroNet facility and the limited reliability for adequate operationfor the next 10 – 15 years.A new BTS site located further away along the lines was rejected for the reasons listed below.• There are no available sites north bound due to a rail bridge crossing over the creek beginning 15 metresup track. Beyond this bridge is a dense residential area. There is also a lack of entry to this section of thetrack.• There are no available sites south bound due to a narrow rail corridor and lack of entry points. Shifting thissite too far down track will lead to a coverage hole between this site and Bellambi.• There are also overhead power lines and underground services running both north and south on both sidesof the rail for the majority of this section of track. The current site is the only location that can provideadequate clearance from these services.Other infrastructure options were considered, but were not feasible for the proposal.• The proposed monopole is less obtrusive, requires less space and will be cheaper to maintain than a latticetower or guyed mast. A monopole also uses a foundation design that is better suited given the spatiallimitations within the rail corridor. The monopole is thinner at the top and less obtrusive than a lattice tower,helping to minimise the visual impacts of the proposal.• The monopole can be installed using a hinge mechanism, which removes the need for large cranes.• The installation of a walk-in equipment hut would use more space and be more expensive. The use ofoutdoor cabinets was the most suitable solution given the limited space, cost and minimisation ofenvironmental impacts.Page 27 of 67
Page 2 and 3: Table of ContentsExecutive Summary
Page 4 and 5: Executive SummaryNeed for the Propo
Page 6 and 7: 1 Introduction1.1 Background to the
Page 8 and 9: • To the south are commercial/ind
Page 10 and 11: Figure 3View of site looking southw
Page 12 and 13: • community facilities including
Page 14 and 15: 2.2 State Environmental Planning Po
Page 16 and 17: State Environmental Planning Policy
Page 18 and 19: The land contamination is addressed
Page 20 and 21: 2.8 Other GuidelinesConsideration o
Page 22 and 23: Power CabinetThe power cabinet will
Page 24 and 25: • Installation of precast concret
Page 28 and 29: 3.6 Justification of the Preferred
Page 30 and 31: outlined in the Landcom/Department
Page 32 and 33: Potential ImpactsLocal and regional
Page 34 and 35: • Trenches/excavations will be co
Page 36 and 37: Possible Construction NoiseControl
Page 38 and 39: • concrete• packaging; and• g
Page 40 and 41: Potential ImpactIf not properly use
Page 42 and 43: Figure 7View of proposed facility l
Page 44 and 45: gates adjacent to an access track.
Page 46 and 47: Potential ImpactsDuring constructio
Page 48 and 49: 4.19 Consideration of Clause 228 of
Page 50 and 51: Clause 228 Factor Impacts Commentsc
Page 52 and 53: • Stockpiles will be maintained a
Page 54 and 55: are to be used.Visual Aesthetics an
Page 56 and 57: 4.21 Implementation ProcessThe cons
Page 58 and 59: Appendix 1: Principles from the Tel
Page 60 and 61: Principallocated, as far as practic
Page 62 and 63: PrincipalProposalreported to the Ci
Page 64 and 65: PrincipalProposalconsent.(n) Street
Page 66 and 67: ReleasedBy: RMUGL InfrastructureDat
Page 72 and 73: NPWS - Atlas of NSW Wildlifehttp://
Page 74 and 75: NPWS - Atlas of NSW Wildlifehttp://
Page 76 and 77:
NPWS - Atlas of NSW Wildlifehttp://
Page 78 and 79:
Heritage Branch Website - Online Da
Page 80 and 81:
EPBC Act Protected Matters ReportTh
Page 82 and 83:
Critical Habitats:Commonwealth Rese
Page 84 and 85:
Frog [64733]Litoria raniformisGrowl
Page 86 and 87:
Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered
Page 88 and 89:
Haliaeetus leucogasterWhite-bellied
Page 90 and 91:
Arenaria interpresRuddy Turnstone [
Page 92 and 93:
Thalassarche salviniSalvin's Albatr
Page 94 and 95:
Bryde's Whale [35]Species or specie
Page 96 and 97:
Berkeley, NSWGarawarra, NSWMacquari
Page 98 and 99:
For threatened ecological communiti
Page 100 and 101:
DECCW | Search resultsPage 1 of 1Yo
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Summary of Estimated RF EME Levels
Page 110:
Table of Other Areas of InterestAdd
show all

Review of Environmental Factors - Transport for NSW - NSW ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?