Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2

1- Can we please keep the initial rounte(Option4) next to the river and connected to the Ferry and Bus transport hub ?The new route is going through Sanctuary and SOP parkland with the first stop somewhere around Half Street!! Considering 7min walking to Ferry and more than that to Primary and High School, this will cause too much chaos for both commuters and parents.

2- Parking: During the construction phase all Hill Road parking spots will be removed after construction WWP will lose 45 parking spots forever! Can we please consider alternative Parking: In the construction phase car parking for workers should be at Sydney Olympic Park, and the workers then bused, there is no plan where they are going to park.

3- Noise and vibration: The study undertaken shows that we will suffer during the construction from the noise of not that much vibration (which is normal) however, after operation we will have ground-born noise which will exceed the limits by 35 dBA at certain hours and even above the airborne noise. The tram operation is 5AM to 1AM!! If this is the final route, we all need to demand better rail technology (like CSLER) that would limit the sound and vibration on the rail path. It will be 24/7 lighted.

4- Bridge to WWP: The ramp after the bridge should be connected to the footpath, the current plan is to go to the park and the design is not user-friendly. It is going next to Sanctuary's new buildings and right to the new footpath.

5- The foot and cyclic path is considered to be 3 meters wide, the standard is 3.6! And it all depends on Sanctuary to change their master plan, the SOP won't let the rail go through their land.

6- Wire-Free: Given Wentworth Point is a wire-free suburb, we need the wire-free power supply to be underground. Battery stations to be installed.

7- Green-Track: There needs to be a green track in Wentworth Point. There will be a lot of trees cut down and a green track helps prevent flooding.

8- For the work which will be 7 days a week from 7 AM to 7 PM. , can we please have Sunday to be a construction-free day and Saturday limited to 1pm?

Date: 6th December 2022
Sue Marendy
151 Wharf Road,
Melrose Park NSW 2114

Attn: Parramatta Light Rail

We refer to the Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 Environmental Impact Statement - Section 10. Noise and Vibration.
We note that the Environmental Impact Statement fails to properly consider the environmental impact caused by the light rail and buses at 2 critical locations:
1. At sharp bends in the light rail tracks ; and,
2. Disturbance to residents further away from the light rail tracks because of sound transmission across water.

1. The Effect of Noise on Residents at Sharp Bends in the Light Rail Tracks
The proposed route shows the Light rail progressing along Waratah Street, Ermington and turning sharply onto Wharf Road, Melrose Park - adjacent to existing residences. Based on the noise generated by the light rail at similar intersections around Sydney (Circular Quay and Central Station are two such intersections) where scraping and clattering can be heard from hundreds of metres away as the light rail trains negotiate these turns, residents on Wharf Rd and in surrounding streets are concerned that similar levels of noise and disruption will be experienced as the Parramatta Light Rail turns at the intersection at the corner of Waratah Street and Wharf Road. This noise will commence at the early hours of the morning and continue at regular intervals until late in the evening.
Similarly, the noise from buses servicing Stadium Australia late in the night following major events as they brake, turn and change gear will impact residents.

2. The Effect of Sound Transmission across Water
Sound travels great distances across water with little attenuation. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that the existing metropolitan trains crossing the river on the Ryde Railway Bridge approximately 1 km away can be easily heard from the Wharf Road boat ramp pontoon but these same noises are indistinguishable when in the boat ramp car park a few metres away where trees and houses shield residents from the noise of the trains.
Locating the bridge at the end of Wharf Road, near residences fronting the Parramatta River on Lancaster Avenue, will expose dwellings further away from the bridge to similar levels of noise and disruption as those living directly adjacent to the proposed route on Wharf Road.


Alternate Routes
The proposed route for the Parramatta Light Rail takes the light rail along public land beside the Parramatta River for a distance of 250m before it reaches Wharf Rd. The route could be easily diverted and the bridge built at any number of locations along this path, well before it reaches Wharf Road and Lancaster Avenue. A number of options are available for consideration. Some of these options include:

Option 1: Relocate the bridge to the location of the existing boat ramp (and re position the boat ramp); or,

Option 2: Relocate the bridge further west - continuing the light rail past the rear of Melrose Park Primary School and directly across the river at the end of Waratah Street, before Waratah Street turns to run parallel to the Parramatta River.

Both options offer the added benefit of improved traffic safety because the light rail does not cross over the boat ramp car park traffic.

The environmental impact of the bridge near houses on Wharf Rd and Lancaster Avenue has not been properly considered. The proposed Parramatta Light Rail route currently creates MAXIMUM environmental impact on existing residents, laying waste front yards, homes and lives whilst leaving public land and car parking untouched.
The developers, through increased densities in their developments due to the light rail, are receiving the enormous financial benefits while local residents are being asked to carry an excessive and onerous environmental burden of unnecessary noise and increased traffic.
The proposed route or the Parramatta Light Rail where it passes along Waratah Street beside the Parramatta river and turns into Wharf Rd will tear apart long-standing communities while public carparks are left unaffected. The proposed route of the light rail MUST be reconsidered.

Yours Sincerely
Sue Marendy

Initially the route was going next to the river and connected to the Ferry and Bus transport hub. The new route is going through Sanctuary and SOP parkland with the first stop somewhere around Half Street!! Considering 7min walking to Ferry and more than that to Primary and High School, this will cause too much chaos for both commuters and parents. We want the option 4 line!
The study undertaken shows that we will suffer during the construction from the noise of not that much vibration (which is normal) however, after operation we will have ground-born noise which will exceed the limits by 35 dBA at certain hours and even above the airborne noise. The tram operation is 5AM to 1AM!! If this is the final route, we all need to demand better rail technology (like CSLER) that would limit the sound and vibration on the rail path.
The ramp after the bridge should be connected to the footpath, the current plan is to go to the park and the design is not user-friendly. It is going next to Sanctuary's new buildings and right to the new footpath.
There needs to be a green track in Wentworth Point. There will be a lot of trees cut down and a green track helps prevent flooding.

All for the light rail and soon, WWP is in desperate need of more public transport, what little there is is often overwhelmed at peak times.
However, route definitely should follow the water and go through the top of sanctuary via the ferry area, not behind sanctuary. Behind is poor links to the ferry and buses, no need to make people walk further for connections

Absolutely support the project, waiting for it for ages and the route in Wentworth point should be from behind the development not the foreshore since there will be kids playing along the foreshore, the light rail should definitely pass from behind the development and support the preferred Option 3.

Noise and vibration: The study undertaken shows that we will suffer during the construction from the noise of not that much vibration (which is normal) however, after operation we will have ground-born noise which will exceed the limits by 35 dBA at certain hours and even above the airborne noise. The tram operation is 5AM to 1AM!! If this is the final route, we all need to demand better rail technology (like CSLER) that would limit the sound and vibration on the rail path. It will be 24/7 lighted.

Bridge to WWP: The ramp after the bridge should be connected to the footpath, the current plan is to go to the park and the design is not user-friendly. It is going next to Sanctuary's new buildings and right to the new footpath.

Green-Track: There needs to be a green track in Wentworth Point. There will be a lot of trees cut down and a green track helps prevent flooding.

work should be 7 days a week from 7 AM to 7 PM to finish the project as soon as possible

As landowners of 29 Grand Avenue, Camellia, Stilmark Holdings have a DA approval (DA/421/2019) for a mobile telecommunications facility on this property. This facility is important to service the future coverage requirements of development in the area for mobile telecommunications Carriers.
While the proposal currently utilises the majority of the land parcel, it is noted the Light Rail may indeed traverse the property to some degree. It would be appreciated to know whether any or all of the land parcel will remain available for the approved DA proposal, which could be amended slightly to accommodate the Light Rail route if necessary.

Please refer to the attachments.

Please continue to stage two track to loop back to Parramatta after Carter St.
What is the point of a track ending at carter st?

Ampol have a licenced oil pipeline within the vicinity of this development. The pipeline is noted along Grand Avenue within the project documents however also runs along Carter Street Lidcombe which is not shown.
As noted within chapter 19 a pipeline SMS in accordance with AS 2885 will be required to determine any threats to the pipeline.
Of particular concern are the potential effects of stray current electrolysis from the system. Any additional loading onto the pipeline will also need to be considered. Continued access to the pipeline corridor for ongoing maintenance activities is also required.
There are requirements for work around the pipeline, not limited to vibration levels, size of machinery used around the pipeline, services parallel and crossing the pipeline, loading on the pipeline etc. Third party supervision is required for all works within the vicinity o the pipeline.

Please seek another plan rather than closing our local boat ramp at Ermington. This will cause many people to go to overcrowded ramps elsewhere making boating dangerous.

The current proposed design shows a stop in the middle of nowhere on hulker st, yet nothing at all is provided for the large resident base at newington. 2 stops inside SOP within 400m. how can this possibly be a justified design? put one next to the pyarmid or save the money and scrap the project as useless

As one of the 100s of people who use the Wharf Rd boat ramp facilities every weekend, I strongly oppose the closure of this facility for any period of time. The alternative ramps within this warerway are already overcrowded most weekends and lack sufficient parking. Closing Wharf Rd will only magnify the issue of already overcrowded facilities.
There is plenty of alternative sites that can be used for this project with minimal disruption to the community.

I support the project, but the boat ramp must not be closed . If is a way of food for our familys and used by 100s of people during the summer and weekends

I am not against the light rail project, however i object to plans that involve closing down Ermington Boat Ramp for a period of 3 years. The Ermington Boat Ramp Carpark is generally always full-on weekends. Closing this boat ramp down will greatly impact the community and bring further strain on other boat ramps nearby, and many boaters will not get to launch their boat in the water.

I believe finding an alternative way which does involve closing down a boat ramp for a long period would be best for all parties.

I hope you can find another way.

Please find letter attached

The EIS documentation seems to be Rushed - inadequate. Given the Virtual room documentation does not match up with the Portal information and conflicts within and across many of the Documentation.
So I see it as full of contradictions on what is the Proposal to be approved is.
Vital information is not fully disclosed, so as to make a full appraisal of the EIS proposal. and so, I have attached a Document that outlines the 10 areas of Most concerns that lead to my Objections

The proposed light rail is to run along the northern side of Hill Rd & the line will occupy the area adjacent to the Narawang wetlands in SOP. The proposed route will require the removal of the vegetation buffer zone between Hill road and the wetland ponds. Narawang wetlands are a vital feeding & resting area for migratory shorebirds, in particular Latham’s Snipe a species that is declining across its range. The ecology department at SOPA have spent the last 20 years providing a suitable & sustainable habitat for Latham’s Snipe and over time the bird numbers have been increasing. The migratory shorebirds travel halfway around the world to land in places such as Narawang, by the time they get here they are exhausted and starving, and desperately need to rest & refuel. The development will result in destruction of the buffer zone habitat and rob these intrepid birds of the wetland they need. Without safe places to rest & feed, they won’t survive.
On the southern side of Hill road opposite Narawang is a car park. Put the bloody light rail there!

As a resident of 14 Hill Road Wentworth Point and a member of the Strata Committee, I would like to make a few comments about the project:
1. Route: I strongly object the new route which now goes around the Sanctuary complex and down Wattlebird Rd and on to Hill Rd, which defeats the purpose of having a transport interchange. Council should implement the original plan that they advertised, and based upon which people had gone ahead with their purchase of the property. The new route will require cutting down a lot more trees and is inching even closer to the protected wetlands. For once Council should consider preserving the little nature we have left in our suburb.
2. Parking: During the construction phase all Hill Rd parking spots including woo-la-ra will be removed after construction. WWP will lose 45 parking spots forever. There is no way Council is not aware of dire parking situation in the suburb. Alternative arrangements should be offered.
3. Noise and vibration: The study undertaken shows that Sanctuary residents will suffer ground-born noise which will exceed the limits by 35 dBA at certain hours and even above the airborne noise. The tram operation is 5AM to 1AM. We demand better rail technology (like CSLER) that would limit the sound and vibration on the rail path. It will be 24/7 lighted and also notification noises from the tram after 9PM will bothersome.
4. Construction: The work is proposed to be 7 days a week from 7 AM to 7 PM. I would like to request Sunday a construction free day. Many people work from home and we deserve at least one quiet and peaceful day at home.
5. Wire-Free: Given Wentworth Point is a wire-free suburb, we need the wire-free power supply to be underground. Battery stations need to be installed.

Please see attached submission.

Strongly support construction of light rail as key part of transport infrastructure to high-density developments that have been commenced in riverside locations with poor transport infrastructure (eg Wentworth Point and Melrose Park). Agree with EIS focus on light rail’s potential in place building and connecting locations on both sides of the river. Due to the urgency with which this transport infrastructure is required, it is desirable that the project be expedited so that construction can commence prior to 2025.

The proposed route and stop locations for the light rail is supported. In particular, the location of a stop at Waratah St will be of great benefit to the southern and eastern sections of Melrose Park, as well as facilitating interchange with other transport modes. The addition of a turnback track at the Atkins Rd stop for shuttle and event services to Sydney Olympic Park is also supported. Care will need to be taken to ensure that local road and parking capacity is not overwhelmed by event patrons driving to Melrose Park from more distant locations to access shuttle services to SOP.

While confirmation of the route along Waratah St is welcomed, the proposed location of the Parramatta River bridge between Melrose Park and Wentworth Point is highly problematic. Contrary to previous government assurances that the route would not use Wharf Rd, the bridge and approaches directly impact Wharf Rd, particularly the residences which are identified for full or partial resumption. The financial and social cost from such resumptions is a very high price to pay for the community. There appears to be ready alternatives to enable the relocation of the bridge approaches further to the west, possibly through the repositioning of the high voltage transmission tower at the bottom of Wharf Rd. Action to achieve this relocation, as outlined on page 5.31 of the EIS report should be completed as soon as possible to provide reassurance and certainty to affected residents and the wider community.

Relocation of the bridge further west would also help to reduce noise and vibration disturbance to riverfront residences, which are all to the east of Wharf Rd. Other steps should also be taken to minimise this impact.

Preparation of an overarching Traffic Access and Management Plan strongly supported, not only for construction phase but for ongoing traffic changes. As detailed in EIS Technical Paper 2, there are currently over 900 vehicles per hour along Hope St in peak hour. This number will be very substantially increased as the Melrose Park development progresses to its ultimate size of 11, 000 dwellings and about 25,000 new residents. The attractiveness of Hope St for vehicular traffic will substantially decline due to the light rail, including a proposed 40 kph speed limit and multiple signalised intersections. However this traffic will not evaporate but will seek alternative routes. The potential for these routes to include other local streets is already apparent in the differential between morning and afternoon peak flow along the southern section of Wharf Rd (as detailed in Technical Paper 2). Afternoon peak is over 1000 vehicles, nearly double the morning peak of 600 vehicles. The difference is largely due to vehicles from Hope St and the northern portion of Wharf Rd diverting into local roads east of Wharf Rd (eg Lancaster and Cobham) to avoid the school traffic zone. It is likely that the amount of traffic on such alternate routes will increase substantially as the overall quantum of vehicles increases from now high-density developments and as attractiveness of existing routes (eg Hope St) declines.