Parramatta Light Rail - Stage 1

The Parramatta Light Rail presents a great opportunity to promote the cause of cycling and Active Transport. Many people choose not to ride a bicycle because they feel it is too dangerous mixing with cars. Let one of the Parramatta Light Rail's projects be providing a fully separated infrastructure for cyclists to use.
We note the intention to include an Active Transport corridor for part of the route, however the Active Transport corridor, in order to be meet Active Transport requirements, needs to include:
* Rolling stock on this Light Rail must cater for bikes!
* Pedestrian pathway should be separate from the bicycle pathway. These should be provided from Carlingford as far as possible into the CBD.
* The paths should remain in the corridor of the Light Rail, and not be rerouted onto roads such as Adderton Rd. Breakages in the separation like this jeopardise the whole value of the project. It is vital that this be altered.
* The bridge over the Parramatta River should be at least 4m wide. Experience with the ANZAC Bridge shows that even a 4m shared path is totally inadequate. Separate paths of at least 3m each for pedestrians and bicycles are needed, such as pedestrians on the east, and bicycles on the west.
* Provision of toilets and water refill stations
* Bicycle parking should be provided at all Light Rail stops
* Impacts on the cycling during the construction phase should be minimised, and where unavoidable, well sign-posted and fit-for-purpose detours should be provided.
In addition, please include the following:
* No reduction in cycling access in Parramatta's CBD.
* Incorporate a 30km/h speed limit in the Parramatta CBD.
* Retain the closed section of the railway as an Active Transport link also.

I have made a #1 submission suggesting an alternative route of Marsden and George in stead of Eat St (Church St) last week. I make this #2 submission, were the LR route to be (as in the EIS) down Eat St.

An innovative design needs to be adopted for the screening of all businesses along Eat St. This could include as follows:

1. Name of the walk way between the LR screen and shops (mostly eateries) to be called 'Eat St Walkway'

2. The screens need to:

2.1 Block out any view of the construction works over the full course of the project.
2.2 Be of a material that is soft on the eyes to view but a sturdy material to dampen any noises (all noisy works should be done at night)
2.3 Be colourful and enable say up to 3 screen panels per shop
2.4 These 3 above panels should be designed to enable the panels to accommodate by panel: 1. display updates on the LR project; 2. pictures and info on the shop/café/restaurant provided by owners; 3.general info update by Parramatta Council on other CBD projects such as the new plaza under construction. The panels should up updated with info on a regular basis.

3. The Eat St Walkway will need to incorporate plant boxes (perhaps the ones already there supplemented with new ones with colourful plant displays) and LR Project consultation/assistance on table/chair arrangements.

4. The awnings (underneath) of all shops should be inspected to assist owners to upgrade (including safety features) as a step to improve Eat St in preparation for LR.

5. Events should be organized under the Eat St Walkway theme during the whole of the LR works (with a grand event on the 'taking down of the screen' to welcome the LR)

6. Tree planting in the LR area should be of an advanced species (especially given the loss of the mature current trees in Eat St.)

◾Active transport must be in the corridor for its full length. The proposed out of corridor section at Adderton Rd (Telopea) should instead remain inside the corridor. This serious lack of continuity impinges on the total amenity of the project. It will be a barrier for the younger and older.
◾Walking and cycling areas should be separated over the full length of the corridor
-Please make sure the rolling stock can handle bicycles and that there is storage space.
◾At Kissing Point Rd, access to the Active Transport link should be from both sides of the road
◾The bridge over the Parramatta River at Camellia should be minimum of 4m wide. A width of 2.5m is manifestly inadequate, for example we have seen width issues on both the ANZAC Bridge and Sydney Harbour Bridge, particularly when shared
◾Bicycle riding must be maintained in all Parramatta CBD streets, including those with Light Rail
◾A 30 km/h speed limit should apply to Parramatta CBD core
◾Church St should have a pair of dedicated uni-directional bicycle paths
◾The unused rail corridor from Camelia Station to Clyde Station should be retained as an Active Transport Link

Option of non closure of T6 Carlingford line appears not to have been explored .Cost-benefit analysis comparision of options may warrant retention of (a) whole or (b) part ,of heavy rail route with increased frequency of service, by construction of intermediate lay-bys,'
Construct underpass of existing T6 line at ParramattaRd level crossing-maintaining timely access by race goers to Rosehill Racecourse from the East (City ) instead of going on to Parramatta and then the 8 minute back track to Camellia by proposed light rail.
Interchange at Camellia for rail options worth exploring in view of Stage 2 extension and Planning Commission proposals for Camillia housing and industrial development.

Proposal (a) avoids the temporary disruption to commuters by bus from existing stations.
(b) could incorporate co-joint stabling at Camellia on the Sandown line and light rail ..
I contest that despite the mass of detail contained in the EIS which is impossible for an individual to comprehend, , closure of whole or part of the T6 line between Clyde and Carlingford under Section 99A of the TA Act by Parliament or the Minister cannot be justified on the basis of this EIS.

No Gauge width stated to confirm consistency with "existing" projects ?
Wire free operation opportunities on parts of the 12 km project.are stated to "being investigated". No comparative costa are shown to balance against the environmental impact of the preferred and indicative option.. The new infrastructure is stated as minor impact because it will be "visually consistent" along the length of the corridor is surely open to question particularly in the Westmead-Parramatta segment.?

.Cross -sections show scale only and not actual dimensions.
Allowable curve radii not stated . Important for swept path dimensions with joint road traffic operation . e.g major accident in London
Mixture of parallel one-way or two way road traffic not at all clear especially through Parramatta North Urban Transformation project and Cumberland Hospital (east) complex.
Impact of additional traffic impact on Prince Alfred Square stop by Public School redevelopment adjacent to Marist Place / Market St junction appears to have been overlooked.

Many other objections particularly on Built Heritage impacts but time constraints did not permit..
Principal objection. Requirement (g) alternative /options re T6 line appear to have not been addressed adequately.

The most efficient route for traffic movements into Sorrell St south of Victoria Road from the north (ie. from main thoroughfares such as Pennant Hills Rd, North Rocks Road, Windsor Road, etc) is currently via Church Street and Palmer Street.

There is currently no right turn from Victoria Road into Sorrell St (southbound) and no through movements along Sorrel St.

It appears that the project extents run to Sorrell St, and that provision may have been made for modifications to this interchange, however details are not currently available on display.

Please ensure that traffic movements into/out of the Palmer St/Sorrell St area from the north are considered in the design of the light rail upgrade, and no loss of amenity arises as a result of the long term design solution.

I am a commercial/retail real estate agent based in Parramatta CBD.
I manage many of the retail shops in Church Street which is mainly food and beverage operators.
I am pro development and positive about public transport.
Church Street does not need a light Rail system.
The plan you have will destroy the retail operations in the street despite the huge growth in Parramatta.
We already have great transport here in and out of the CBD, with our rail station and transport interchange.
The Parramatta Light Rail should run along O'Connell Street as opposed to Church Street if you insist it be built and operated.
If you place it in Church Street, the effects on the operations of retail business, restaurants and Cafes will be destroyed.
It would take many years to recover as businesses would relocate in other locations even outside of Parramatta.
Please do not place light rail into Church Street.

It's exciting that the route is a "strategic Bicycle Corridor"and therefore an essential link within Sydney's future Principal Bicycle Network with critical connections. These include major residential areas a 2 business districts and 3 Unis as well as links with our Parrramatta Valley cycleway.
So I want this to be right from the outset and as such I make the following points.
1.Separation of over the FULL length of both cycling and walking areas. In particular Telopea the Adderton road section must remain inside the corridor. This is critical for the overall project.
2.All Parramatta CBD streets must be maintained for safe bicycle riding including those with light rail.
3 to aid this apply a speed limit of 30km/hr.
4 The Camellia bridge across the river is too narrow. I ride across the Sydney Harbour bridge and Anzac and these are problematic. The minimum bridge width should be 4metres.
5 also from Camellia station to Clyde station, the old rail corridor should be retained to become part of the Active Transport Link, with a future link to Sefton via the development of Duck river area.
5 Kissing Point road (KPrd) and Church street need addressing. Cyclists need access to the Active Transport at KPrd from both sides.
Church street needs to have two uni directional paths, one in each direction.
6 the vision of a an Active Transport Link with separated walking and cycling areas, multiple access points and importantly continuity needs to be enacted for our current and future generations, so let's get it right from the start.
Thank you

Impacts on the Westmead Health precinct access is largely ignored. The options for using the Health land on the western side of Hawkesbury Road are really unsubstantiated in the case that to use Hawkesbury roadway was the better option.
"Its better" for the project as it involves effectively closing the only access to the residential area on to kids hospital for the construction cycle. 20 months. and then limited access post commissioning.

This is really not minor Environmental impact. Given on street running of trams in such a strategic corridor with out a real alternative access plan revealed. means reducing the corridor to one lane in the area marked as Sydney's largest A&E unit .

Perhaps the alternative route would be a route to the west of Hawkesbury road behind the current suite of Buildings connecting the massive new carpark and extended facilities and then using the existing Darcy Rd TWAY access road to terminate at the Hawkesbury road junction.
This would service the link and not impede on Hawkesbury road to the proposed extent..

The EIS information is light on in respect to the terminus at Westmead Station area.
This is a strategic connection point and yet the Documentation as to nature of the connection and the proposed Grade separation of tram and traffic is scant.

While the connection between modes Tram, Train and Bus is a key determinant in the success of this Stage Operational success. Im left with a Project that has no definition of how this will safely deliver pedestrians and rides through to a successful connection.

Separating Pedestrians and road users will be the major failure if there is no real link that delivers a safe and expandable link.
The pedestrian Precinct north of Railway line is already set to rival interchange areas in Sydney CBD.

Given the lack of clear strategy and the infrastructure to be allocated in this regard
I have to object to this proposal

NSW Department of Planning

Re: Parramatta Light Rail - Stage 1
SSI 17_8285

I am writing on behalf of the North Parramatta Residents Action Group (NPRAG), in regards to the Parramatta Light Rail - Stage 1 EIS that is currently on exhibition. NPRAG OBJECTS to this project for the following reasons:

1. The Greater Parramatta Area is well served by existing heavy rail and bus networks. Westmead Precinct is already served by a heavy rail connection, with Westmead Hospital and the Children's Hospital at Westmead accessible on foot in 5 and 10 minutes respectively. Additionally, Westmead is well served by the bus service from Parramatta. The light rail also duplicates the already functional pre-existing heavy rail route from Clyde to Carlingford.

2. The proposed Light Rail project will have a deleterious impact on the heritage values of the Fleet Street Heritage Precinct (identified in the EIS as the "Cumberland District Hospital Precinct"). This unique Precinct carries within it highly significant heritage values associated with indigenous and colonial Australia. The EIS acknowledges that the Light Rail project will have anywhere between a "minor" to "high" adverse effect on the Precinct. This is in addition to the already egregious heritage impacts on the Precinct resulting from Urban Growth's Parramatta North Urban Transformation (PNUT) Project.

3. Whilst the EIS adopts a conservative stance in its assumption that the Parramatta Female Factory site will attain National Heritage Listing, what is not explored is the potential impact on a World Heritage Listing. Passing within metres to the north of the Parramatta Female Factory Site (the proposed "Heritage Core" of the Precinct under Urban Growth's PNUT DA), this Light Rail route could place in serious jeopardy any claim on Australia's first World Heritage Listing since 2011.

4. This Project will, like the South-East Light Rail Project, result in the wholesale destruction of large swathes of mature native and introduced trees, some of which date to the colonial era. This is unacceptable, given the urban heat island effect, which has been well established in Western Sydney, and will significantly reduce the aesthetics and amenity of North Parramatta.

5. Finally, the route of the proposed Light Rail project south down Church Street will result in the destruction of The Royal Oak Hotel. This Hotel is one of the oldest in Australia, and is a site of significant colonial importance. Additionally, the EIS is unable to fully mitigate against construction damage to the Stables at the rear of the Hotel.

For these reasons, NPRAG objects to the Parramatta Light Rail project.

Kind regards
Stephen Brancatisano
Vice President
North Parramatta Residents Action Group

Westmead health precint - Hawkesbury Rd and Hainsworth St corner.
It hard to find the detail of this corner as I expect that a 25m radius curve is the minimum to have a zero squeele operation

This radius would not impact on the operation of this corner of vehicles and Bus and not impact on the existing road layout. it would mean appropriation of Hospital land that would completely change the exit point from Kids Hospital and make this a blackspot.
This flaw with this route along with my other comments using Hawkesbury Road and Hainsworth street has the most impacts on the environment.
yet the project offers this as the only solution

Route through NORTH PARRAMATTA HERITAGE AREA.

I support the inclusion of Light rail corridor that services this sight.
The proposal using the existing bridge crossing seriously impacts on the outstanding values that this site has to offer to the Australian community opening up this site for managed tourism, and other recreational uses.

The route of the Light rail is particularly intrusive and Devalues the very valuable heritage by its site so close to these Assets. the route choice comments fail to account this in the documentation.
A crossing further west would have a greater potential to both serve as access to all the development of the site and create he best low impact solution.
this seem to have been considered and is a Environmental Flaw in the proposal

In Technical Paper 1 - Traffic and Transport Existing Conditions, Figure 3.8 shows the incorrect existing configuration for George St. George St between Purchase St and Alfred St is 2 lanes eastbound, not 1 lane eastbound and 1 lane westbound as shown.

In Technical Paper 1 - Traffic and Transport Existing Conditions, Section 3.5 of the Report defines Key Intersections as those `in the project area that would have an impact on the light rail operations or would impact on through or local traffic by the project affecting road capacity or intersection performance'. Despite this definition, the George St / Alfred St intersection is not considered a key intersection, which appears to be a significant omission and results in no further analysis of the intersection and the impacts of the intersection on local traffic, through traffic, light rail operations etc.

Please provide traffic studies associated with this proposed key intersection at George St / Alfred St.

In Section 3.3 of the Parramatta Light Rail, Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report, it is stated that `With an overarching objective to maximise the performance and efficiency of the transport network, the following road network principles were developed in consultation with Roads and Maritime Services, Council and other key stakeholders'. In deciding to align the route along George St between Purchase St and Alfred St, instead of along Noller Parade, an intersection has been introduced to the alignment, which contradicts the following Principles:

1. Maintain local area access on local and regional roads and minimise reduction to traffic capacity - It appears as though an intersection at George St / Alfred St will reduce traffic capacity, however since no analysis appears to be completed, this cannot be verified.
2. Limit right turns or U-turns across the project corridor at signalised intersections - The proposed intersection has right turns across where the light rail will be turning. This appears like it will be dangerous and confusing to motorists.
3. Minimise the number of signalised intersections along the project corridor, as practical to maintain an efficient light rail service and minimise impact on road network operation -
Had route Option 1 been adopted along Noller Parade, a much simpler intersection could have been implemented, and impacts on the light rail operation and local traffic network avoided.

Please advise on the basis for ignoring the above key road network principles in this route selection.

In Section 3.7.5 of the Parramatta Light Rail, Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report, it is stated that `George Street between Purchase Street/ Noller Parade and Alfred Street would be converted from having two to three eastbound traffic lanes, to a single traffic lane in each direction. The reduced eastbound capacity would be combined with the introduction of a westbound lane to provide additional alternative local area access route options.'

This does not address how much the eastbound capacity will be reduced along George St, and how this will impact on local residents who need to access and egress adjacent to the single eastbound and westbound lanes, especially if heavy traffic is queued at the signals.

Furthermore, this directly contradicts Section 4.4 of the Report which states `the project would not have significant impact on any specific intersections in 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'.

Please clarify this discrepancy and provide modelling within this area.

In Figure 3.19 of the Parramatta Light Rail, Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report, it is not evident how residences north of George St, adjacent to the new left turn lane, will maintain safe access to and from their properties. Vehicles using George St eastbound will be approaching a confusing intersection with an usual light rail S-Bend through the intersection, and will not be watching out for vehicles turning off the road prior to the intersection.

Please advise how residents will be provided safe access and egress based on this traffic configuration presented?

In Section 6.8 of the Parramatta Light Rail, Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report, the recommendations and conclusions of `on-corridor unrestricted spaces are not to be replaced and absorbed into existing unrestricted parking (if available)' does not appear to have been fully resolved, especially in residential areas. For example, residencies in the Camelia and Rosehill precinct will lose direct onroad parking, and based on the conclusion stated above, no thought has been put into how this can be addressed such that local stakeholders are not adversely impacted.

Please provide alternative parking options during the operational phase of the project in residential areas.

It is critical that the active transport link is a facility that separates cyclists and pedestrians. The proposed link is identified on page 20 of Sydney's Cycling Future as a priority cycleway. This document provides the current framework for cycling in Sydney. The document also lists a hierarchy of cycleways which states:
1/ Regional bicycle corridors - highly used routes that connect to major destinations, on cycleways that are separate from
motor vehicles and pedestrians.

As this is a regional (or priority) cycleway, as outlined in Sydney's Cycling Future, it is clear that a separation of cyclists from pedestrians is to be incorporated into the design of the project.

The other major issue in the current concept design is the out of corridor section at Adderton Rd. This section should be kept in the corridor to provide the best possible outcome for both cyclists and pedestrians. The out of corridor section requires pedestrians and cyclists to cross a number of busy intersections as well as having to cross numerous driveways. This is not desirable and certainly doesn't meet the goals of the current framework which states "we want to make bike riding a convenient and enjoyable option that benefits everyone." The out of corridor section does not meet these goals.

In Section 10.2 of the Parramatta Light Rail: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, it is stated that site PLR AFT 2 is impacted totally due to the works associated with Route Option 2 and 3 in this area. If Route 1 was adopted instead, it appears as though impact on this site could be avoided, however Section 3.6.6.3 of the EIS states that Option 1 along Noller Parade performs worse than the other options regarding environment. This rating is questionable, given that Option 1 may avoid the full demolition of an Aboriginal Heritage site.

Please provide the basis for this rating in 3.6.6.3, and why it is acceptable to impact on this stand of trees when there is another option.