17km Macquarie Park light rail proposed by Parramatta Council

Posted: August 30, 2013 in Transport
Tags: , , , , ,

A 17km light rail line from Westmead to Macquarie Park would be the first stage of a light rail network centred on Parramatta that would support an additional 50,000 homes and 180,000 jobs by 2031 according to a proposal by Parramatta City Council. This would be followed up by a line to Castle Hill, with lines to Bankstown and Olympic Park/Rhodes as potential further extensions (zoomable street map available here). Parramatta Council has been pushing for light rail since the NSW Government dumped plans for the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link (PERL) shortly after the 2011 election. Both lines are designed to link up Parramatta to Macquarie Park.

Map of the proposed Macquarie Park and Castle Hill light rail lines. Click to enlarge. (Source: Western Sydney Light Rail Network - Part 2 Feasibility Report, pp. 4-5)

Map of the proposed Macquarie Park and Castle Hill light rail lines. Click to enlarge. (Source: Western Sydney Light Rail Network – Part 2 Feasibility Report, pp. 4-5)

The main advantage of the light rail option is the cost, coming in at $919m versus $4.4bn which was the most recent figure available for the PERL. (This works out to $54m/km, compared to $31m/km for the Dulwich Hill light rail extension or $133m/km for the CBD and South East light rail.) The study envisages trams running every 10 minutes during peak hour, with 15 minute frequencies during the off-peak. As the Castle Hill line will share track with the Macquarie Park line in the Parramatta CBD, this should result in 5 minute and 8 minute frequencies, respectively, in the core of Parramatta.

Much like the CBD and South East light rail currently about to begin construction, this new line would connect up a hospital (Westmead), a stadium (Parramatta), a CBD (Parramatta), a racecouse (Rosehill), and a university (UWS) with a frequent and high capacity transport service.

The majority of the alignment also provides for trams to run on an exclusive right of way. These include the Carlingford Line alignment, where the study finds that there is space for both light rail and the Carlingford Line (including a potential PERL in the future); the median on Kissing Point Road; and the reservation for the never built Country Road at Marsfield. In addition, work currently planned for James Ruse Drive for an overpass at Camellia would allow the light rail to travel under James Ruse Drive and avoid this busy intersection.

The Parramatta CBD portion would run mostly along Macquarie St, which is one block North of the main transport interchange centred around Parramatta Station. This could prove problematic if it makes transfers from bus/train to tram or vice versa more difficult. Alternatively, if Parramatta continues to grow, then Macquarie St could also become an extension of the existing transport interchange, catering for future growth.

A potential future network. Click to enlarge. (Source: Western Sydney Light Rail Network: Part 2 Feasibility Report, p. 6)

A potential future network. Click to enlarge. (Source: Western Sydney Light Rail Network – Part 2 Feasibility Report, p. 6)

The proposal is now in the hands of the state government, which mentioned in the Sydney Light Rail Future document that a Western Sydney light rail network centred on Parramatta is something it is considering (p. 20). This is by no means a guarantee that any of these lines, let alone the full network, will get built. But Parramatta Council has put forward the right project at the right time, and that makes the possibility of this being built some time next decade a better than 50:50 likelihood.

  1. Joni says:

    So why build the North West Rail Link??? It seems to be an unneccesary duplication.

  2. Joni –

    This light rail line focuses on Parramatta, the NWRL focuses on the global arc from Norwest Business Park to the CBD via the North Shore. The light rail also goes past only 3 of the 13 NWRL stations (if you include the current Macquarie Park Line). Those are two very different corridors, with some overlap. This makes them complimentary, if anything, rather than competing.

  3. Joni says:

    It still seems to be duplication. I’d rather this option and not have the whole Northern Line destroyed.

  4. Ray says:

    As Bambul says, it is hardly duplication. It is focused on Parramatta and serves a totally different catchment to the NWRL. As an aside, I think that your comment that the whole Northern Line will be destroyed by the NWRL is a bit over the top. Believe me, it won’t be.

  5. Joni says:

    Ray, we have a large family and one car for all of us — so rely on the train every day to get to kwork, school, shops, appointments etc. The NWRL will destroy the direct access to the city, North Sydney, Chatswood and Macquarie Park that we and everyone else on the Northern Line now has. It’s not over the top to feel this way when you have sacrificed so much for years to pay a lot of money to choose to live right near a train line with direct access and then lose it with no benefits to you at all. Changing trains 6 times a day is going to be terrible especially with kids up and down the steep banks of escalators at Epping. BTW one of our kids is disabled which makes it even more stressful.

  6. Ray says:

    Further to my previous post, the proposed Macquarie Park Light Rail line will provide a high capacity public transport link between Macquarie Park and Parramatta as an extension of the Global Economic Corridor. Ideally, the planned road link along the Eastwood County Road Corridor would be constructed simultaneously with the Light Rail proposal. The Metropolitan Strategy has proposed an investigation of an upgraded transport corridor between Macquarie Park and Parramatta. This is the obvious choice.

  7. Ray says:

    Joni, we’ve been through all this before. I don’t like the current plan for the NWRL any more than you do. Why do you continue to peddle the lie that you will have to change trains 3 times to reach the city from the upper Northern Line? You won’t. You will be able to catch a train direct to the city via Strathfield WITHOUT changing trains, just as it had been since the line opened in 1886, until the recent opening of the Epping to Chatswood Line. It’s just going back to what it was before.

    If you’re travelling to the Macquarie Park stations or Chatswood, yes, you will have to change at Epping. If you’d prefer to travel to the city via Chatswood, then you would actually only have to change twice, not 3 times.

    Even if the government had proceeded with the original proposal for the NWRL with double deck operation, the Northern Line services would still have to be re-routed via Strathfield.

  8. Joni says:

    I’m not “peddling a lie” as you say. Our train will not go direct to the city as it always has but terminate at Central so we WILL lose a direct link that’s been in place for 100 years. The trains before continued past Central and via Town Hall, Wynyard, North Sydney etc. Central is a hassle to change trains at as well.

    It does not alter the fact that we LOSE a direct service that we paid to live near to whether we have to use 3 trains each way or 2 trains each way, it still means we .have to change trains with all the resultant stress, extra travel time and inconvenience ( try it with a disabled child before you judge me). Most of our family work or go to school on the Epping to Chatswood Line so they will face serious disruptions.

  9. Ray says:

    We’ve been over this so many times before Joni, that I can’t be bothered responding. Nothing is going to change as far as the current NWRL plans go, so let’s just wait and see how it pans out.

    Anyway, it’s getting a bit off topic for this particular post.

  10. Joni says:

    It would now be polite and manly of you to acknowledge that I wasn’t lying, Ray .

    Things may still change re the NWRL so it’s still OK to compare it to the light rail link.

  11. MrV says:

    I might be wrong on this but did your house contract specifically state it comes with a direct train link to the cbd included?

  12. Ray says:

    Sorry Joni, you’re being delusional. As much as I don’t like it, the tunneling contracts are already in place and short of a major backflip, nothing is going to change. Just get used to it.

  13. Joni says:

    Mr V – no, it did not but that doesn’t stop me and 1000s of other people being upset about it. If you consciously choose to live somewhere for a particular amenity that’s been in place 100 years then you have a right to complain when it’s removed without consulation and compromise.

    Ray, if I am “delusional” for having an opinion, then so are all 1000’s of other people in the area, 1083 of whom have signed this petition http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/no-metro-construct-the-nwrl-to-suit-a-compatible-double-decker-operation?utm_campaign=friend_inviter_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_false If you are unhappy with the NWRL as you stated above, you can sign it and pass it on.

  14. Simon says:

    Dear oh dear.

    One would expect that the Beecroft NIMBYs will suddenly have to change to reach Town Hall, which they didn’t have to before. But they won’t have to change 3 times to get anywhere unless they did before.

    As for that petition; only just over a 1000 people sign it shows the level of public support for improved public transport in Sydney if you ask me.

  15. Simon says:

    Oh, and not duplication. But why don’t we just run more frequent buses for longer operating hours?

  16. Joni says:

    Hi Simon, you’re wrong – anyone from Normanhurst, Thornleigh, Pennant Hills, Beecroft and Cheltenham will now have to take 3 trains to get into Town Hall, North Sydney, Wynyard etc.

    One train to Epping, change, then one train to Chatswood, change and one train past Chatswood to the final destination. Now they can travel there one the one train.

    The main problem is that Epping station is notoriously hard to change trains at with several very steep banks of escalators. I found this on Youtube to explain the issue to you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwKN0nKKm0M

    With elderly people and children it’s very difficult and adds considerable time and stress to a journey.

  17. Joni says:

    This also shows the angle of the escalators and to navigate them as a one off is OK but every day twice a day is especially hard for elderly people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlCNBlE8TWs

  18. You could also take a single train to Town Hall via Strathfield as was the case before the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link was opened in 2009. If you wanted to take a single train to the North Shore, then you could do that too by crossing the Harbour on that train.

  19. Joni says:

    Bambiul, we have been advised that the re routed trains will terminate at Central so we’d still have to change.

  20. So you could reach those stations with one change of train? And that could even be cross platform at Epping (CBD bound only).

    And is there no elevator you can use if you don’t like the escalators?

  21. Joni says:

    Yes you could change trains at Central and face the stairs but then incur greatly increased travel times. For e.g. Central to North Sydney is 13 min trip PLUS the waiting time on the platform and transit time up and down stairs, probably at least 25 min extra that way. Try doing it with 4 kids, one who’s disabled…or if you are elderly.

    No Cross platform at Epping unfortunately.
    There is one elevator at the end of the platform usually completely filled with people by the time you alight from the train. There’s quite a wait for it to return each time.

  22. Eastwood has 2 island platforms. You can do cross platform transfers there in both directions.

    That’s if Upper Northern Line trains really do terminate at Central, which is one thing that is definitely not set in stone. Community consultation can have an impact on things like this. What they won’t have an impact on is stopping the NWRL from going ahead or from it operating as an independent line.

  23. Joni says:

    Thanks Bambul. We all feel that any “consultation” has been artificial or sham consultation so that the powers that be can tick the “consultation” box. They have not taken any of the concerns about the loss of the direct link seriously and studiously ignore it. Hence the petition.

  24. Simon says:

    I’m not wrong Joni.

    It actually takes longer to get to Central now than it did before the ECRL. Out of peak, the breakeven station is Town Hall. In the peak of the peak, the breakeven in actual time is somewhere between Wynyard and Milsons Point. The perceived time may move that further south if there is an interchange involved but you have to factor in some pretty serious penalties to reach Town Hall, assuming that the old limited stop patterns return to the peak of the peak. Those are the facts.

    I’d expect Cheltenham to North Sydney will be done via the city. It’s really the trips to St Leonards which suffect the most as far as I can see, but Normanhurst to St Leonards could be done via Hornsby probably faster than via MQP.

    As for the trains terminating at Central, I’ll give you pretty good odds if you’re prepared to bet against that happening in the peak of the peak.

  25. Joni says:

    Simon, you said – “But they won’t have to change 3 times to get anywhere unless they did before.”

    In that you ARE wrong.

    We mainly need to get to Mac Uni, North Ryde, , St Leonards, North Sydney and Wynyard which WILL definitely take longer and be more complicated and stressful to achieve than currently.

    The petition only has 1000 odd signatures on it possibly due to lack of awareness by affected people of what will happen. The media has barely covered the ramifications of it bar the ABC and SMH..

  26. Ray Laverack says:

    As Bambul has said, it’s not necessarily set in stone that post NWRL all Northern Line services will terminate at Central. Whatever has been foreshadowed in the past, the most logical scenario is for Northern Line services from Hornsby to take over the paths of the current Epping to the city services via Strathfield through to the North Shore (4 tph throughout the day). Additional peak hour services would be provided from Epping to Central. At least all Northern Line stations would have the option of a direct service through the CBD to the North Shore without the need to change trains. This is what you should be lobbying for.

    It may suit you in your particular circumstances to have a direct link to the Macquarie Park stations, but I suggest that the majority of commuters from the upper Northern Line would be travelling to the CBD and there is almost negligible time difference in going by either Chatswood or Strathfield (in fact faster to Central and lineball to Town Hall via Strathfield).

    Again I say, your continual assertion that you will have to use 3 trains to gain access to the CBD is complete nonsense.

  27. Joni says:

    Ray,we’ve been advised that the services will terminate in Central necessitating changes of trains. Hopefully they won’t but I suspect that they will terminate

    You say that the majority of Upper Northern Line commuters would be travelling to the CBD, However if you look closely at the petition and the hundreds of comments on it, a common comment against the NWRL configuration is the service to Chatswood, Mac Uni, Mac Park, North Sydney and North Ryde being disrupted suggesting that your assertion is probably wrong.

  28. Simon says:

    Sigh Joni.
    Last I counted, Cheltenham to St Leonards with a change at Epping and Chatswood is TWO changes not THREE.

    Ray, it wouldn’t be logical to have the Epping starters terminating at Central (i). These are far more busy than the upper northern line trains and what is logical is to try to minimise the amount of transferring, all other things being equal.

  29. Ray says:

    Joni, as Bambul and I have said before, it’s not necessarily set in stone that Upper Northern Line services will terminate at Central post NWRL. It’s pointless trying to change the government’s current plan for the NWRL, as it is so far advanced with contracts in place that nothing in that respect is going to change. What you should be doing is lobbying to ensure that all Northern Line stations from Hornsby to North Strathfield continue to have a direct service through the CBD to the North Shore without the need to change trains at Central.

    When you consider that employment in the CBD dwarfs that in the Macquarie Park corridor and Lower North Shore combined, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of commuters would be travelling to the CBD (or in fact areas outside the CBD south of the harbour).

    I don’t know how long you have lived in the Cheltenham/Beecroft area, but prior to the opening of the ECRL, the Northern District communities enjoyed an uninterrupted rail service along the Northern Line, north and south of Epping. However, this community connection was sacrificed to provide more train services from the west via Strathfield, because of the limited train paths available between Strathfield and the CBD. To this day, there is considerable interchange being required at Epping for school children travelling to schools north and south of Epping (Cheltenham Girls High and Eastwood Marist College) which weren’t necessary previously. I can’t think of any schools on the ECRL (if in fact there are any) which would require any interchange. Can you imagine for example a similar scenario on the South Line where services from Liverpool operated direct to the CBD via either Granville or Bankstown, with the alternative service starting from Cabramatta. I don’t think so. Why should the Northern Line be the sacrificial lamb?

    In answer to Simon’s question with regard to the operating pattern on the Northern Line post NWRL, I am proposing that the service from Hornsby to the CBD via Strathfield be an all stations service (not reverting to the previous semi-express peak hour service pattern), taking over the current paths of the Epping to CBD service throughout the day. Because of the lack of train paths in the peak from Strathfield to the CBD on the Suburban tracks, additional peak hour services from Epping would have to use the Main tracks to terminate at Sydney Terminal. Although this is not an ideal situation, until such time as additional capacity is provided through the CBD, it would at least provide the option of a direct service for every Northern Line station through the CBD to the North Shore.

  30. Simon says:

    Ray, that’s possible but would be illogical in peak hour. It would tie up additional rolling stock which is in short supply and also make it extremely difficult to get Central Coast/Newcastle trains through particularly northbound. And why would one use the Epping starters in that world?

    I’m pretty sure I’ve already said that though.

  31. Joni says:

    “Sigh Joni.
    Last I counted, Cheltenham to St Leonards with a change at Epping and Chatswood is TWO changes not THREE.”

    Simon, I meant we have to use 3 trains each way which results in increased travel times, stress and increased probability of delays, cancelled services, missed connections etc than if you were on the one train each way.

  32. Joni says:

    Ray, we’d like to lobby that we retain a direct link to Wynyard or Town Hall but it seems as though we are not heard or listened to no matter who you approach and how many people protest. The lack of real consultation is astounding. Not that we’ll give up on that idea :-)

    As far as discussing employment, anecdotal evidence from the Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust survey and the NWRL petition pointed strongly to employment destinations for Northern Line users being Chatswood, Mac Uni, Mac Park, North Sydney, St Leonards and North Ryde going by the supplied comments.

    I’ve used the Northern Line for long enough to have gone via what we called the Strathfield route into the City.

    Cheltenham and Epping are both very heavily used stations by school children, that’s true.

  33. Rails says:

    The thing is ts not necessarily the NWRL that is the reason that the Northern line is being set to terminate at Central, its because TNSW not only want to guarantee slots for the Western line but they also want to properly separate the sectors for the suburban Sydney network. So the Northern line on Mains to Central, the Western line on the Suburbans to the North Shore via the bridge and the inner west/ main south on the locals to the City Circle and East Hills/ Airport line. The line they really want to streamline is the Western/ North Shore line and the Northern line is the least ustilised line so they are the ones who will be changing trains, you wont see them mixing Western and Northern line trains to head to the North Shore line via Strathfield. However, even with the Single Deck NWRL in place there is a solution which would see the Northern line retain its direct connection to the North Shore but its not something TNSW is considering.

  34. adam says:

    at least you guys actually have a rail link, let alone a decent piece of transport. Here on the Northern Beaches we have to deal with a stinking crowded bus that is completely unreliable and being ignored by the State Government for decades. Be grateful for what you have, it is better than nothing.

  35. Joni says:

    It’s all relative, Adam. I could say at least you have a beach right nearby etc..be grateful…

  36. Ray says:

    Joni, don’t give up on lobbying for a direct service from the Northern Line through the CBD to the North Shore via Strathfield. It’s still early days and as has been alluded to previously, nothing is set in stone.

    However, I think the Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust survey of employment destinations is delusional, as it is no more than a subjective argument to support their position. Any independent survey of Sydney travel patterns would suggest that the Sydney CBD is the primary focus for employment, notwithstanding the fact that employment overall is spread throughout the Sydney Region.

    As for your comments with regard to travel by school children on the Northern Line, you neglected to mention Eastwood, south of Epping, which also has a substantial patronage, which is disadvantaged because of the disconnection between the upper and lower Northern Line.

    In answer to Simon, the Epping to Central peak hour services would attract commuters who are only bound for destinations between these stations (which would be a substantial number) and also the prospect of gaining a seat, even if they have to change at Central. As I’ve said previously, this is not an ideal situation, but at least all Northern Line stations would have the option of a direct service through the CBD without having to change trains which I think would be preferable

    As for Rails suggestion that all Northern Line services terminate at Central, whilst it might be a good idea in theory, in political terms it is just not practicable. How can you imagine the current government agreeing to such a compromise and alienating their political heartland? Anyway, why should the Northern Line be the only line to be denied access through the CBD?

  37. Joni says:

    Thanks Ray. Do you have any good suggestions for people to contact with the lobbying?

  38. Simon says:

    Besides the Carlingford line, which is denied direct access from the CBD.

  39. Technically the Carlingford Line has 1 direct service into the CBD in the (early) morning.

  40. Rails says:

    Ray, its not my suggestion, read the TNSW document, Sydney’s Rail Future. That is what they are set to achieve, true separation of the lines as far as possible and further adherence to clearways style running of the network. This means that the Northern line will run into Central along with the Interurban trains. Its not only operationally easier and more reliable, it means more slots on the western line too. The fact that the Northern line has the smallest catchment assists their desire to configure the network in this way, as mentioned they care about conditions on the main west to North Shore line a lot more than whether some locals on the Northern line have to change trains at Central. The Cheltemham/ Beecroft Civic trust has no sway,in fact my understanding is that they are one of the most hated NIMBY groups around.

  41. Rails says:

    As mentioned though, I believe there is a better way but I am just an “Arm Chair Operator”. TNSW make the call, even if the Liberals are turfed out.

  42. Joni says:

    Hi Rails. so you believe the Northern Line trains will be diverted along the Strathfield route and will have to terminate at Central? Is there an opportunity for them not to terminate there and continue along over the bridge?

    For the record I’m not a member of the Beecroft/Cheltenham Civic Trust (in case you are wondering) but am interested to know how you understand them to be “one of the most hated NIMBY groups around.”? Not trying to be rude, just genuinely interested.

  43. Simon says:

    Bambul, that’s why I specifically mentioned “from”.

    Rails, I’ve read “Sydney’s rail future” and I can’t see where it actually says all northern line trains to Central (i). Care to cite a page number? And is it only in the high res version?

  44. Rails says:

    Hi Joni, that was what I read into the “Sydney’s rail future” document, yes. While its been a while since I read it I seem to recall that It was actually a bit sneaky really, it asks the reader to put two and two together. It gives you all the details of what they want to achieve with separate, reliable sectors and talks about the issues with trains moving between the mains and suburban lines, numbers required for the western line etc but does not come out and say in big bold writing that it will in fact be the Northern line terminating at Central but you can see what they are trying to do and how they can achieve it. Various Media reports and what TNSW have said regarding the NWRL seems to back that.

    As you can see I am not saying I agree with it though, it is one way to achieve their goal and the cheapest way no doubt. I wont go into details of what I believe should happen to allow the Northern line trains to continue to the CBD/ North Shore while maintaining this separation as I have discussed it on a few other forums and this isn’t really the place for it as I would not want to annoy posters on here. I think its a great blog, I’ve been lurking on it for a while and think that Bambul is a very good blogger and really understands the issues he is talking about and backs them with facts. Suffice to say I think if my thoughts could be achieved it would keep pretty much everyone happy IMO while still having the three tier system that I believe benefits Sydney.

    While I am not trying to attack the Beecroft/ Cheltenham Civic trust, from what I have read over the years they’ve had their finger prints over a lot of proposals and decisions that have occurred regarding major projects in the North and North West regions, if you are on a lot of transport and development forums for many years you may have seen them referenced a few times in a very negative fashion, I’ve been told that the same feeling exists in parts of the bureaucracy who’ve dealt with them as well. I believe they actually had a lot to do with the feedback on the original NWRL heavy rail link that was canned and their opposition had a lot to do with the change from running this line towards Strathfield to running towards Chatswood instead. Although I am aware there was more to it than their opposition but it sure didn’t help.

  45. Joni says:

    Thanks Rails, I appreciate your reply.

  46. Ray says:

    Joni, write to your local member Greg Smith, Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian and Shadow Transport Minister, Penny Sharpe (who seems to have a good handle on things).

  47. Joni says:

    Thanks, Ray. I have found Gladys quite unresponsive in that there is no reply or ackowledgement of any correspondence but will keep trying.

  48. Joni says:


  49. Ray says:

    The Northern Line has already become the sacrificial lamb to redistribute train paths throughout Northern and Western Sydney with the opening of the ECRL. Whilst the upper Northern Line maintained its direct connection to the CBD, but via the North Shore, it lost its peak hour semi-express services via Strathfield which were considerably faster to all CBD stations (15 mins faster to Central). Eastwood and West Ryde also lost the same semi-express services and were left with half the number of peak hour suburban services with only the all stations services from Epping, although Eastwood still has the benefit of express Intercity services which terminate at Central. It’s little wonder the lower Northern Line is the most congested sector of the Sydney Trains network.

    The other major disadvantage, is the little publicised disconnection between the Northern District communities north and south of Epping where there is considerable interflow, especially for school children. Can you for example imagine the same situation being tolerated where passengers north and south of Chatswood on the North Shore Line had to change trains?

    The lower Northern Line from Epping to the CBD via Strathfield has only 4 train paths per hour throughout the day via the Suburban tracks out of a total of 20 tph, the rest being from the West. There has been speculation for years now and even as recently as the predicted new timetable that all Northern Line services would run via the Main tracks from Strathfield to terminate at Central. Although the recently leaked new draft timetable proposed 2 additional morning peak hour services from Epping to Central, the existing through services to the North Shore have been maintained.

    Whilst the Northern Line may not currently be amongst the higher traffic generators, there will be an exponential growth in passenger volume with the urban consolidation development underway or planned for key centres such as Eastwood, West Ryde, Meadowbank and Rhodes (which happen to be the proposed stops for the new peak hour services). It therefore warrants and deserves a direct connection through the CBD without being shunted to Sydney Terminal.

  50. Matt Groves says:

    This is MAD. Why spend $54M/km, when we can get SkyTran for just $6M/km?
    SkyTran is over 10 x faster than Light Rail.
    SkyTran trips don’t require you to stop and start for other passengers, unlike Light Rail.
    SkyTran has No impact on existing traffic, unlike Light Rail.
    SkyTran doesn’t block other street use, unlike Light Rail.
    SkyTran can’t run you over, unlike LightRail.
    SkyTran leaves more room for Bike Lanes than Light Rail.
    SkyTran is Profitable at 25c/km so doesn’t necessarily require public funding, unlike Light Rail.
    SkyTran looks waaay cooler than Light Rail!
    Obviously, any decision maker considering LightRail and ignoring the potential to use SkyTran instead is VERY BRAVE!

    See various YouTube content on SkyTran here:

  51. Allan says:

    Does anyone know if they build light rail parra to macquarie park through dundas station then connect to kissing point rd if there will be any property that will need to be acquired by government.
    I understand this will be a good investment area if this light rail goes through

  52. Ray says:

    There may be some resumptions required between Parramatta and Camellia, but the Parramatta City Council feasibility study proposed that the light rail line would run within the existing Carlingford Line corridor between Camellia and Dundas, presumably on the western side of the heavy rail line, because of the then uncertainty about its future. An option is to use and duplicate the existing line.

    From Dundas Station, the light rail line would connect with Kissing Point Rd in the centre median and this may require some resumptions in the immediate vicinity. Kissing Point Rd is a 6 lane carriageway with a centre median, so no further resumption would be required along its length as far as the intersection with Silverwater Rd and also Stewart St as far as Marsden Rd. From the Stewart St/Marsden Rd intersection, the line would require a bridge to cross over the Brush Farm Valley to connect with Rutledge St, Eastwood, which is part of the existing Eastwood County Rd reservation. No resumption required.

    The reserved Eastwood County Rd corridor along Rutledge St and First Ave through the Eastwood Town Centre is wide enough to accommodate the light rail line and possibly 6 lanes of traffic. Most of this corridor is already owned by the Government with minimal resumptions required. The whole of the reserved corridor from Blaxland Rd, Eastwood to Epping Rd, North Ryde is Government owned. No resumptions required. There may be some partial resumptions required along a short length of Herring Rd, Marsfield to connect with Macquarie Centre.

    Contrast this with the Government’s proposed route from Parramatta to Macquarie Park via Carlingford (and Epping). While it would be obviously cheaper to utilise the whole of the Carlingford Line infrastructure, the decision to extend the line to Epping and ultimately to Macquarie Park is questionable. Despite the fact that it is 3km longer compared with the route via Eastwood, it would require wholesale resumptions along Pennant Hills Rd, Carlingford Rd and Epping Rd, which are only 4 lanes in width, through the congested Epping Town Centre, which is unsustainable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s