They had considered having a stop closer to the ferry at Wentworth Point but it would need to make some very tight turns which would be noisy for residents and would require plenty of barriers right on the river foreshore to protect pedestrians. It's also estimated that there won't be many people transferring from the light rail to the ferry or vice versa. So they opted to have stop further away from the ferry wharf.
I believe the turns that would be needed aren't that tight really, it's just that Australian tram systems continually buy cheap crappy trams without swivelling bogies that rough up tracks and degrade faster and also struggle to take turns at decent pace.
i think steel on steel on tight bends will always result in that annoying squealing sound. they can grease the track to alleviate the noise.@@kyletopfer7818
@@kyletopfer7818 As much as I don't like short segment trams, note that Toronto uses fixed bogies on curves as tight as 11 metres, and Philadelphia will use them on curves as tight as 10 metres. They do, however, requires tighter curving to be decently spiralled. Just so you know, transition curves are smooth spiral shaped transitions between a straight track and a circular curve. But a pity this service does not interchange with the ferries, otherwise it could focus on one seat rides to and from the ferry wharf as well as one seat rides to and from Parramatta railway station.
@@Myrtone If there is one thing I am confident in, it is that we do not want to take design cues off the Philadelphia or Toronto streetcar systems! Sydney already broadly outperforms both with more than 3x the number of riders of the Philadelphia system with only 1/4 the track, and having nearly twice as many riders per km as the Toronto system with higher average speeds. There are also some pretty low-hanging fruit Sydney could do to massively increase LR ridership, with some fairly straightforward extensions that would shift alot of bus ridership straight to LR and leave all the North American systems in the dust, with the possible exceptions of Calgary & Edmonton.
@@kyletopfer7818 I did not mean you should take design cues off Toronto or Philadelphia, I am just showing that that fixed bogies (as much as I prefer the segments to be longer and the bogies to pivot) can handle tighter curves, they just need adequate transition curves. A solution to the problem with serving the Wentworth ferry terminal would be a connecting bus service that otherwise follows the street running section of the line.
@@crazylesfarkas4486 No it wasn't, not as I undertand it - in 1974 was the first time any rail line in the area was mentioned in the Sydney Area Transportation Study, long after the region had already been developed. The corridor was originally planned as a large road. It was a massive planning failure. The T-Way was then built with future plans for conversion to LR but much later, opening 2003.
Thank you so much for making this video! Your video on this project is far more detailed than anything else I’ve seen from the news, or the NSW Government! It has helped me out significantly! You’ve just gotten yourself a new subscriber!
This has a huge history going back to the 1990s and is indirectly the reason there’s a busway around Holker Street - the weird Holker Busway was originally made for another bridge to Camelia, but originally to Strathfield - early route proposals for light rail were to go alongside the heavy rail near North Strathfield where empty track bed now exists. Not sure but I think the idea was to take over Platform 1 in Strathfield. If you’re wondering why the 525 bus route exists … it was when the Holker Busway became the compromise for the deadline of Sydney 2000. This also explains why the 525 is the only route from another depot (with the nicer buses) anywhere near Strathfield. It’s an apology route. (Just like every T-Way, which also used the Mercedes CNG buses like the 525 did).
Many thanks for your well researched and professional presentation and up to date "views". Does the Rydalmere Ferry stop now mean that the Parramatta ferry service will be permanently truncated to start/finish at Rydalmere (in lieu of Parramatta) due to flooding at Parramatta Wharf and those services affected by low tide (which are replaced by buses between Rydalmere and Parramatta - by my very rough count 147 services are affected by low tides in February 2024)? Another reader has suggested extending from Parramatta to Liverpool using the exiting T80 reservations. A pleasant suggestion. I also ask that you and readers consider my suggestion that the existing reservations for the Parramatta Rouse Hill T-way could be used (although I am unsure if the long drag up Constitution Hill would be a problem, in addition to the dive at Norwest (at the church where the T-way crosses from the west side of Old Windsor Road under the road to the east side)). Trams at Westmead "terminus" could operate to Parramatta etc or Rouse Hill. I would suggest, also, where possible that the reservations are used by both tram and buses to provide as many options for short runs for buses - I do accept that you and those with greater "running/operational" knowledge may suggest some impracticalities with that suggestion).
Thanks for this video, your narration is very professional! The stop close to Rydalmere Ferry wharf is great but the lack of connectivity to Wentworth Point wharf is a glaring mistake. They could run grass tracks along the river front and then it could take a right turn onto Hill Rd towards Olympic Park (just before it gets to the ferry terminal through the small car park). Too late now I guess...
Good to hear stage 2 is on. Sydney will really benefit from improved public transport, being one of the most important cities in Oz. Greetings from Adelaide.
I realise the light rail will (eventually) interchange with Sydney Metro West at Olympic Park, but they really should have also prioritised an interchange at Lidcombe Station too. The ferry interchange at Wentworth Point is a little ridiculous too. Interchanges should be made as easy as possible to encourage public transport usage.
From chapter 5 of the EIS Wentworth Point options Substantial development is ongoing and planned for Wentworth Point, including a new public primary school and planned high school to the east of Hill Road, and Sanctuary Wentworth Point, a mixed residential, commercial and retail development to the west of Hill Road. Two corridor options at Wentworth Point were considered. After crossing the bridge from Melrose Park to Wentworth Point, Option 3 would extend around the western and southern perimeter of the Sanctuary Wentworth Point development, whereas Option 4 would extend east along Foreshore Boulevard through the development (see Figure 5.8 ). Both options would turn onto Hill Road and extend south. Operational, safety and design assessments of the options at Wentworth Point identified several issues with Option 4, including the following: • The steep grade from Melrose Park to Wentworth Point over the proposed bridge, followed by the tight curve onto Foreshore Boulevard, would require the installation of infrastructure such as barriers and fences in the public domain to mitigate the risk of derailment. This would create a barrier for pedestrians accessing the river foreshore and moving around the area. • There would be greater amenity and access impacts on the river foreshore and River Walk. • A complex traffic system would be required for combined bus, traffic, pedestrian and light rail operations along Foreshore Boulevard and Hill Road to provide a safe environment for all transport modes. • The tight curve of the track turning from Foreshore Boulevard onto Hill Road would increase the potential for wheel squeal adjacent to open space and the proposed Sanctuary Wentworth Point buildings, including residences. • The light rail track would be close to (within two metres of) proposed Sanctuary Wentworth Point buildings resulting in poorer safety and amenity outcomes. • The alignment would require the relocation or protection of utilities on Hill Road, increasing cost and construction complexity. Option 3 (see Figure 5.8) was identified as the preferred corridor at this location as it would: • provide a gentler grade from Melrose Park to Wentworth Point over the bridge and a wider curve, which would avoid the need for barriers and fences in the public domain • improve amenity and enhance placemaking benefits along Foreshore Boulevard • minimise direct and indirect impacts to the river foreshore, including the River Walk • improve pedestrian access and overall connectivity to the river foreshore • avoid the need for adjustments to utilities that have been recently installed. Compared to Option 4, Option 3 would result in potentially greater biodiversity impacts due to its location partially within the Millennium Parklands. These impacts have been considered in the EIS (see Chapter 16 (Biodiversity)) and mitigation measures have been proposed to manage the impacts. Option 3 would provide a light rail stop at Hill Road near Foreshore Boulevard (about a four-minute walk to Sydney Olympic Park Wharf), which would be further than the stop proposed as part of Option 4. Modelling has indicated the interchange between the wharf and light rail is not anticipated to have large customer volumes.
Agree on the Lidcombe station connection. I believe they looked at it but it was too expensive to get across Parramatta Road and the M4 and then there was no clear reservation then to get to Lidcombe station apparently (which I can understand).
Great video! Not only very insightful, but as a visual person, I really appreciated the time, effort, and way-finding put into following the projected path and the stops you made en route for static footage. Really well done!
Around 11,000 apartments for Melrose Park north. Around 5k of that was always contingent on light rail build. Going by memory last time I looked at the council documents.
Thanks for the information that is a lot of apartments agree right at the moment without those apartments the line through that section would be pretty quiet because it’s very low density housing at the moment.
Hi Marty, thanks for the excellent video. Despite me living in Sydney prior to 1981, I never managed to travel on the Sandown trains. Just of interest, my dad's parents were both born in 1888, which is a year that you mentioned on this video. It is great that the Parramatta trams are going right through to Lidcolmbe. Sorry to hear that the new trams don't follow the old steam tram route down to the ferry wharf, though maybe that may be added later. Anyway, wishing you the very best. Rob in Melbourne Australia.
Yes the new lines really don't travel much along the former Steam Lines - except for a section in Tramway Lane and then up Church Street. There not much down at the old Ferry Wharf now. From what I can see it is abandoned. And closer to Parramatta is is some sort of waste building materials processing plant.
That was interesting to see it finally including boronia st tho your video skipped past the home my dad built in the late 1940’s where I grew up in the 50’s, 60’s and left in 1976. It traces the walk we took to Melrose Park public school.
Great clip and I like the style of your narrative. One question though. My understanding is that 'planning approval' has just been given - Is that the same thing as the project itself being given the 'go-ahead"?
yes. now the money just needs to be budgeted so construction can start. they have set aside $ for the bridge first but expect this project to take quite a number of years to construct. slow steps. at least it is approved unlike the next stage in canberra which will take even longer.
@4:19 Is there a good reason not to have more green or ballasted track on this line? Renders show none, haven't looked through the documentation much myself yet but particularly this section near South Road which is currently a grassed power line reservation.
I'm not sure myself but maybe it's so that vehicles can use the track (maintenance or emergency). Although if any section is going to be ballast I suspect it will be south of Footbridge Boulevard to Holker st but that's just a guess. Interestingly the stabling tracks at the depot for stage 2 will be on ballast rather than concrete. It was a contaminated site and they've already but a capping layer on so rather than penetrate it in order to lay concrete embedded tracks it's easier to just lay ballast and not disturb anything.
Had to pick up my niece from Olympic Park last night go to Hill Road at 11pm and was stuck in traffic for up to 2hrs as I picked up my niece it took us forever to get out of there back onto the M4 where it was smooth sailing from there didn't get home till around 1:30am this morning...traffic management was so bad people driving like they drive in India. No sense of courtesy to other drivers just cutting into to lanes...can't wait for the Metro and Light Rail stations to open so it can reduce the traffic congestion there during events
@@backtracks.channel Yeah that stressed me out to the max and was chewing petrol at hte same time...I really don't know why they had to block the main routes??
@@RAM_845 because they prioritise public transport over cars when there are big events at Olympic Park. You could have parked at Lidcombe or Strathfield, taken the train to OP and taken your niece on the train back to the car.
My only issue with Stage 2 is the path through Ermington, specifically down Boronia and Hope streets, since Boronia St has MAJOR elevation differences (which you can see in most places along the west end of Boronia St at Spurway St). As well as Boronia St being a single carriageway residential street, I don't know how well it would cope with all the light rail traffic. (Just FYI I was a resident of (Southern) Ermington for the first 14 years of my life)
Thanks for the note. Yes there is quite a big gully in Ken Newman Park that the tram will need to go over a bridge there. And my guess is that much of the verge (which is wider than in most streets) on the north side of Boronia Street will be taken up by a widened road.
Good. But more interested in Stage 3, where the line is connected from Carlingford to Epping. At which point the line actually serves some purpose in the larger network, rather than a shuttle back and forth from the dormitory suburbs along the line to and from Parramatta.
I have heard that Newcastle NSW is looking at putting trams back, hopefully not the same power system as currently used. Could you have a look at it in the future. My interest is because I grew up 100m from the former Wallsend terminus.
best bet is it will be expanded to Broadmeadow first, then maybe to Mereweather or Mayfield if it was gonna happen. But i don't see those 2 happening anytime soon
This new stage will require the Stage 1 tracks at Macquarie/Church Sts to be ripped up to provide the extension for the new terminus. Wonder how long this will take? Will it be done before Stage 1 starts operating? Not much time left LOL
Can you do a video about the gap between Carlingford station former train station, now light rail, and Epping train station and Metro intersection. Very poor planning leaving this gap between 3 different transport types with such a relatively short distance between them. Extend the light rail to Epping would be my suggestion.
yes quite intriguing that gap. The RUclips channel www.youtube.com/@BuildingBeautifully has done a good video on the subject of why the line never went past Carlingford.
Any information on whether the trams running down the quieter residential streets will be shared with vehicles like Melbourne or would they have designated tracks?
Good question. I haven't see the detailed layouts of how the light rail lines will go through these streets. (not sure if that has been made public as yet). I suspect they will try and keep trams and road traffic as separated as possible. I suspect much of the wide grassy verge on the north side of South Street and Boronia Streets will be taken up by a widened road to make for dedicated running. And Hill Road in Wentworth Point is pretty wide - if you include all the trees on the Western Side. So my guess is most of the line will run in a reservation while keeping pretty much the same lanes of traffic.. but this is all speculation on my behalf.
Pretty sure the streets are extra wide because of water mains and gas main that run underground along South and Boronia St (and through the grass reservation).
Yes agree that the end of the line a Carter Street feels a bit unfinished.. should go somewhere a bit more consequential. Not taking anything away from Carter Street as there is a lot of residential development there - and they will need good public transport (like all of us).
@@user-xg9qz5dr5v It may have been Building Beautifully or someone else, but I distinctly remember a video mentioning they'd built over the corridor meaning it will likely need to be tunneled.
So with all this street running being proposed, what happens to the vehicular traffic on those streets, another no man's land scenario or will the trams have to deal with cars sharing the same space?
Good question. I haven't see the detailed layouts of how the light rail lines will go through these streets. I suspect they will try and keep trams and road traffic as separated as possible. I suspect much of the wide grassy verge on the north side of South Street and Boronia Streets will be taken up by a widened road. And Hill Road in Wentworth Point is pretty wide - if you include all the trees on the Western Side. So my guess is most of the line will run in a reservation while keeping pretty much the same lanes of traffic.. but this is all speculation on my behalf.
@@backtracks.channel so those residential streets you showed, South St and Boronia St which are just residential streets of average width, will be difficult to have a tram and road traffic share the roadway. Interesting to see what the solution is. Unless they acquire the large nature strip's to widen the road.
Why can't we use trackless battery trams to speed installation of the services? Put in demountable passenger and charging stops near where permanent stops are to be and get going on day 1. No overhead lines or rails to install or maintain.
Honestly I think trackless trams are a gadgetbahn. RMtransit has a good explainer video on why they're not that great. ruclips.net/video/RjKG0Lw1uFc/видео.htmlsi=xr5I4fNUKPM4Lrnr
Stage 2 is meant to be an extension of stage 1 so it would be weird to have 2 complety different types of vehicles operating on what should be one network. Also considering that there's going to be 2 new bridges going over Parramatta River it's hard to justify that kind of expense (600 million for the Wentworth Point bridge alone) just to be running glorified buses.
@@plainoldpeter Weird IMO is fine if cheaper and faster to get it up and running with less disruption. They are not buses because the larger versions have articulated wheels at both ends just like a train and this means they can turn tighter than a bus or a train, and with rubber on the wheels they can negotiate much steeper grades than trains thus making them the more flexible option. They are also much quieter. People push back because its new tech, no other reason.
But would it really be faster and cheaper to get it up and running with less disruption? You still need: 2 new bridges over Parramatta River and a new bridge over Silverwater Rd. Road widening and new roads for dedicated right of way. Also you need a stronger road surface since trackless trams are so heavy that they wear grooves into a normal road surface. A brand new depot and drivers. No compatibility with the existing Parramatta light rail. Charging infrastructure at each stop, I'm no expert but I expect this will involve high voltage cables and substations (do you install this at the permanent stop or the temporary stop?) Other problems I can see are Trackless trams have half the capacity of light rail (150 vs 300 people) so you need more drivers and more vehicles (increasing the long term cost of the system). Trackless trams are a proprietary technology. If we invest in it we are stuck with one manufacturer. It's also a new and novel technology. It's a massive risk to take when spending taxpayers money. Because the trackless trams use batteries rather than overhead wires they need to stop for a longer period at each stop, slowing down the overall trip time. If we're going to be spending massive amounts of money on a public transport system it's needs to be a proven system that will last the test time rather than a quick cheap (or in this case cheaper but still expensive) fix. What we definitely don't need is a gadgetbahn that will be discarded in 20-30 years, looking at you sydney monorail.
@@plainoldpeter There's a lot of money involved in installing and then maintaining tracks, power reticulation and telecontrol systems over the life of a rail system. Battery trackless trams carry all that with the lead cars and are relatively simple to maintain. As far as it being a new technology, there are numerous trackless tram systems in the works for Australia so it won't be new for long, and it's not a proprietary technology in its basic form, ie: carriages, wheels, motors etc. There have even been advances since the first trackless trams where supercapacitors are being used to store enough power to get to the next stop where they are recharged in under a minute via the pantograph. Supercapacitors are expensive now so I expect batteries will still be used for the next few years.
There will also be the Metro from Olympic Park to Parramatta/the City, and with the light rail also finishing near Olympic Park station, there will also the option of catching a train. And of course busses will still run, but they will no doubt adjust the routes. Plus we are getting 2 new river crossings, which is something that area needed.
Right, so if we have a metro and all the busses, then this is kind of redundant, especially considering how disruptive it is. A river crossing at Ermington will be nice, but the other one near Rydalmere does nothing. @@daveg2104
Since the metro won't stop between Parramatta and Olympic Park and Rosehill looking very shaky right now the purpose of the tram is to increase the catchment of the metro. It's sole and primary purpose literally is to pick up passengers and dump them at Olympic Park, Parramatta and Westmead. That's it.
They had considered having a stop closer to the ferry at Wentworth Point but it would need to make some very tight turns which would be noisy for residents and would require plenty of barriers right on the river foreshore to protect pedestrians. It's also estimated that there won't be many people transferring from the light rail to the ferry or vice versa. So they opted to have stop further away from the ferry wharf.
I believe the turns that would be needed aren't that tight really, it's just that Australian tram systems continually buy cheap crappy trams without swivelling bogies that rough up tracks and degrade faster and also struggle to take turns at decent pace.
i think steel on steel on tight bends will always result in that annoying squealing sound. they can grease the track to alleviate the noise.@@kyletopfer7818
@@kyletopfer7818 As much as I don't like short segment trams, note that Toronto uses fixed bogies on curves as tight as 11 metres, and Philadelphia will use them on curves as tight as 10 metres. They do, however, requires tighter curving to be decently spiralled. Just so you know, transition curves are smooth spiral shaped transitions between a straight track and a circular curve.
But a pity this service does not interchange with the ferries, otherwise it could focus on one seat rides to and from the ferry wharf as well as one seat rides to and from Parramatta railway station.
@@Myrtone If there is one thing I am confident in, it is that we do not want to take design cues off the Philadelphia or Toronto streetcar systems! Sydney already broadly outperforms both with more than 3x the number of riders of the Philadelphia system with only 1/4 the track, and having nearly twice as many riders per km as the Toronto system with higher average speeds. There are also some pretty low-hanging fruit Sydney could do to massively increase LR ridership, with some fairly straightforward extensions that would shift alot of bus ridership straight to LR and leave all the North American systems in the dust, with the possible exceptions of Calgary & Edmonton.
@@kyletopfer7818 I did not mean you should take design cues off Toronto or Philadelphia, I am just showing that that fixed bogies (as much as I prefer the segments to be longer and the bogies to pivot) can handle tighter curves, they just need adequate transition curves.
A solution to the problem with serving the Wentworth ferry terminal would be a connecting bus service that otherwise follows the street running section of the line.
Instead of sending it to Olympic Park, I would have just extended the Existing Line along the Liverpool-Parramatta T-way replacing the bus services
a great idea for stage 3!
I agree - but how would you get the LR tracks from the existing terminus to the start of the T-Way without having to interact with Great Western Hwy?
The T-way was originally meant to be the Parramatta-Hoxton Park Rail/light rail line in the 1970’s
@@crazylesfarkas4486 No it wasn't, not as I undertand it - in 1974 was the first time any rail line in the area was mentioned in the Sydney Area Transportation Study, long after the region had already been developed. The corridor was originally planned as a large road. It was a massive planning failure. The T-Way was then built with future plans for conversion to LR but much later, opening 2003.
@@kyletopfer7818 bridge
Thank you so much for making this video! Your video on this project is far more detailed than anything else I’ve seen from the news, or the NSW Government! It has helped me out significantly! You’ve just gotten yourself a new subscriber!
Glad it was helpful! And that is part of the reason I made the video - as I wanted to know more about where the new route was going myself.
This has a huge history going back to the 1990s and is indirectly the reason there’s a busway around Holker Street - the weird Holker Busway was originally made for another bridge to Camelia, but originally to Strathfield - early route proposals for light rail were to go alongside the heavy rail near North Strathfield where empty track bed now exists.
Not sure but I think the idea was to take over Platform 1 in Strathfield.
If you’re wondering why the 525 bus route exists … it was when the Holker Busway became the compromise for the deadline of Sydney 2000. This also explains why the 525 is the only route from another depot (with the nicer buses) anywhere near Strathfield. It’s an apology route. (Just like every T-Way, which also used the Mercedes CNG buses like the 525 did).
Oh, didn't know that. Like the history of it. Thanks for the share.
This is going to be very interesting when it's finished.
Many thanks for your well researched and professional presentation and up to date "views".
Does the Rydalmere Ferry stop now mean that the Parramatta ferry service will be permanently truncated to start/finish at Rydalmere (in lieu of Parramatta) due to flooding at Parramatta Wharf and those services affected by low tide (which are replaced by buses between Rydalmere and Parramatta - by my very rough count 147 services are affected by low tides in February 2024)?
Another reader has suggested extending from Parramatta to Liverpool using the exiting T80 reservations. A pleasant suggestion. I also ask that you and readers consider my suggestion that the existing reservations for the Parramatta Rouse Hill T-way could be used (although I am unsure if the long drag up Constitution Hill would be a problem, in addition to the dive at Norwest (at the church where the T-way crosses from the west side of Old Windsor Road under the road to the east side)). Trams at Westmead "terminus" could operate to Parramatta etc or Rouse Hill. I would suggest, also, where possible that the reservations are used by both tram and buses to provide as many options for short runs for buses - I do accept that you and those with greater "running/operational" knowledge may suggest some impracticalities with that suggestion).
Thanks for this video, your narration is very professional!
The stop close to Rydalmere Ferry wharf is great but the lack of connectivity to Wentworth Point wharf is a glaring mistake. They could run grass tracks along the river front and then it could take a right turn onto Hill Rd towards Olympic Park (just before it gets to the ferry terminal through the small car park). Too late now I guess...
Good to hear stage 2 is on. Sydney will really benefit from improved public transport, being one of the most important cities in Oz.
Greetings from Adelaide.
Good that it’s happening but still no overall costing
@@paulburgess-qr9rx No point really. Every time they do one, it just ends up costing more. 😁
Fantastic video. Thank you so much.
I realise the light rail will (eventually) interchange with Sydney Metro West at Olympic Park, but they really should have also prioritised an interchange at Lidcombe Station too.
The ferry interchange at Wentworth Point is a little ridiculous too. Interchanges should be made as easy as possible to encourage public transport usage.
They had considered having the light rail stop closer to the wharf at Wentworth Point but the layout and construction would be a nightmare.
From chapter 5 of the EIS
Wentworth Point options Substantial development is ongoing and planned for Wentworth Point, including a new public primary school and planned high school to the east of Hill Road, and Sanctuary Wentworth Point, a mixed residential, commercial and retail development to the west of Hill Road. Two corridor options at Wentworth Point were considered. After crossing the bridge from Melrose Park to Wentworth Point, Option 3 would extend around the western and southern perimeter of the Sanctuary Wentworth Point development, whereas Option 4 would extend east along Foreshore Boulevard through the development (see Figure 5.8 ). Both options would turn onto Hill Road and extend south.
Operational, safety and design assessments of the options at Wentworth Point identified several issues with Option 4, including the following:
• The steep grade from Melrose Park to Wentworth Point over the proposed bridge, followed by the tight curve onto Foreshore Boulevard, would require the installation of infrastructure such as barriers and fences in the public domain to mitigate the risk of derailment. This would create a barrier for pedestrians accessing the river foreshore and moving around the area.
• There would be greater amenity and access impacts on the river foreshore and River Walk.
• A complex traffic system would be required for combined bus, traffic, pedestrian and light rail operations along Foreshore Boulevard and Hill Road to provide a safe environment for all transport modes.
• The tight curve of the track turning from Foreshore Boulevard onto Hill Road would increase the potential for wheel squeal adjacent to open space and the proposed Sanctuary Wentworth Point buildings, including residences.
• The light rail track would be close to (within two metres of) proposed Sanctuary Wentworth Point buildings resulting in poorer safety and amenity outcomes.
• The alignment would require the relocation or protection of utilities on Hill Road, increasing cost and construction complexity. Option 3 (see Figure 5.8) was identified as the preferred corridor at this location as it would:
• provide a gentler grade from Melrose Park to Wentworth Point over the bridge and a wider curve, which would avoid the need for barriers and fences in the public domain • improve amenity and enhance placemaking benefits along Foreshore Boulevard
• minimise direct and indirect impacts to the river foreshore, including the River Walk
• improve pedestrian access and overall connectivity to the river foreshore
• avoid the need for adjustments to utilities that have been recently installed.
Compared to Option 4, Option 3 would result in potentially greater biodiversity impacts due to its location partially within the Millennium Parklands. These impacts have been considered in the EIS (see Chapter 16 (Biodiversity)) and mitigation measures have been proposed to manage the impacts. Option 3 would provide a light rail stop at Hill Road near Foreshore Boulevard (about a four-minute walk to Sydney Olympic Park Wharf), which would be further than the stop proposed as part of Option 4. Modelling has indicated the interchange between the wharf and light rail is not anticipated to have large customer volumes.
Agree on the Lidcombe station connection. I believe they looked at it but it was too expensive to get across Parramatta Road and the M4 and then there was no clear reservation then to get to Lidcombe station apparently (which I can understand).
Thanks for sharing the detailed analysis. Great to know.
Wonderful and interesting video.
I am looking forward to the new line. Was an honour to be part of the video..
Semi-Retired Foamert
Thanks again!
Great video! Not only very insightful, but as a visual person, I really appreciated the time, effort, and way-finding put into following the projected path and the stops you made en route for static footage.
Really well done!
Much appreciated! Yes, I had actually never been to some of these suburbs - was good to get out and see them.
Around 11,000 apartments for Melrose Park north. Around 5k of that was always contingent on light rail build. Going by memory last time I looked at the council documents.
Thanks for the information that is a lot of apartments agree right at the moment without those apartments the line through that section would be pretty quiet because it’s very low density housing at the moment.
glad to see NSW investing into public transit, though i hope they build public transit like this in other cities too
Cheng needs to eat somewhere
Funny how it still a couple of blocks to Paramatta wharf.
Hi Marty, thanks for the excellent video. Despite me living in Sydney prior to 1981, I never managed to travel on the Sandown trains. Just of interest, my dad's parents were both born in 1888, which is a year that you mentioned on this video. It is great that the Parramatta trams are going right through to Lidcolmbe. Sorry to hear that the new trams don't follow the old steam tram route down to the ferry wharf, though maybe that may be added later. Anyway, wishing you the very best. Rob in Melbourne Australia.
Yes the new lines really don't travel much along the former Steam Lines - except for a section in Tramway Lane and then up Church Street. There not much down at the old Ferry Wharf now. From what I can see it is abandoned. And closer to Parramatta is is some sort of waste building materials processing plant.
That was interesting to see it finally including boronia st tho your video skipped past the home my dad built in the late 1940’s where I grew up in the 50’s, 60’s and left in 1976.
It traces the walk we took to Melrose Park public school.
Yes nice suburb there.
Great clip and I like the style of your narrative. One question though. My understanding is that 'planning approval' has just been given - Is that the same thing as the project itself being given the 'go-ahead"?
yes. now the money just needs to be budgeted so construction can start. they have set aside $ for the bridge first but expect this project to take quite a number of years to construct. slow steps. at least it is approved unlike the next stage in canberra which will take even longer.
I wonder if Ermington will be an unofficial car park during the Easter show
And any big sporting event...
Shame the line doesn’t meet the SOP ferry wharf
I am very angry this project isn't inside my back yard of SA, yes usually in USA there are NIMBY's but I am just very sad there isn't more of it
@4:19 Is there a good reason not to have more green or ballasted track on this line? Renders show none, haven't looked through the documentation much myself yet but particularly this section near South Road which is currently a grassed power line reservation.
I'm not sure myself but maybe it's so that vehicles can use the track (maintenance or emergency). Although if any section is going to be ballast I suspect it will be south of Footbridge Boulevard to Holker st but that's just a guess.
Interestingly the stabling tracks at the depot for stage 2 will be on ballast rather than concrete. It was a contaminated site and they've already but a capping layer on so rather than penetrate it in order to lay concrete embedded tracks it's easier to just lay ballast and not disturb anything.
Had to pick up my niece from Olympic Park last night go to Hill Road at 11pm and was stuck in traffic for up to 2hrs as I picked up my niece it took us forever to get out of there back onto the M4 where it was smooth sailing from there didn't get home till around 1:30am this morning...traffic management was so bad people driving like they drive in India. No sense of courtesy to other drivers just cutting into to lanes...can't wait for the Metro and Light Rail stations to open so it can reduce the traffic congestion there during events
Agree the new transport options should help. But won't help in time for three more nights of Tay Tay there.
@@backtracks.channel Yeah that stressed me out to the max and was chewing petrol at hte same time...I really don't know why they had to block the main routes??
@@RAM_845 because they prioritise public transport over cars when there are big events at Olympic Park. You could have parked at Lidcombe or Strathfield, taken the train to OP and taken your niece on the train back to the car.
@@stephenpower8723 I could've but my sister insisted we drove...
My only issue with Stage 2 is the path through Ermington, specifically down Boronia and Hope streets, since Boronia St has MAJOR elevation differences (which you can see in most places along the west end of Boronia St at Spurway St). As well as Boronia St being a single carriageway residential street, I don't know how well it would cope with all the light rail traffic. (Just FYI I was a resident of (Southern) Ermington for the first 14 years of my life)
Thanks for the note. Yes there is quite a big gully in Ken Newman Park that the tram will need to go over a bridge there. And my guess is that much of the verge (which is wider than in most streets) on the north side of Boronia Street will be taken up by a widened road.
Good. But more interested in Stage 3, where the line is connected from Carlingford to Epping. At which point the line actually serves some purpose in the larger network, rather than a shuttle back and forth from the dormitory suburbs along the line to and from Parramatta.
Thanks. Yes the Epping connection is an clear one. Agree.
I have heard that Newcastle NSW is looking at putting trams back, hopefully not the same power system as currently used. Could you have a look at it in the future. My interest is because I grew up 100m from the former Wallsend terminus.
Thanks for watching. Good news. We made a video on Newcastle last year. Hope you enjoy it.
ruclips.net/video/9bH91LlJO_A/видео.htmlsi=3M0CX-1ylGU9HNbG
best bet is it will be expanded to Broadmeadow first, then maybe to Mereweather or Mayfield if it was gonna happen. But i don't see those 2 happening anytime soon
This new stage will require the Stage 1 tracks at Macquarie/Church Sts to be ripped up to provide the extension for the new terminus. Wonder how long this will take? Will it be done before Stage 1 starts operating? Not much time left LOL
Agree. Not a lot of foresight not to already build a turn back into stage 1.
Can you do a video about the gap between Carlingford station former train station, now light rail, and Epping train station and Metro intersection.
Very poor planning leaving this gap between 3 different transport types with such a relatively short distance between them.
Extend the light rail to Epping would be my suggestion.
yes quite intriguing that gap. The RUclips channel www.youtube.com/@BuildingBeautifully has done a good video on the subject of why the line never went past Carlingford.
Any information on whether the trams running down the quieter residential streets will be shared with vehicles like Melbourne or would they have designated tracks?
Good question. I haven't see the detailed layouts of how the light rail lines will go through these streets. (not sure if that has been made public as yet). I suspect they will try and keep trams and road traffic as separated as possible. I suspect much of the wide grassy verge on the north side of South Street and Boronia Streets will be taken up by a widened road to make for dedicated running. And Hill Road in Wentworth Point is pretty wide - if you include all the trees on the Western Side. So my guess is most of the line will run in a reservation while keeping pretty much the same lanes of traffic.. but this is all speculation on my behalf.
Hmm this will really mess up the easter show
i love your aussie accent.
Thanks and lucky! As that is the only accent I have :)
The streets in Rydalmere (Nowill st area) are unusually wide. Were they planned this way with future ligntrail through there in mind?😮
Ha, if only city planners thought that far ahead :) possibly why Rydalmere streets ended up being selected for the route.
Pretty sure the streets are extra wide because of water mains and gas main that run underground along South and Boronia St (and through the grass reservation).
The should continue to Strathfield via the DFO shopping centre
Yes agree that the end of the line a Carter Street feels a bit unfinished.. should go somewhere a bit more consequential. Not taking anything away from Carter Street as there is a lot of residential development there - and they will need good public transport (like all of us).
I just think that they need a light rail line to Bankstown and the hills instead of this and even stage 1
👍👍👍👍
Carlingford to epping is higher priority
yes what happened to that? Such a short distance but somehow hasnt been done after being promised for over ten years.
@@user-xg9qz5dr5v It may have been Building Beautifully or someone else, but I distinctly remember a video mentioning they'd built over the corridor meaning it will likely need to be tunneled.
So with all this street running being proposed, what happens to the vehicular traffic on those streets, another no man's land scenario or will the trams have to deal with cars sharing the same space?
Good question. I haven't see the detailed layouts of how the light rail lines will go through these streets. I suspect they will try and keep trams and road traffic as separated as possible. I suspect much of the wide grassy verge on the north side of South Street and Boronia Streets will be taken up by a widened road. And Hill Road in Wentworth Point is pretty wide - if you include all the trees on the Western Side. So my guess is most of the line will run in a reservation while keeping pretty much the same lanes of traffic.. but this is all speculation on my behalf.
the tram will 100% get its own dedicated right of way on the street running sections of the route
@@backtracks.channel so those residential streets you showed, South St and Boronia St which are just residential streets of average width, will be difficult to have a tram and road traffic share the roadway. Interesting to see what the solution is. Unless they acquire the large nature strip's to widen the road.
And also carparks getting demolished at rydalmere and melrose park.
@@harrygoldun5779 Sometimes a street gets made one-way. Depends how they want to configure it. Parking will go in lots of places naturally.
No doubt in 10yrs time it may have left Camellia.
Yes only time will tell!
still no trams for stage 1
There’s already a train service from parramatta to Olympic park. How about fixing new line road from Dural to Cherrybrook instead
Thanks for your thoughts.. Good question for the government!
There will be two train lines once the Sydney West metro is built plus the light rail. This line will service a hell of a lot more than OP though.
Why can't we use trackless battery trams to speed installation of the services? Put in demountable passenger and charging stops near where permanent stops are to be and get going on day 1. No overhead lines or rails to install or maintain.
Honestly I think trackless trams are a gadgetbahn. RMtransit has a good explainer video on why they're not that great.
ruclips.net/video/RjKG0Lw1uFc/видео.htmlsi=xr5I4fNUKPM4Lrnr
Stage 2 is meant to be an extension of stage 1 so it would be weird to have 2 complety different types of vehicles operating on what should be one network. Also considering that there's going to be 2 new bridges going over Parramatta River it's hard to justify that kind of expense (600 million for the Wentworth Point bridge alone) just to be running glorified buses.
@@plainoldpeter Weird IMO is fine if cheaper and faster to get it up and running with less disruption. They are not buses because the larger versions have articulated wheels at both ends just like a train and this means they can turn tighter than a bus or a train, and with rubber on the wheels they can negotiate much steeper grades than trains thus making them the more flexible option. They are also much quieter. People push back because its new tech, no other reason.
But would it really be faster and cheaper to get it up and running with less disruption? You still need:
2 new bridges over Parramatta River and a new bridge over Silverwater Rd.
Road widening and new roads for dedicated right of way. Also you need a stronger road surface since trackless trams are so heavy that they wear grooves into a normal road surface.
A brand new depot and drivers. No compatibility with the existing Parramatta light rail.
Charging infrastructure at each stop, I'm no expert but I expect this will involve high voltage cables and substations (do you install this at the permanent stop or the temporary stop?)
Other problems I can see are
Trackless trams have half the capacity of light rail (150 vs 300 people) so you need more drivers and more vehicles (increasing the long term cost of the system).
Trackless trams are a proprietary technology. If we invest in it we are stuck with one manufacturer. It's also a new and novel technology. It's a massive risk to take when spending taxpayers money.
Because the trackless trams use batteries rather than overhead wires they need to stop for a longer period at each stop, slowing down the overall trip time.
If we're going to be spending massive amounts of money on a public transport system it's needs to be a proven system that will last the test time rather than a quick cheap (or in this case cheaper but still expensive) fix. What we definitely don't need is a gadgetbahn that will be discarded in 20-30 years, looking at you sydney monorail.
@@plainoldpeter There's a lot of money involved in installing and then maintaining tracks, power reticulation and telecontrol systems over the life of a rail system. Battery trackless trams carry all that with the lead cars and are relatively simple to maintain. As far as it being a new technology, there are numerous trackless tram systems in the works for Australia so it won't be new for long, and it's not a proprietary technology in its basic form, ie: carriages, wheels, motors etc. There have even been advances since the first trackless trams where supercapacitors are being used to store enough power to get to the next stop where they are recharged in under a minute via the pantograph. Supercapacitors are expensive now so I expect batteries will still be used for the next few years.
Great video of a questionable project. I'm not convinced retrofitting Light rail is a good answer to many problems.
There will also be the Metro from Olympic Park to Parramatta/the City, and with the light rail also finishing near Olympic Park station, there will also the option of catching a train. And of course busses will still run, but they will no doubt adjust the routes. Plus we are getting 2 new river crossings, which is something that area needed.
Cheers!
Right, so if we have a metro and all the busses, then this is kind of redundant, especially considering how disruptive it is. A river crossing at Ermington will be nice, but the other one near Rydalmere does nothing. @@daveg2104
Since the metro won't stop between Parramatta and Olympic Park and Rosehill looking very shaky right now the purpose of the tram is to increase the catchment of the metro.
It's sole and primary purpose literally is to pick up passengers and dump them at Olympic Park, Parramatta and Westmead. That's it.
@@TomHommus Rosehill was an unsolicited proposal. It seems that some in the horse racing industry aren't happy about it. We shall see what happens.
And stage 2 of the Newcastle light rail ? lol - liberals last joke on NSW !