Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2

I do not want the noise. I do not want high rise. I do not want to be forced from my home. I do not want the disruption. I do not want the foot traffic (it's already spicy after dark). I do not want the litter. I do not want even further street parking on my street (obstructing driveway). I do not want over development. I do not want a further rent rise. I do not want this. Keep it on the south side. I hate that you took Bartlett Park away from me. How dare you now impose this further noise and misery upon me to service apartments that should never have been built on *public parkland*. I miss the Putt Putt. I hate this. I do not want this. I will lose my home.

As a ground floor resident near the proposed route I am concerned about noise from the track. Particularly screeching sounds when light rail negotiates a corner near my residence. I also believe it should be wire free to maintain the aesthetic look of Wentworth Point. The track should be a 'green space' finish to respect the local environment. This is a much needed and important project for Wentworth Point but the environmental impact must be minimised. It should add value to the area, not detract through poor planning.

Refer to the attached submission.

Comments contained within attachment

see attached our submission

Hello,

Technical issues with the website have prevented me from lodging my feedback through the major projects portal. Please consider the below my submission to the Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 public consultation:

I would like to start by stating that I am broadly supportive of this project. It is great to see the State Government continuing to roll out light rail, which despite a few hiccups, has undoubtedly improved our city. This Stage will dramatically improve livability in Wentworth Point and stimulate less car centric growth in greater Parramatta. There are a few comments I would like to make to the EIS that I believe, if implemented, would improve the project.

Firstly and most importantly, frequency. You can build all the infrastructure in the world, but if it isn't operated frequently, it isn't useful. The EIS makes repeated reference to the Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 as 'turn up and go' between 5am and 1am. This is an admirable aim. However, is a 15 minute frequency really 'turn up and go'? Of course while this phrase has no inherent specific meaning, in the Australian context it is usually used in reference to a service running at least every 10 minutes. The citizens of London, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing might find this definition offensive: a service should be at least every 5 minutes! Or every 3 minutes! In Newcastle, NSW, Keolis Downer get away with claiming a bus every 15 minutes as part of their 'Frequent Network'. For a brand new rail-based service in a world city however, 15 minutes is not good enough.

Consider this yourself; a 15 minute frequency means your average wait time at the platform will be 7.5 minutes and your maximum wait time will be 15 minutes. If you have previously waited on a platform for 15 minutes, or even 10 minutes, you will know this is a frustratingly long amount of time to wait as cars go speeding past. If you own a vehicle, you may spend some of this time wondering why you have not opted to drive it instead. It is long enough to make someone check the timetable next time, which means, by definition, this service is not 'turn up and go'.

The design of Stage 2 is predicated on the need to interchange. The route itself does not link enough trip generators and destinations to justify the project. The EIS rightful points out connections to Stage 1, ferries, trains and (planned) metro. If passengers are connecting then the need for a genuine turn up and go service is essential. One can check a timetable and leave home to meet a specific service, but connecting from another mode successfully requires a true turn up and go service.

I urge you to build this Stage with the intention to provide a true turn up and go service from the beginning of a bare minimum of 6 tph, or 10 minute frequency. The service quality would only improve by striving to provide a 7.5 minute frequency all day, every day. This shouldn't be a case of demand. True turn up and go will be integral to the system's success and will stimulate greater demand.

Frequency is also a safety issue. Running a poor 15 minute frequency late at night means longer waits at dark platforms. It discourages people from relying on the network, wasting this expensive piece of infrastructure. If you are determined to run Stage 2 at a 15 minute frequency at night and early in the morning, you could consider extending services through to Westmead or providing timed interchanges at Parramatta. This will at least provide a better frequency through North Parramatta and mean that hospital shift workers do not need to endure lengthy interchanges to reach Stage 2 destinations.

I would also urge you to consider and plan improvements to the bus network as part of Stage 2. In Sydney, it seems that bus network reform comes after infrastructure has already been built. The light rail to bus interchange at Randwick is an example of a missed opportunity. As is clear from the EIS, the success of this project is contingent on interchanges with other transport modes. So get it right and plan the bus interchanges in the same way the rail and ferry interchanges will be planned.

To this end, please consider relocating the tram stops in Ermington to provide a stop near Silverwater Road. Silverwater Road is one of only a handful of crossings of the Parramatta River and is an important transport corridor. In time, it could be an important part of the bus network. Building a stop near to Silverwater Road and redesigning the bus network could dramatically improve the utility of Stage 2 in connecting people to employment centres in Silverwater and beyond. Public transport works best as a network and these opportunities can be maximised by planning how they will connect with Stage 2 now.

I do not see the need for wasting money in this project on 'wire-free' sections. Tram wires are not inherently any uglier than other transport infrastructure. In fact I would argue they are much less ugly than many of the elements of construction we take for granted when it comes to road projects. Vancouver is rife with trolleybus wires, European cities are covered in tram wires. These cities are all considered aesthetically pleasing and a pleasure to visit. There is no need to waste money going 'wire-free'.

The tram will function best if it has priority at all signalised intersections. Please plan the light phases to ensure this is the case. Cars can cross when trams are not in the area or are loading at a station. This is possibly the greatest failing of the Eastern Suburbs light rail lines so please, don't repeat history here.

Lastly, I urge you to consider an extension to Lidcombe as part of Stage 2. It will likely never happen if it is left as a fanciful 'Stage 3' idea. Extending the line past Carter Street will make the retail along Parramatta Road accessible to people and tie-together these geographically close, but quite isolated, parts of central Sydney. Extending Stage 2 to Lidcombe will connect the project to more Socio-economically disadvantaged communities who will reap the benefit of the many lifestyle destinations it will serve. It shouldn't just be the residents of luxury riverside developments that get to use Stage 2.

Thank you for planning this necessary project.

Regards,

Jed Coppa

See attached City of Ryde submission

I support the original route along south street connecting to stage 1 in rydalmere near the western sydney university

Summary of Submission

Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2

Property: 91 South Street, Rydalmere NSW 2116.
Lot 322 / DP15160.

This Submission is lodged on behalf of the property owners who are my parents (senior citizens). Objection is being lodged as insufficient information is available to fully assess impacts on the owner’s use of their property in the Operational phase, in particular property driveway access. EIS section 5.4.3.

We have reviewed the exhibition materials online and also attended the EIS Drop-in Session on Monday 14 November 2022 at Rose Hill Bowling Club, cnr James Ruse Drive and Hassall Street, Rose Hill.

The information available indicates potential for the new road pavement and light rail line levels to be above the existing ground level at the street boundary, hence potential for impact on vehicular access to property at 91 South Street in the Operational phase. EIS sections 5.4.3, 6.6.2 and 6.6.3.

However, the EIS materials and staff at the drop-in session could not provide details of what the exact impact on access to the property will be.

Hence, we request to be consulted ASAP and provided with details of the ground heights of the proposed light rail infrastructure at the road frontage of our property. Preservation of the current vehicle access off South Street is imperative for my dad to be able to continue to live at the property.

Other impacts on the property owner / residents include increased noise impact as the existing vehicle traffic on the street is currently 22 metres from the front window of the main bedroom and will be moved to be within 9 metres of the main bedroom windows.

Details
See EIS screen clips and aerial photos in attachment to this submission.

Our property 91 South Street Rydalmere is on the northern side of the street, just east of the proposed Nowill Street Station and being west of the proposed traffic light intersection at Primrose Avenue. See attachments property Location map and EIS Figure 6.2 Key Project Infrastructure - Map 2.

The EIS advises that the light rail is to be located in the centre of the road reserve with vehicle lanes either side of the rail tracks. EIS 5.4.3. It also states that “around 8 properties on the north side of South Street will require adjustment to access and carparking”. Which properties are affected is not detailed and also is not detailed in EIS Chapter13 Land use and Property or Technical paper 2.

Mum and Dad are senior citizens who have lived at the property for more than 50 years.
Dad now has dementia and significantly impaired mobility. Retaining current driveway access from South Street frontage is critical for them.

Current access is driveway from South Street to attached semi enclosed Carport attached to their residence, providing direct short access to the main living room of the residence. Carer (mum) drives into the car port which has auto controlled garage door to front. The carport has been widened to allow space for Mum to assist Dad to exit the car and then move short distance to door access direct to the living room. See pictures in attachment.
Dad requires a ”wheelie walker” or two walking sticks to move short distances. Longer distances he requires a wheelchair. Dad is a “My Aged Care” customer with a “Home Care Package with Dementia supplement”. This provides Government support to enable his continued living in his home with the support of Mum who is his full time carer.

The EIS is not specific in relation to the impacts on Mum and Dad’s property, but includes comments that “some properties will be able to use alternative street access”. Their property does have a rear access to Dorothy Street, but the distance of movement required from Dorothy Street to the house is too far for dad to navigate.

Hence, we request to be consulted ASAP and provided details of what provision will be made for them to continue to use the South Street driveway access to the property in the operational phase of the project. Without this access it is unlikely that dad could continue to reside at the property which would cause highly significant mental and emotional cost to my parents (and likely also signification monetary costs).

Another significant impact will be the relocation of vehicle traffic which is currently 22 metres from the main bedroom to be within 9 metres of the main bedroom. The EIS section 10.19 states no residences will be affected to an extent that any noise mitigation measures are warranted.

This significant closer vehicle noise has potential for interrupted sleep and adverse health affects on both Mum and Dad. It is requested that provision to reduce the noise to the current levels be implemented.

Signed
Son of property owners for the property owners.
My details provided on the Planning Portal submission portal.

I object to the only boat ramp in the are with parking to be closed for 3 years. There are very little alternatives to this very busy boat ramp

I am in favour of the new route through Wentworth Point and your reasons for doing so make sense.
I’ve seen it raised that the shared walking/cycling paths are narrower than the standard 3.6m. If at all possible any width you can add to a shared path would be appreciated. It’s never a relaxing walk for the walkers when bikes come wizzing past. Ideally I would separate the two but certainly I would expect we should have the minimum standard.
I am also in favour of as many green tracks as possible and I assume you will take the opportunity to bury the electrical wires that currently line the new route through Wentworth Point so that would be a nice win for us.
I’ve also seen it mention we should be asking for tracks that don’t include overhead wiring. I also support this especially through that path that will run along the bush boundary at Wentworth Point.
And any options to reduce track noise as you are hugging the residential areas pretty tightly will be greatly appreciated.
Not sure how the long construction hours will affect some people but personally I can put up with it to have the project delivered faster.
Thanks for your efforts.

As a resident of Wentworth Point, I am frustrated with poor public transport and road infrastructure in and out of the area. Hills Road is heavily congested during peak hours. We welcome that Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 is coming, plus the new light rail bridge crossing Parramatta River will also open to road traffic for normal vehicles.

According to the EIS diagram, I noticed that preferred route near Western Sydney University has been changed from originally Corridor 1 (Rydalmere option) to Corridor 2 (Camellia Option). I’m expressing my disappointment and thus lodge this submission urging Transport NSW switching preferred route back to Rydalmere option, for following reasons:
• If there’s a stop north of Parramatta River next to Western Sydney University, we can travel to the university directly. I discussed this option with some of my neighbours. They have same opinion. Travelling on the green line (Rydalmere option) will help their kids attending the university if they study there in coming years.
• I believe it will also save cost by not building an extra rail bridge crossing Parramatta River at Rydalmere Ferry Wharf, as Stage 1 bridge has already been constructed. I’m also aware that sections of Parramatta River between Silverwater Road and Parramatta is important wetland. One less bridge will also protect the wetland.




Another issue is its eastern terminus at Carter Street. It does not connect with any other public transport. Would be great if it can be extended to either Lidcombe or Strathfield station. This will help us travelling to Sydney CBD and beyond.

Thank you very much for your consideration

My submission is to object Stage 2 preferred route through Camellia, build a new rail /foot bridge to John Street and then turn to South Street (Corridor 2, Camellia option) and seek reconsideration choose Corridor 1 (Rydalmere option) - share tracks with Stage 1 crossing Parramatta River and then turn to South Street.
With Rydalmere option:
- people from east of Western Sydney University may travel to the university directly if there is a stop at the end of South Street before turning to Stage 1 tracks next to the university. If Stage 2 trams go via Camellia, people have to get off from Tramway Ave stop, go to the stop opposite direction, wait for a Stage 1 tram and take 2 stops for the university. It's not only increasing travel time but also make Stage 1 trams crowded between Rydalmere and Tramway Ave stops because there will be a lot of people get on or off the university.
- Section of Parramatta River between Silverwater Rd Bridge and Parramatta is our region's important wetland. Building an extra rail bridge will cost not only financially but also environmentally. I also notice that tracks proposed at Camellia side is through contaminated industrial land but also exposed to flooding. Area where tracks land at Rydalmere Wharf is also exposed to flooding.
- Having tracks through South Street will not only benefit the university but also rapid growing Rydalmere industrial area. With a stop soon after turn off from Stage 1 tracks and maybe another one near Pike Street will accelerate Rydalmere Business Park to one of Sydney's best industrial / hightech business park.

The Camellia option (Corridor 2) does not deliver much benefit to Camellia, because:
- there is no stop planned between Sandown Boulevard and John Street, and according to the fact sheet, Sandown Boulevard stop is only 1 minute walk away from Camellia stop from Stage 1. If Stage 2 travels on Stage 1 tracks until north of Parramatta River, the impact is one minute walking distance maximum.
- I also notice that if new rail bridge will also open access to pedestrians and cyclists. I just want to highlight that pedestrains and cyclists can already cross the river via Thackeray Street Utility and Pedestrain Bridge. It does look ugly and outdated, but I believe upgrading it would be a lot cheaper than building a new one. The bridge is not far from Rydalmere Ferry Wharf.
- in Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 Scoping Report section 4.13, it clearly claims that there is "limited growth opportunities for Camellia East, Silverwater and Newington". Therefore, I am not convienced that the Camellia option will benefit future growth of Camellia as claimed in EIS.

I notice that Planning NSW is also considering transforming Camellia-Rosehill Precinct. However, the focus is at western side, of which will be served by Camellia Stop and a new bus network throughout the precinct. Eastern side of Camellia will remain heavey industrial. A new road bridge will be built connecting Camellia with Clyde Street. I believe the current already congested traffic in Rydalmere will not be able to coupe.
Extending South Street west between Clyde Street and Brodie Street may ease congestion and be ready for future expension.
- Clyde Street - Victoria Rd intersection is a T-junction and traffic may only turn right onto Victoria Rd towards Parramatta.
- traffic wish to turn left to Victoria Rd eastbound must use Park Rd or South Street turn right to Silverwater Rd. During afternoon peak, Park Rd between Victoria Rd and South Street is always jamed.
- Brodie Street has under-the-bridge access both directions to Victoria Rd. Therefore, if part traffic is redirected to Brodie Street, it will help easing congestion.

Based on above points, I object Stage 2's current preferred route through Camellia (Corridor 2 / Camellia option) and advocating switch back to the original preferred route turn off Stage 1 tracks north of Parramatta River to South Street (Corridor 1 / Rydalmere option).

Very good project! Fully support it. I’m a resident at Wentworth Point. Having light rail adjacent to Hill Rd is a good idea. But Hill Rd also needs to be widened. Currently it only has 1 lane in and 1 lane out which cannot satisfy people’s needs anymore considering the population is increasing so rapidly in this area. If Hill Rd is not widened before light rail is built , later will be impossible to make any changes anymore.

I object to the proposal because it is inconsistent with the announcement by the then Premier, Mike Baird, on 8 December 2015 that the Western Sydney light rail network will connect Parramatta's CBD to the key hubs of Sydney Olympic Park, Westmead Hospital, Western Sydney University and Strathfield, with a branch to Carlingford replacing the existing heavy rail line. The proposed route linking Parramatta to Sydney Olympic Park via Ermington and Melrose Park is the public transport equivalent of a slow boat to China. Further details are outlined in the attachment.

Please see my submission relating to the Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 works attached

My comments and submission can be found in the attached document.
Vince Cusumano

The Waterfront Action Group (WAG) is recognised by the NSW Government as the peak stakeholder association representing waterfront property owners in NSW. WAG's primary issue with the planing proposal and EIS is the location of the proposed bridge crossing at Melrose Park. WAG's strongly held position is that the further to the west the bridge is located (i.e. west of the current public amenities building) the less impact and nuisance imposed on nearby Melrose Park residents, some of whom are WAG members.

Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 EIS
I believe that Stage 1 and 2 should link for people from Dundas and Rydalmere to continue to Olympic Park. The plan should really include Rydalmere Station. It would save commuters a lot of time and ease a lot of congestion at Parramatta Station.
The loss of so much parking makes me wonder how people who cannot walk to a rail station will get there. There is some information about the redirection of buses but no detail. I am wondering why there isn't any parking listed at major stations eg Rosehill especially for night travel. The light rail would be preferable for older people to buses if there was parking available at major stations and encourage people to go to Parramatta Square and Eat Street. My husband has a walker and cannot walk very far so he can never go to the Phive unless he can take the light rain in the future. For this to happen we would need to be able to park at a stop. He would not have enough stamina to walk to a bus stop then take the light rail and then walk to Phive or Eat Street and return. There would be an increasing number like him. A lot of decisions are made considering access for people who can walk long distances. Disregarding those who are not as mobile will cause more social isolation as our community ages. Thank you for your consideration.

Background

On 8 November 2022 Transport NSW (TNSW) provided us with formal notice that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) had been published in relation to the proposed design of Ermington rail station for the Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 2) (Project).
As part of the Project plan, our properties at 32 Hilder Road Ermington NSW and 32A Hilder Road Ermington NSW (duplex) (Properties) have been marked for compulsory acquisition.
Response
We have reviewed the EIS and sought professional advice on the “land use” requirement of our Properties under the proposed design.
We object to the acquisition of our homes on the basis that there is no genuine requirement for our Properties to be acquired for this Project. Please refer to the attached document which contains our formal response to the EIS and supporting detail. In summary, there are several reasons for this objection including, but not limited to the following: -
our Properties will be used for peripheral green space;
our Properties are new developments, designed and built 2019. Our Properties were built in accordance with council requirements and existing precinct structure plans. As part of the approval process, future land use requirements were considered, and deemed not applicable;
there is insufficient amenity in the existing street and surrounding area to accommodate the plan for the station; and
there are viable alternative locations available for the station that will meet the land use requirement, providing necessary adjacent green space and amenity, while not impacting homes and community.
Objectives of our submission
We seek your written support and advocacy in pursuing the proposed next steps set out below.
Proposed next steps
TNSW to arrange a meeting and site inspection with key stakeholders, engineers and design team making the key decisions for the Project to discuss the site and proposed acquisition of our Properties.
Relocation of the proposed station in Ermington corridor.