Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2

The light rail absolutely must connect Wentworth point via the proposed bridge across parramatta road. Also the estimated completion date is FIVE years late! While apartments are going up everywhere and thousands of people moving into the area, the infrastructure is not there and is not keeping up with the population explosion. The project must be completed years sooner!

In general, I support stage 2 of the light rail and look forward to a convenient commute option.
I do however wish to provide the following feedback:
Waratah Street to Wentworth point route - the current marked preferred route has the light rail travelling along Waratah Street to then turn onto what remains of Wharf Road before heading across the river. From looking at the EIS Chapter 6 (Figures 6.16 & 6.22) it would appear that the existing downward incline or Waratah Street (toward Wharf Road) would need to be built up and reversed in order to allow Boating traffic under the route to access the Ermington Boat Ramp. As my property looks directly across at Waratah Street, I am naturally very concerned about how the rail route will look from the elevation perspective and that ideally my family and I are not left looking at a concrete wall or similar. Therefor the "Potential Alternate Alignment" route as indicated in Chapter 5 of the EIS (Figure 5.25) absolutely HAS to be the chosen outcome. This is based on the following considerations:
1. There are a number of houses down from me that have received letters informing them of impacts due to the light rail, and that it is likely that their residences will/may be reclaimed through compulsory purchase. There seems little logic to this approach as choosing the "Potential Alternate Alignment" would remove the need to do this with perhaps the exception of a single property at the end of Wharf Road. The EIS mentions at several points about the unification and improved social aspects of the project, yet to reclaim houses that are within Ryde Council (NOT Parramatta Council) precinct goes against this sentiment voiced in the EIS. A mention that warrants particular consideration is that among the families impacted is a family that looks after a significantly disabled child - alternative affordable options for a suitable house for them would be few and far between. It would reflect poorly on the NSW Government to pursue compulsory purchase of their house and land, when the alternative completely avoids the need for this.
2. The Ermington Boat ramp is often utilised beyond the current parking capacity during peak summer months with the excess vehicles and their associate boat trailers parking along Wharf Road and Andrew Street because the car park is full. The proposed carpark size as illustrated in Figure 6.22 of Chapter 6 of the EIS looks to be inadequate for the volumes of the peak summer boating traffic. The "Alternate Potential Alignment" would allow for a larger car and trailer parking area while also facilitating overflow without the overflow traffic impacting the light rail route and potential impacts on pedestrians/cyclists that also heavily use the existing riverside path network.
3. I was present at one of the numerous community engagement sessions, in which we were able to voice our objection to the light rail route travelling along Wharf Road. The EIS mentions that the route along Waratah Street was adopted in response to that, however it seems that the same level of community consultation was NOT undertaken for the adopted Waratah Street route. I have only recently become aware that this was the new alignment, and it seems that many of my neighbours (those that are potentially impacted and may lose their houses) are also of the same mind. This would indicate that the high levels of community consultation that the EIS purports to have been undertaken was not as thorough as it should have been.
4. The Noise and Vibration assessments mention that there are residences at Camelia within 300m of the light rail (Table 7.10 existing Noise Environment) of the Scoping Report. Our residences would be much closer than that. It seems that our residences have not been considered in this as we fall within Ryde Council. The "Alternate Potential Alignment" would take the route further away from us and vastly reduce the impact of the noises and vibration associated with the light rail.
5. The "Alternate Potential Alignment" would also necessitate the removal of the High Tension power line tower currently situated next to the car park of the Ermington Boat Ramp. Removal of this tower and relocation of the power lines to below ground would of course improve the vista, particularly for residents of proposed dwellings within the Holdmark development. As such it is something that Holdmark would I imagine, favour greatly. As Holdmark would benefit the most from this in terms of saleability of their completed dwellings, it could perhaps be a consideration to pursue them for contribution toward the costs associated with relocating the power lines.

Finally, I also seek clarification and confirmation - in the Scoping Report, page 33 Section 5.3.2 Traffic Management and Access, bullet point 3 mentions "consideration of the future road network, particularly in areas of planned urban renewal such as Camellia, Melrose Park and Wentworth Point". Is it possible to confirm that the Bridge from Melrose Park to Wentworth Point will ONLY be used by Light Rail or is it expected to transport Busses as well? Please confirm - that general public vehicles will NOT be given access to use the bridge. Is this the case?

I strongly support this much needed infrastructure including associated active transport improvements alongside the rail lines. I believe three stops within the Sydney Olympic Park precinct (the three most southerly stops) is unnecessary. The stop at Carter Street is appropriate but the other two should be consolidated into a single stop alongside the Olympic Park Railway Station. The Jacaranda Square and Olympic Boulevard stops are too close together. The effect of this is to needlessly slow travel times. It will also create pickup/dropoff conflict during major events, causing frustration as some travelers seek to jump the queue by selecting one stop rather than the other, and the vehicles will be too full to stop and collect people waiting at the more northern stops.

With growing number of population light rail will definitely help residents traveling to and from the community to other suburbs

We have recently been made aware that the proposed route and station in the Ermington precinct would mean compulsory acquisition of our residential property, 32A Hilder road, Ermington.
We strongly oppose the proposed plan as it would mean displacement of our family, which includes 5 young children.
This property is our family home that was built over 2 years and after careful consideration of our families needs. It took all of our savings as well as a mortgage to achieve this dream for our children and we don't believe it would be possible to find an equivalent property with 5 bedrooms and a large backyard for our active children. The area is also close to our support system and moving out of the area would isolate us from our network, school and church community which would severely disadvantage us.
Furthermore, the previous plans did not show the station at River road as it does now and we are certain that there are other options that can be considered so that we are not thrown out of our homes.

The project looks great! It looks well organized and coming together nicely.

see attached submission

see attached