Parramatta Light Rail - Stage 1

BIKESydney's submission is attached

Overall, I support this project as it will provide significantly better public transport access and frequencies. However, I still have concerns about the following issuers:

- Accessibility of light rail stops from major trip generators
- Impacts of the light rail alignment on total line capacity
- Protection of corridors for future light rail extensions
- Limiting customer impacts between the closure of the T6 Carlingford line and completion of the project

The attached PDF document provides more detail about this.

Please find attached the Westmead Precinct Partners response to the PLR EIS.

Attached is UGDC's submission on the Parramatta Light Rail EIS.

Please find attached

Please find attached

Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1: Comments, by a long-term local
Frank Duff, 20 October 2017

1. I favour the scheme; But the route through Parramatta - North Parramatta should be diverted TWO blocks to the West (see Item 2) - 

a) to better service popular destinations (Items 3 & 4)

b) to lessen a major problem for St Patrick's Church (Cathedral) goers (Item 5)

2. The route should NOT traverse Church St (Eat Street); instead it should go along the Western side of O'Connell St - particularly between Albert St and Parramatta River; it might continue South before turning East into Macquarie St. 

To assist in maintaining traffic flow in O'Connell St, PLR a stop should be located within the perimeter of Parramatta Park, a minor intrusion.

3. A Western diversion would ideally service (from North to South): the North Parramatta precinct (Albert St); the Leagues Club (plus East Parramatta Park & two schools); the rebuilt Stadium (with access to Parramatta River & the new swimming pool); and the RSL Club (and Parramatta Park SE entrances).

4. Stops on the Western diversion might conveniently be located at intervals: at Cumberland Hospital (no change); Albert St; Eels Place; near the old pool; at Macquarie St (Stop on RSL land to facilitate traffic flow?). See aerial view (p 2).

5. A Prince Albert Square stop (to which I object) would, I consider -

a) negatively impact on pedestrian and vehicular access to the Cathedral and to the conduct of Services therein: well-attended Masses on Saturday evenings (Vigil of the Sabbath), to Sunday mornings (to about 1 pm), to Sunday evenings (5.30 pm to 7.30 pm); also to frequent Weddings on Saturdays (from late Morning to late afternoon).


b) encourage pedestrian traffic along Victoria Rd - to and from Parramatta Stadium - on Game Days and for major Entertainment Events. On past occasions, massive numbers of people have prevented vehicular access to Cathedral parking; also boisterous behaviour of pedestrians (on their way to a good time) has disrupted Cathedral Services, even drowning out (stopping) a Sermon. Because the Cathedral has wider Diocesan relevance, attendance is drawn from near and far, hence the need for considerable parking access.


Mooted closure of Victoria Rd (between Marist Place and O'Connell Sts) would deny vehicular access to the Cathedral (not possible from Marist place) and to the OLMC Convent; without solving the problem of disruption to the Cathedral.

A composite aerial photo shows the Church St & O'Connell St options; it also shows - between the Stadium & Prince Alfred Square - properties owned by the Catholic Diocese and, a separate entity, the St Patrick's (Cathedral) Parish.

6. The proposed Western diversion will encourage stadium patrons to use PLR - rather than walk - from Parramatta Station; rail users could transit to PLR at Westmead, thence directly to the stadium: TWO major boosts to PLR use.



The diversion would take pressure from Eat Street: Currently on Game Days pedestrians - in large numbers - disrupt dining activity: think waiters serving patrons in enclosures on the footpath itself.

7. About the writer:

The writer is a retired professional engineer
He graduated BE (Mech & Elect), Sydney University, 1957.
He lived in Northmead from 1947 to around 1960.
He attended school at Parramatta Marist, Victoria Rd, 1947 - 1952.
He lives In Northmead from around 1966.
He is a long-time parishioner of St Patrick's Parramatta.

Frank Duff

PS: this website will not allow me to upload 2 attachments - I have two PDF docs ready ... Planner James Sellwood has not returned two `phone messages.

Dear Sir/Madam,

My 4 Part Submission (Part 1A, Part 1B, Part 2, Part 3) supports Parramatta-North Ryde via County Road Reservation.

Parramatta-North Ryde via County Road Reservation serves Rosehill Racecourse, Westmead, Parramatta Park, Parramatta Stadium, Macquarie University, Macquarie University, Railway Station, Macquarie Shopping Centre.

My 4 Part Submission opposes use of Carlingford Railway Line corridor. Carlingford Railway Line should be duplicated and extended to Liverpool and onto Southern Line via converted Bus Transitway.

North West Railway Line should be Heavy Rail and extended to and beyond the Richmond Line that connects with a rebuilt Ropes Creek Line and onto Double Track Y Link at St. Marys on Western Line.

Kind Regards,


Victor P Taffa

Light Rail is being considered for Western Sydney. The cost of light rail as compared to road option is almost ten times more expensive, causes more disruption and also takes much longer to build.

Where is the justification for choosing Light Rail against the other option of BRT (Bus Rapid Transport) even though the Table 7.1 Comparison of light rail and Bus Rapid Transit in the CBD (screen-shot below) on page 100 of Infrastructure NSW/ State Infrastructure Strategy clearly shows BRT to be a better option?
In the attachment Table 7.1, it is clear that BRT is a better option for Passenger capacity, convenience (people standing), Passenger interchange and Traffic congestion.

In the attachment Table 7.2, which shows the recommended actions for Buses and light rail for Sydney. Light rail for CBD is not listed in the recommendations at all. Also, for Western Sydney, transitway from Parramatta to Epping/Macquarie Park is recommended. Light Rail is not in the list for Western Sydney.

It is possible when this study was done, light rail may not have been in the detailed scope. Possibly, just because somehow, the decision makes ignored the recommendation and went ahead with light rail option, Western Sydney decision makers went ahead with light rail option for implementation feasibility (environment and other issues) without even considering if this was a cost-effective solution for the problem.

Now Light Rail proposal is in final stages for Western Sydney. The interesting thing is no alternative has been considered for Western Sydney as if Light Rail is some sort of panacea to solve transport challenge. If Light Rail for CBD was shown as inferior option, but somehow it was given a go-ahead. The results of the light rail will stay a question mark till it is complete. If the detailed initial study is to be believed, it will add more time for commuters, add to inconvenience and will have increased congestion, hence it is not a good solution, even though trains will run every minute in CBD, which will have seven times more use of the stolen road (for laying tracks) surface as compared to Western Sydney.

The question is why the same mistake is being made for Western Sydney and without evaluating any other alternative option?

Please see attachments.

Please see attached submissions

Please find attached City of Parramatta Council's submission.