Parramatta Light Rail - Stage 1

The proposed bridge over James Ruse Drive will be satisfactory for Light Rail but does not take a holistic approach to traffic management in the area. The Hassal Street/Grand Avenue intersection is a major bottle-neck on James Ruse Drive, limiting its capacity as a major arterial road.

The new Light Rail offers an opportunity to fix this by looking at the whole road/rail picture. A better solution to that proposed would be for the light rail to cross James Ruse on the level and for James Ruse Drive to then cross both the Light Rail AND the Hassal Street intersection with an extended bridge.

At Hassal Street/Grand Avenue (which can be modified to remove the rail over-bridge with the heavy rail closure) a suitable intersection can be provided under the Jame Ruse over-bridge as is done in many other places in Sydney. To the north of this intersection on and off ramps can be provided for trafficjoining/leaving the bridge where it goes over the Light Rail.

In this way,
1. A traffic bottle-neck is resolved.
2. The Light Rail can stay on the level, reducing its cost and complexity.
3. The proposed Active Transport Link will also be on the level and partly under cover, making it more functional.

Gary Wilson OAM MIEAust

I am an employee in Armani Restaurant Parramatta. I have been working in Armani for many years. Armani is the best restaurant in Parramatta and it will be very sad to see the out door ding to be lost as what the light rail offices informed us last week.

I have a family of 5 and this job is providing food for them on the table i need to support them having the outdoor dining removed will put my job and many other colleges on the line


please do not effect the Armani Restaurant outdoor dining on Church st with the new light rail project

Kin regards

i am writing in relation to the removal of the outdoor dining in Armani Restaurant on Church st Parramatta

I am very worried about loosing my work. It has been said to us that the out door dining will be effected by the light rail


please we do not want to loos our job do not effect the outdoor dining in Armani Restaurant

thank you

A.
I am concerned with the proposed "Parramatta Light Rail" project on regarding several areas that have not been properly considered and other areas that have been glossed over or ignored.
When the case for the light rail was proposed for possible options 7th Dec '15, the routes suggested were Parramatta to Castle Hill, Macquarrie Park, Strathfield or Bankstown. See attached link.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/-glh36y.html
The route being proposed now is just a small portion of the Macquarie Park plan. This does nothing to cater for the tens of thousands of apartments that have been built and more still being built between Carlingford and Epping, the main reason for this line being considered a priority initially. The State Government announced less than two weeks ago a $2.5 billion plan to build 4,900 homes in Telopea in new apartment blocks up to 20 storeys tall. Half the residents here are as likely to want to access the North East as they are the South West; these residents' requirements have been ignored.
Over $1 billion is going to be spent converting the existing heavy rail track to accommodate Light Rail is a scandalous waste of money, the project is proposed to go to Camellia where there will be stabling yards. Attempting to work out the best way between Carlingford and Camellia is simple enough. A line already exists; do not waste a billion ripping this line up only to rebuild another. The train from Carlingford to Clyde takes 13 minutes. Two trains could operate in each direction providing a service anywhere along this line every 15 minutes. The trains could cross either side of the station platform as the Swiss do for 70% of their rail service, this need only be at Rydalmere and Dundas approximately mid way. The cost of this would be less than 30 million? What remains could be put to good use somewhere else. $1,000,000 - $30,000 = $970,000 saved on this project. This could be put to far better use by connecting Carlingford to Epping.
B.
When I have attended The Community Information sessions just one month ago and mentioned my concerns I was reassured by ... that Stage 2 of the Light Rail plan was to connect Carlingford to Epping. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 19th October less than one month later Stage 2 was announced and it is to go to Olympic Park via Meadowbank. Someone as well placed as ... on the project must have known this at the time. Why is the Director of Communications & Engagement pedalling misinformation to the public weeks earlier?

I have been in contact with several members of the Light Rail Project over several months many of whom have vanished before I am able to get any information regarding the questions that I have. ... appeared to be quite helpful and put me in contact with ... . ... left the organisation without answering anything. ... was then given the task of giving me some simple answers but he was incapable of three simple questions and never answered anything. I tried to contact ... again only to be told that he no longer worked on the project. I had contact with ... who has mysteriously vanished from the project also.
The abrupt departures of personnel that I was dealing with leaves me with little confidence in the competence of the organisation particularly with the disclosure in the paper of sackings within the department.
The article in the SMH 2nd Sept'17 mentioned up to 10 transport planners had been sacked in the last three months. It would appear that "Frank & Fearless" advice is not acceptable within the department. See attached link.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-investigating-leaks-of-sensitive-documents-about-major-transport-projects-20170901-gy8wlv.html
C.
The viability of this project is a major concern. I have been thwarted whenever I ask for the Benefit to cost ratio. The term "Cabinet in Confidence" or "Commercial in Confidence" is always used to conceal the deficiencies of the whole scheme. The public are left with no other option than to assume it is unviable as the Newcastle Light Rail scheme was, otherwise it would be a good news story if it was beneficial and presented to support the plan.

The Sydney Morning Herald on 21st Sept '17 carried the following relating to benefit - cost ratio of the replacement of the Heavy Rail line in Newcastle that is being replaced with Light Rail. See attached link.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/newcastle-light-rail-costs-revealed-in-cabinet-documents/8965576
The figures are cause for concern; if this information had been available before the project was started the $220 million per Km would not have proceeded.
We are in an identical position with the Carlingford line. The information put out in glossy brochures, displays or the EIS do not give the benefit - cost ratio. I am sure that the calculations have been done. If these figures were good this information would have been presented for all to see. One can only conclude that this information is being suppressed as appears to be the habit of this department.
D.
The Light Rail Project is planned to go through the North Parramatta Historical Precinct which contains The Female Factory, The Gaol, The Female Orphanage and many other of the early colonial buildings in Australia and numerous Aboriginal sites. At present these are being assessed by the State and National Historical Bodies as to whether they should receive recognition as "Cultural Significant Sites". In order to obtain this there are many conditions that need to be met. Among these conditions are that the setting of the area must be preserved. Article 8 regarding setting is below.

Article 8.
Setting Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate setting. This includes retention of the visual and sensory setting, as well as the retention of spiritual and other cultural relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place.
New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate.

Rail tracks of transport designed and built centuries later would destroy any chance of getting this listing. The planned route through here is absurd. Construction would occur as outlined above rendering it inappropriate.

E.
Confidence in Light rail building by this State has left the public concerned with their competence. The line from Randwick which joins the line from Dulwich Hill at Central is incompatible. Everyone who wishes to proceed on either side will have to change at Central. The Dulwich Hill line was only built a few years earlier. This state of affairs must have been seen by someone before these carriages were designed and built. If this was not so it would be even more alarming regarding the competence of the people involved in the project.

F.
I will add the three questions that nobody has been willing to answer for me in several years. I hope that someone involved in the EIS is able to give me the simple answers to some very straight forward questions.

The points I was making are still the same.
Wasting $1 billion ripping up a perfectly good rail line to replace it with a slower transport system that still not connect Carlingford to Epping. I have since seen the cost of this at $1.5 billion. If there is no connection to Epping only a fool would think there any reason to get rid of what already exists.
The existing train is capable of carrying more than twice as many passengers as a light rail so the frequency of every 7 minutes would not deliver more commuters than the existing system if it were used properly.
The train from Carlingford to Clyde takes 13 minutes. Two trains could operate in each direction providing a service anywhere along this line every 15 minutes. The trains could cross either side of the station platform as the Swiss do for 70% of their rail service; this need only be at Rydalmere and Dundas approximately midway. The cost of this would be less than one tenth of the $1.5 billion now estimated to be the cost.
The connection at Clyde could be catered for by adding one more stop, on the all stops train from Lidcombe to Blacktown. This would mean that there would be less than a 5 minute wait at Clyde to go East or West, or for anyone going up on the Carlingford line or coming down. The money saved here could cover half the cost of completing the connection to Epping. This would allow a connection from Parramatta to the North East. The connection that Tony Hadchiti (WSROC Chairman) has said is what is required to open the area.
There are many other developments happening or planned to be implemented in the next few years.
The Telopea Masterplan is a proposal to build housing compromising 30:70 public : private usage. At present I was told that there are 640 FACS (Family and Community Services) dwellings in the area which would increase by an additional 1,439 giving 2,133 in total. There is also in this proposal a plan to develop other blocks in the overall footprint not currently owned by FACS or the StateGovernment. This would also have the effect of further increasing the density within the area under consideration. Density is being increased everywhere throughout metropolitan Sydney so there isno reason why Telopea should be exempt.
David Borger(NSW WSBC) referring to the Camellia development which will create 21,000 high density dwellings is quoted as saying the residents here "Will need to be properly linked to neighbouring suburbs".
Tony Hadchiti (WSROC Chairman) made the most sensible comments several months ago. He said we need "routes that link our economic hubs, business parks and commuters. Routes that lessen the north / south divide and free up travel within the region".

The paragraphs above are now putting greater demand on the Light Rail proposal which was inadequate to deal with the demands in the Carlingford/Epping areas. Tony Hadchiti points out the glaring flaws in the Lig...

I am secretary of Western Sydney Cycling Network Inc, and represent our 120 members who are resident in and around western Sydney. We are a recreational cycling group who regularly utilise all cycling infrastructure in the western suburbs.

Although for the most part, our members are on the wrong side of 50+, we understand that every opportunity must be taken for the future of cycling when general infrastructure development is to take place. In this regard, the Parramatta Light Rail must be constructed with separated cycling and walking paths for safety and convenience for both cyclists and walkers. To fully utiise the paths, they must be continuous and linked with existing cycling infrastructure paths, otherwise the investment is greatly depreciated. In a similar vein, the cycle paths must utilise as many possible access points as are available with other transport options.

It is our understanding that the current Parramatta Light Rail - Stage 1 plan does not fully implement each of the above mentioned objectives, when such objective are achievable. We would ask that you consider these key issues.

I lead bicycle tours of heritage sites and buildings in the Parramatta area. I am finding it difficult to see why it's worth the expense and inconvenience of putting the light rail through from Westmead Station through the Cumberland Hospital, other than to serve the residences that the State Govt wants to build there.

I do see great potential in the section from Parramatta to Carlingford, however.

I would like to ask that during the construction phase, any disruptions to cycling access be minimised, and if unavoidable, a well signposted and fit-for-purpose detour be provided.

I also wish to protest about the intended removal of the Royal Oak Hotel. This is one of Parramatta's oldest, if not the oldest. If it costs more money to find an alternate site then find that money please. Parramatta's Heritage is being sacrificed to save a few dollars - please rethink this. This also applies to the buildings in the Cumberland Hospital precinct slated for removal. I couldn't work out which buildings they were in the EIS, but removal of heritage buildings should never be done.

Also the light rail must be wireless over the Lennox Bridge. This is a Parramatta icon, and putting unsightly wires over it would greatly detract from its appearance.

Wireless should also be employed wherever possible.

Thanks,
Paul Bowyer

To: Department of Planning and Environment,
I would like to say something about the Parramatta light rail project, especially on the Carlingford line.
First of all, the light rail will take more travel time than existing rail light to city. Most of the commuter on the Carlingford line travel to Sydney city. We have to get off the stop of Macquarie street of Parramatta then walk over 10 minutes to Parramatta station to get a train pass Clyde station(3 stations away from Parramatta) again to Sydney city.
Secondly, it will cost more money travel to city because we have to pay extra for light rail.
Thirdly, there is a bus ( M54) stop next to Parramatta station. It takes 12 minutes from Carlingford.
Finally, the existing Carlingford line is better than light rail for local commuter. To improve Carlingford line rail service better way is connected Carlingford with Epping.
So please don't waste tax payer's money to cut down the existing Carlingford line and build the light rail between Carlingford to Camellia.

The people who actually live in Carlingford are victims, not beneficiaries from the Parramatta light rail. We strongly oppose the cancellation of the current carlingford line and refuse to increase the council contributions when we rebuild the house.

It appears from review of the `Project Refinement' options provided in Section 3.6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment that the selection process between nominated design options along the route have not been thorough and fully justified. It appears that this justification process is based simply on the colour coded comparison of options only. There is no background information provided as to why options are considered to be better or worse than other options. It is not clear whether workshops have been undertaken to review these decisions of preferred options, and whether all stakeholders have had involvement in this optioneering process.
Has a quantitative assessment of the criteria been undertaken? For example, Other/operation is one criteria, and appears to have been attributed equal relevance and weighting to all other criteria. Logic would be that this criterium would have a greater weighting than other criteria, including urban design and cost and program, given that the Operation criteria exits beyond the planning/design/construction phases of the project and will affect stakeholders for many years after the project is complete.
Please provide further background to how the ratings in Options Assessments were derived and agreed by all key stakeholders. Please provide any quantitative assessment of the options assessed for the `Project Refinements'.

In Section 3.6.6.3 of the EIS (Alignment between Harris Street and Tramway Avenue), it is shown in Figure 3.22 that Option 1 performs worse than Option 2 regarding cost and program. It is not clear how this conclusion has been reached, given the extra construction staging required to construct the light rail along George St in comparison to Queens Wharf Reserve and Noller Parade. Option 2 will also result in new signalised intersection at the corner of George St and Alfred St, which may be avoided if Option 1 is adopted.

Can the basis behind this assessment of cost and program between options be elaborated further?

In Section 3.6.10.2 of the EIS, it is stated that OHW is preferred to catenary free. There are certain sections of the project where use of OHW to power the light rail would result in significant negative visual impacts on the project, especially through significant cultural locations such as Parramatta (along the Queens Wharf Reserve and river front on George St) and along routes with residents alongside the route (e.g. George St between Noller Parade and Alfred St).

It is noted that other TfNSW light rail projects have adopted catenary free designs, such as the Sydney Light Rail through the city and the whole route of the Newcastle Light Rail where the light rail is within public spaces, such as within roads or adjacent to businesses and residencies. It is surprising and disappointing that TfNSW would settle on an outdated and inferior powering solution when there will be such a significant visual impact on local stakeholders, when this is obviously considered of importance on other ongoing TfNSW projects.

It states in 3.6.10.2 that this decision can be revised in subsequent design phases, however this appears to be a critical issue which is not being addressed at the EIS stage. It appears logical that an aspect of the project which will impact on all stakeholders along the route should be confirmed at EIS stage, rather than at a later stage of the design when reducing cost may be more of a deciding factor than what is best for stakeholders and the project as a whole. If this decision is not made prior to D&C Contractors being engaged, it is not clear why TfNSW believes that a Contractor would adopt anything but the cheapest option available?

Please advise how this decision to adopt OHW over catenary free powering has been reached (noting that the EIS only provides 3 paragraphs to such a critical decision which affects the whole route), and why this inferior powering option is suitable for the city of Parramatta, its businesses and residents, when it has been deemed unsuitable for projects such as Sydney Light Rail?

Also please confirm if and how TfNSW intends to decide on this key design detail prior to the award of a D&C Contract?

In Section 3.6.6.3 of the EIS (Alignment between Harris Street and Tramway Avenue), it is shown in Figure 3.22 that Option 2 performs the same as other options regarding Traffic and Transport. It is not clear how this conclusion has been reached, given that creation of an S-Bend from George St to Tramway Ave in the light rail line on Alfred St. New signals at the corner of George St and Alfred St will result in only 1 lane of traffic eastbound, compared to the 2 lanes that currently exist. The S-Bend from George St to Tramway Ave will lead to significant motorist confusion, which will result in possible reduced performance of the local network. This potential confusing (and dangerous) S-Bend would be avoided in Option 1 and Option 3, therefore it is believed that this criteria should be rated as red in Figure 3.22.

Further to the impacts on Traffic and Transport noted above, it appears evident that the S-Bend at Alfred St may become a major safety issue due to the tight radii of the tram bends in close proximity, through 2 new intersections, with local residents requiring access and egress near the intersections and the potential for Parramatta Council to increase pedestrian and cyclist usage in the area by the proposed bridge over Parramatta River at the northern end of Alfred St. These potentially intolerable safety arrangements associated with the proposed George St / Alfred St / Tramway Ave arrangement could be easily avoided through adoption of Option 1 or Option 3.

Can the basis behind the assessment of Traffic and Transport between options be elaborated further, as it appears as though Option 2 clearly performs worse than Option 1 and Option 3?

In Section 3.6.6.3 of the EIS (Alignment between Harris Street and Tramway Avenue), it is shown in Figure 3.22 that Option 2 performs the same as other options regarding Safety. It is not clear how this conclusion has been reached, given that creation of an S-Bend from George St to Tramway Ave in the light rail line on Alfred St. New signals at the corner of George St and Alfred St will result in only 1 lane of traffic eastbound, compared to the 2 lanes that currently exist. It appears evident that the S-Bend at Alfred St may become a major safety issue due to the tight radii of the tram bends in close proximity, through 2 existing intersections, with local residents requiring access and egress near the intersections and the potential for Parramatta Council to increase pedestrian and cyclist usage in the area by the proposed bridge over Parramatta River at the northern end of Alfred St. These potentially intolerable safety arrangements associated with the proposed George St / Alfred St / Tramway Ave arrangement could be easily avoided through adoption of Option 1 or Option 3, therefore it is believed that this criteria should be rated as red in Figure 3.22.

Can the basis behind the assessment of Safety between options be elaborated further, as it appears as though Option 2 clearly performs worse than Option 1 and Option 3?

In Section 3.6.6.3 of the EIS (Alignment between Harris Street and Tramway Avenue), it is shown in Figure 3.22 that Option 2 performs better than other options regarding Property. There are many existing properties along George St which will be negatively impacted by the selection of Option 2 in comparison to Option 1. It appears that the impacts on Property between Option 1 and Option 2 would be similar.

Can the basis behind this assessment of Property between options be elaborated further?

In Section 3.6.6.3 of the EIS (Alignment between Harris Street and Tramway Avenue), it is shown in Figure 3.22 that Option 2 performs better than other options regarding Stakeholders. Which stakeholders benefit from Option 2 over Option 1?

Can the basis behind this assessment of Property between options be elaborated further?

In Section 3.6.6.4 it is stated that one of the benefits of Option 2 over Option 1 and Option 3 is `Maintains LRV movements on main roads, leading to improved visibility and accessibility to the project'. Accessibility to the project by the public is through the Light Rail stops, which do not differ between all 3 options considered in this area. Furthermore, visibility through the S-Bend proposed at George St / Alfred St / Tramway Ave will decrease visibility along the line significantly. It appears that this stated benefit is disingenuous.

Please clarify how this benefit applies to Option 2 over Option 1 or Option 3?

In Section 5.8.1 of the EIS, changes in configuration of George St beween Harris St and Alfred St is not noted as a `key road configuration change', which seems to be an omission from this section of the EIS considering the unusual and potentially unsafe configuration required at the George St - Tramway Ave S-Bend, where residents will be needing to access the road network adjacent to new road signals, in the same location where the light rail alignment has an S-Bend through Alfred St. It is also noted that George St will now become 2-way. This change in network is purely driven by the decision to choose `Option Refinement' Option 2 instead of Option 1, without proper quantitative assessment or justification of the options.

Please provide justification of why this is not considered a key road configuration change?

In Section 5.8.1 of the EIS it states `Removal of current parking provisions along Macquarie Street and along George Street between Harris Street and Alfred Street.'. It is noted that these current parking provisions serve local residents, who may also be having some of their property acquired. Therefore there is the potential for residents to lose both parking within their property as well as on-road parking they had prior to this project.

Please confirm how TfNSW intend to ensure that these residents between Harris St and Alfred St are not negatively impacted as significantly as it appears that they will be due to the decision to adopt Option 2 over Option 1 in section 3.6.6.3 of the EIS?

The EIS proposes (12.3.3.1) that Factory St between Castle St and Church St be changed to one way westbound without giving reasons as to why this is necessary. If it is to restrict vehicles travelling eastbound from Church St onto Factory St between Church & Castle St a better option for residents with only driveway access to Factory St would be to turn it into a cul-du-sac at the Church St end with a westbound only exit to Church St, This would allow residents with only drive way access to Factory st to be able to maintain the current eastbound departure route to Castle St. Otherwise residents will be greatly impacted if wishing to travel in a north east direction to James Ruse Drive/Pennant Hills Rd area by having to depart westbound onto Factory St, (their only option in the EIS) having to wait at the Church St intersection which currently has poor waiting times and then join the queue on Church St southbound so they can turn left onto Pennant Hills Rd North-Eastbound.This will add 3-5 mins to current journey times. The EIS proposal is not satisfactory for the residents of Factory St between Castle & Church St.

In Section 14.3.1.1 of the EIS, it is stated that there are no key intersections in this precinct, therefore the George St / Alfred St intersection is not considered a key intersection. Due to the significant changes to the intersection (becoming signalised and 2 way, with only one lane Eastbound), this appears to be a significant omission.

Please provide information on traffic counts and assessments of existing and proposed intersection performance based on the intersection layout provided. It is noted that safe and regular local resident access will need to be maintained for private residencies near this intersection. Please advise how this has been considered in the traffic assessments?

Section 14.3.3.3 of the EIS states `The project would not have significant impacts on any specific intersections within the Rosehill and Camellia precinct, with traffic impacts limited to localised traffic redistributions and minor localised traffic demand increases. On this basis, intersection modelling was not considered at this stage for the Rosehill and Camellia precinct.'

It appears that the rearrangement of George St between Noller Parade and Alfred St, as well as the new signals (combined with a light rail alignment S-Bend along George St / Alfred St / Tramway Ave) will have significant traffic impacts. This route appears to be highly utilised, especially in afternoon peak periods.

Please provide intersection modelling at this intersection and consideration as to how residents will safely access and egress from residences in the vicinity of this intersection.