<html><body>
The entire 47.5km Regional Rail Link will become fully operational on Sunday June 21 with Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan today announcing the new timetable changes necessary for services to start using the entire line.

Amongst the highlights: the Geelong line will see an extra 200 services a week translating into a train near-on every 10 minutes in the morning peak departing Geelong for Southern Cross and the same in afternoon peaks departing Southern Cross for Geelong to cater for commuter demand. In off-peak periods trains will run every 20 minutes.

The Regional Rail link project, apart from the dedicated regional traffic tracks from Sunshine to Southern Cross, will link the Geelong line to the Ballarat line. Ballarat will see an extra service in the morning and afternoon peaks, Bacchus Marsh will have four extra services stop during peaks and Deer Park station will see services stop at that station every 20 minutes as opposed to every 2 hours at present.

Geelong services during the weekdays will have a few different categories of stopping patterns with stopping all stations (excluding Deer Park and Ardeer where Geelong line services will share track with but the services will be operated by the Ballarat line), semi-express and express.

According to the timetable <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://ptv.vic.gov.au/timetables/linemain/1745">now viewable on PTV's site</a>, the flagship express trains originate at Waurn Ponds and stop at every suburban Geelong station and upon departing the northern end of the Geelong metro at Lara, the trains will run non-stop to Sunshine with another archetypal 'drop off only' stop at Footscray before arriving at Southern Cross. End to end the journey is timetabled to take 1 hour 11 minutes from Geelong's south western extremity in Waurn Ponds to the city; Geelong to Southern Cross is timetabled at 56 minutes.

With an approximate distance of 80km from Geelong Station to Southern Cross via the Regional Rail Link and a timetabled journey of 56 minutes, that represents an average speed of 86kph.

There are two new stations inside Metropolitan Melbourne which will see regional services: Wyndham Vale station is set to see a 10 minute frequency of service in peaks, 20 minute service frequency in off-peak on weekdays and Tarneit will see 20 minute service frequencies in peak and off-peak.

Turning to the weekend timetables the new tracks will not see nowhere near as many trains per hour as they will during the weekdays with hourly stopping-all-station services the only fixture, excluding the two trains which originate in Warnambool, for both Saturdays and Sundays.

The journey time for stopping all stations trains from Geelong to Southern Cross is 1 hour and 2 minutes.

Perhaps the biggest Public Transport service change is occurring not on the rails but on the roads with an enormous bus service increase through Wyndham. Despite some 'neighbourhood' routes still squiggling their way through suburban back streets, when you <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Wyndham_2015_LAM.pdf">eyeball the Wyndham map</a> published on PTV's site a robust mesh of routes now exists between the two new Geelong line stations and Werribee, Hoppers Crossing and Williams Landing stations.

According to the summary of network changes on PTV's site, an extra 2300 bus trips will be made each week bringing the total up to 7900 from 6300.

Here's the last flyover video from August 2014 of the Regional Rail Link's posted on the project's website.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gcfFVpzp9JU?list=PLDAB91AC089894864" width="100%"></iframe>

Lead image credit: <a href="http://www.regionalraillink.vic.gov.au/">regionalraillink.vic.gov.au</a>
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Timetables for the Regional Rail Link announced

<html><body>
The business end of getting the Dandenong corridor grade separation project moving is nigh, with the month of June set to see the Government receive expressions of interest from interested parties to undertake the work.

The project will seek to remove the nine level crossings that are currently restricting train frequencies between Caulfield and Dandenong stations on the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines, the city's busiest. Similarly Spring Street wishes to have all nine level crossings removed as part of one larger project in order to gain synergies, allow work to be coordinated and have the individual crossings separated sooner according to a media release.

The nine roads to be grade separated are:

<ul>
<li>Grange Road, Carnegie</li>
	<li>Koornang Road, Carnegie</li>
	<li>Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena</li>
	<li>Poath Road, Murrumbeena</li>
	<li>Clayton Road, Clayton</li>
	<li>Centre Road, Clayton</li>
	<li>Corrigan Road, Noble Park</li>
	<li>Heatherton Road, Noble Park</li>
	<li>Chandler Road, Noble Park</li>
</ul>
Koornang Road, Murrumbeena Road, Poath Road and Clayton Road are adjacent to Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughesdale and Clayton stations respectively and as a result of grade separating the level crossings each of those four stations will also need to be rebuilt.

On June 2, the Level Crossing Removal Authority is hosting an industry briefing and expressions of interest will close toward the end of June. The Public Transport Minister's media release states works will commence in 2016 and be complete by 2018.

<h2>Comment</h2>

Three Frankston Line level crossings and stations, one Glen Waverley Line level crossing and station, five new stations as part of the Melbourne Metro Rail project and now four more stations as part of this Dandenong corridor project; there's currently a lot of design going on around rail stations at present.

In fact, the Pakenham and Cranbourne Lines will become station architectural tour in their own right - from the 1880s era so-called "MATH" (Malvern, Armadale, Toorak, Hawksburn) stations, to 1990s era slap-up-a-platform-and-a-shed stations of Cranbourne and Merinda Park - the two lines are going to be anything by architecturally ordinary when travelling on them from end to end.

It's for this reason - sheer volume of station rebuilds - that when designs are finalised and high-quality renders can be retrieved from the State Government, we're planning to expand our <a href="/developments">project database</a> to track each individual station through our normal data gathering process. Given the State Government aims to complete 20 level crossing removals in its first term, we're going to be busy.

<h2>Media release</h2>

<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_65759" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/266703762/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe>

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murrumbeena,_Victoria">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Spring Street kicks off Dandenong corridor level crossing removal project

<html><body>
The words East West Link are now synonymous with the lacklustre freeway project whose first stage was set to connect the Eastern Freeway with the Tullamarine Freeway. It took a state election and new government on Spring Street to expose the project as one propped up by shaky economic benefits.

The new State Government has cancelled the contracts for the East West Road Link and conducted a blitzkrieg of announcements relating to public transport and its flagship level-crossing removal program. The East West Road Link in its previous form may be dead, but it certainly won't be buried if the road and freight lobbyists decide to ark up once more.

Likewise in the planning sphere Spring Street is entering into a new round of community consultation on Fishermans Bend - the new Government has even expanded the area to include all the land which lies to the north of the West Gate Freeway.

By itself Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area is going to dominate the urban development scene Australia for decades to come. Throw in E-Gate, Arden-Macaulay (which is sure to be back on the radar now thanks to the Melbourne Metro Rail project) and former industrial areas in South Kensington and the picture becomes a lot clearer - both Labor and Liberal parties and their respective planning policies and flagship projects have consistently shown a preference for ongoing redevelopment of central Melbourne and the pipeline is now completely mind-boggling.

As I <a href="/news/fishermans-bend-transport-fast-frequent-and-automated">wrote last month</a>, the Fishermans Bend review should not just focus on previously aired concerns about building heights and community facilities, but it should focus heavily on how people will access the precinct; not just from a CBD-centric point of view but from the West as well.

<h2>Doncaster and Fishermans Bend: two birds with one stone?</h2>

Despite the East West Road Link project being dead, the amount of traffic on the road which spews into the inner-north is anything but dead.

The end concept for Doncaster which came about as a result of Ballieu/Napthine Government's Doncaster Rail study was to have a branch line built off the Clifton Hill line which would run down the median of the Eastern Freeway and have it stop short at the Doncaster Park and Ride, not the centre of Doncaster on top of the hill.

The major caveat, as a result from the study, was that a new tunnel would need to be built from Clifton Hill to Southern Cross and eventually Fishermans bend in order to divert one of the existing rail lines which run in the Clifton Hill corridor so a paltry 7 trains an hour could run on the future Doncaster Line.

Most interestingly <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PDFs/projects/Doncaster-rail-study-Final-recommendations-report-PTVs-response.pdf">the report said</a> that only 2% of the project patronage on the line would come from people who are currently travelling by private vehicle.

It's this area I'm most interested in because the preferred alignment from the study stopped short of the major Doncaster activities centre and likewise didn't serve any new areas in the inner north, the area in which the original East West Link Needs Assessment (EWLNA) study said much of the Eastern Freeway's traffic is destined for.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/eastern_freeway_traffic_destinations_2006_ew_needs_report.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Destinations of traffic beyond leaving the end of the Eastern Freeway, EWLNA Report"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="554" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/eastern_freeway_traffic_destinations_2006_ew_needs_report.png?itok=XuuPzyV6" title="Destinations of traffic beyond leaving the end of the Eastern Freeway, EWLNA Report" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Destinations of traffic beyond leaving the end of the Eastern Freeway, EWLNA Report</figcaption></figure>As <a href="/news/new-rail-technology-alstoms-axonis-light-metro">discussed last week</a>, expanding our rail network to a specification that allows any existing rolling stock to run on new lines is an incredibly expensive job and we are shooting ourselves in the foot by not looking for cheaper alternatives which can effectively do the same job and better.

<h2>The East West Rail Link</h2>

Expanding on the Fishermans Bend piece from last month, I've created a new map to illustrate the broad idea of a complete cross-town East West Rail Link utilising infrastructure features that are more favourable when using a vendor's light metro platform.

From West to East, the same principles in Fishermans Bend apply: The Altona and Williamstown branches would be converted and starting at Newport station a new elevated line would lead onto a new Lower Yarra bridge and run on an elevated alignment adjacent to the West Gate Freeway up until Ingles Street in Fishermans Bend. After Ingles Street I've drawn three different tunnel alignments:

<ul>
<li>Green: this partially mimics what was released in the PTV's heavy rail plan. One major negative of this kind of alignment is that services which would run in Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel would have poor connectivity to the new East West Rail link (as South Eastern residents would be required to connect in Parkville).</li>
	<li>Blue: Essentially the same as the Yellow tunnel, however it would connect with the South Morang/Hurstbridge lines at Clifton Hill rather than Victoria Park.</li>
	<li>Yellow: the one tunnel I'm focusing on. It has 1 underground station in Fishermans Bend, 1 underground station in Fitzroy and an open-cut station at Victoria Park. 3 interchange stations are located at Southern Cross, CBD South / Flinders Street (under Collins Street) and at Parliament where the station's footprint would be extended all the way to Alexandra Parade and St. Vincent's Hospital</li>
</ul>
Beyond the inner-city tunnels the line would follow the Eastern Freeway median where there's two alternatives - a 4.5km tunnel under Kew and North Balwyn - or continuing along the Eastern Freeway median and then onto an elevated structure between Thompsons Road and Doncaster Road on the northern side of the outbound lanes on the Eastern Freeway.

In both Eastern Freeway scenarios the line would run in the Doncaster Road median on an elevated structure up to Doncaster Hill / Doncaster Shopping Centre.

<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zLzjYwjjDBk0.kl9Zs8oP_PjQ">The map</a>

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=zLzjYwjjDBk0.kl9Zs8oP_PjQ&amp;ll=-37.8284973,144.92428064&amp;z=13" width="100%"></iframe>

Blue and yellow circles represent 800m as-the-crow-flies radius around stations.

Times between points - Yellow CBD routing and East Kew-Balwyn North tunnel (Red) routing; assumes an average speed of 40kph.

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th>Journey</th>
			<th>Metro Distance</th>
			<th>Metro Time</th>
			<th>Current PTV journey time</th>
			<th>Notes</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Longer-distance/commuter trips</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Doncaster to CBD South / Flinders Street</td>
			<td>16.5km</td>
			<td>25-26 minutes</td>
			<td>34 minutes</td>
			<td>Current journey: 907 Smartbus from Doncaster SC to Melbourne Central (Swanston/Lonsdale Streets)</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Newport to CBD South / Flinders Street</td>
			<td>8.5km</td>
			<td>13-14 minutes</td>
			<td>19 minutes</td>
			<td>Current journey: Williamstown/Werribee Line direct to Flinders Street via Footscray</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Williamstown to CBD South / Flinders Street</td>
			<td>12.1km</td>
			<td>18-19 minutes</td>
			<td>28 minutes</td>
			<td>Current journey: Williamstown Line direct to Flinders Street via Footscray</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Laverton to CBD South / Flinders Street</td>
			<td>20.2km</td>
			<td>30-31 minutes</td>
			<td>29 minutes</td>
			<td>Current journey: Werribee Line on the express route bypassing Altona</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Altona to CBD South / Flinders Street</td>
			<td>15km</td>
			<td>22-23 minutes</td>
			<td>38 minutes</td>
			<td>Current journey: Branch line, requires change of train at Newport</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Short distance/CBD South-Flinders Street connecting journeys</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>CBD South / Flinders Street to Lorimer</td>
			<td>3km</td>
			<td>4-5 minutes</td>
			<td>-</td>
			<td>Stops at Southern Cross en route.</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>CBD South / Flinders Street to Wirraway</td>
			<td>4km</td>
			<td>6-7 minutes</td>
			<td>-</td>
			<td>Stops at Southern Cross en route.</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>CBD South / Flinders Street to Todd Road</td>
			<td>5.3km</td>
			<td>8-9 minutes</td>
			<td>-</td>
			<td>Stops at Southern Cross en route.</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>CBD South / Flinders Street to Fitzroy</td>
			<td>2.6km</td>
			<td>4-5 minutes</td>
			<td>15 minutes</td>
			<td>Stops at Parliament en route. Current journey: number 12 tram from Collins Street / Town Hall Stop to Brunswick/Johnston Streets</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>CBD South / Flinders Street to Victoria Park</td>
			<td>4.1km</td>
			<td>6-7 minutes</td>
			<td>18 minutes</td>
			<td>Stops at Parliament en route. Current journey: South Morang line (via loop), Parliament to Victoria Park timetabled at 11 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Other journey distances / journey times</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Newport to Victoria Park (traversing the inner city)</td>
			<td>13km</td>
			<td>19-20 minutes</td>
			<td>35-38 minutes</td>
			<td>Current journey: Williamstown/Werribee Line and South Morang Line, change of train at Southern Cross.</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Doncaster to Victoria Park</td>
			<td>12km</td>
			<td>18 minutes</td>
			<td>16 minutes</td>
			<td>Current journey: 907 Smart bus from Doncaster SC to Johnston/Hoddle Streets</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Doncaster to Fitzroy</td>
			<td>13.7km</td>
			<td>20-21 minutes</td>
			<td>34 minutes</td>
			<td>Current journey: 207 Bus from Doncaster SC to Johnston/Brunswick Streets (or 907 as above + 10-15 minute walk)</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
End to End: Laverton to Doncaster</td>
			<td>36.7km</td>
			<td>55 minutes</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
End to End: Williamstown to Doncaster</td>
			<td>28.6km</td>
			<td>43 minutes</td>
			<td> </td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>A comparison with Sydney's North West Rail Link</h2>

The first stage of Sydney's Rapid Transit network which will operate independently of Sydney's existing rail network is remarkably similar in scale to what I've outlined above. Excluding the converted lines south of Newport, the "new" section of this line has the following particulars (I've summarised much of the information on the NWRL in the <a href="/news">forum</a>):

<ul>
<li>Total length: 22.5km versus Sydney's NWRL: 23km.</li>
	<li>Total tunnel length: 12.3km (7.5km through city, 4.8km in Kew/Balwyn) versus NWRL: 15km
	<ul>
<li>Contract 1 for the NWRL is valued at $1.1 billion and the scope relates to the civil works for the tunnels and associated stations on the new section of the line.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>Total at grade length: 4.6km in the Eastern Freeway median</li>
	<li>Total elevated length: 8km (5.5km from Newport to Lorimer (a large portion of this would be a high bridge across the Lower Yarra), 2.5km from Doncaster Park and Ride to Doncaster Hill/SC) versus NWRL: 4km
	<ul>
<li>Contract 2 awarded for NWRL was for the 'skytrain' section and the value was $340 million - it is not clear if this also includes a further 4km worth of civil works for track and stations which are in a cutting / at grade.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>13 stations in total: 8 brand new, 5 interchange with a maintenance and operations centre built at the existing Newport workshops area. NWRL will have 8 new stations and 5 existing stations converted.
	<ul>
<li>Contract 3 is the largest weighing in at $3.7 billion and it relates to the fit-out of new stations, installation of rail equipment and control systems, procuring vehicles, building a maintenance and operations facility, converting 13km of existing railway for Rapid Transit use as well as operating the services for 15 years.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Yes, we need another study</h2>

…just with a different kind of rail technology in mind.

While much of the above talks heavily about the section east of Flinders Street, I am still of the firm view that Fishermans Bend will be the honeypot where benefits are derived. Multiple decades of design and construction activity and jobs as well as tens of billions of dollars worth of end-value redevelopment over that timeframe should warrant a proper rapid transit line through the heart of the precinct from the city to the inner West.

The review of the Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan currently underway should place just as much emphasis on transport needs as traditional community needs and lay the foundation for a new study to be financed in one of the state budgets in this government's first term.

PTV's heavy rail plan released under the previous government alluded to both a second cross-city line and a Doncaster line except they would not have been connected. The findings of the Doncaster Rail study should be looked at once again under a scenario where both original plans are inter-connected with stations located in Fitzroy and Victoria Park (rather than just a connection at Collingwood).

Post Melbourne Metro Rail project, the State Government should be calling time on building new $1 billion-per-kilometre inner city rail lines and look to solutions and rail technology that are cheaper to build and cheaper to operate, just like what the Baird Government in New South Wales is doing.

Modern light metro systems have the capability to compete on capacity against any individual existing (or soon to be upgraded) line in Melbourne and driver-less operation adds all important flexibility to a rail line so that supply can quickly meet demand wherever it is needed.

Alstom's Axonis and Bombardier's Innovia Metro turn-key infrastructure + systems + rolling stock rail solutions would provide the same capacity as a conventional rail line but it would be done with smaller stations, shorter trains, more flexibility and most importantly more frequent services.

These systems - thanks to their lower implementation and operational costs - point toward a more positive impact when it comes to assessing costs and benefits. For the sake of Fishermans Bend's long-term viability and development potential, for the sake of lost productivity due to congestion on the West Gate Bridge and Eastern Freeway and for the sake of the people with long commute times to the city from both east and west, we need to get on with it.

Lead image credit: <a href="http://skytrainforsurrey.org/tag/bombardier-innovia-art/page/2/">skytrainsforsurrey.org</a>
</body></html>

Turning the East West Road Link into a rail link

<html><body>
<h2>Data portal now available</h2>

See our data portal launch article for more information.

<h2>Call for expressions of interest</h2>

For over two years, Apartments.com.au's project database has been the destination for tracking urban development across metropolitan Melbourne. This information will never be placed behind a paywall, as the data is too important to be locked up. It is and will always available at <a href="/developments">https://urban.melbourne/projectdatabase</a>

We have received multiple requests for raw project data to be made available in more easily manipulable formats for analytic purposes, and with an eye toward taking the project database to the next level, today we're putting out a broad call for expressions of interest in a new subscription-based data product.

<h2>Our vision</h2>

A more frequently updated and greatly expanded database of urban development projects around metropolitan Melbourne.

<h2>The product</h2>

In a nutshell, the Apartments.com.au project database will be distributed in a comma separated values (CSV) file on a fortnightly basis to paid subscriber's inboxes. We will export and distribute all project data to subscribers on Monday mornings.

Every piece of data we have on a project will be included except renders - owing to impracticalities of sending hundreds of thumbnail-sized images in a single email; we will include the URL for each project so subscribers can quickly and easily view the render(s) for the respective project if they wish.

Each fortnight the CSV file will consist of the complete database encompassing and highlighting new entries and changes that have been made to individual projects over the previous 7 days.

For the first time, UM staff notes/commentary on each project will be made available within the raw data. Subscribers will be observing what we observe over time as we visit construction sites, council planning offices or when information is provided to us directly.

<h2>The price</h2>

$100 per month or $1000 per year - plus GST.

Sole traders/consultants, small, medium and large-sized firms, academic institutions, government departments, local councils, other media organisations, research firms, any interested party: one flat price.

To be clear: the license that will be associated with the weekly distributions will, among other things, emphasise the data is to be used for analytical purposes and it will not grant the subscriber the right to fully replicate our database on the public web.

<h2>The future</h2>

As our subscriber base grows we will employ more dedicated resources for information gathering and therefore have a greater ability to expand the type of data we aggregate.

<h2>Where to now?</h2>

The data portal is now available for subscription. See our data portal launch article for more information.

<h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2>

What is your data gathering methodology?

The Apartments.com.au project database simply aggregates public domain information.

Our primary source of data is planning applications and we are limited to the information contained within them unless information over and above what's included in a planning application is provided to us by developers, architects or sales agents. We monitor online sources - primarily local and state planning websites, in addition to face to face meetings with planning officials, developers, architects and the like. On some occasions we will create a bare-bones shell listing on the database if we observe data from another online source.

That's the process we've followed since the site went live and we now have 715 individual projects from right across the metropolitan area.

How frequently is the data updated?

The primary updates which occur to projects in the database are when projects transition through different statuses. We use the following project statuses:

<ul>
<li>Planning Assessment. When we cite a project's planning application either online or at a local council/state government planning office, a project starts its journey on our database with a planning assessment status.</li>
	<li>Approved. Once Council or Spring Street have signed off on a planning application for a development, the project is transitioned to approved. This is confirmed by citing council meeting minutes and register either online, at the local office or if we are informed of a decision.</li>
	<li>Registrations &amp; Sales. When a developer begins marketing their project - be it offshore or onshore - the project transitions to registration &amp; sales.</li>
	<li>Under Construction. As soon as we see a development site being cleared or prepared for construction, the respective entry on the database will transition to this status.</li>
	<li>Completed. The final status - these projects are not currently displayed in the project database (because it is no longer a project, it is a building!). The fortnightly distributions will include a seaparate tab of completed projects - this will be limited to only the projects that have been completed since we started tracking development two and a half years ago.</li>
</ul>
Each fortnightly distribution will be the entire published database and will prioritise and highlight new and updated entries along with any notes/commentary which explains the updates in more detail.

The frequency of project updates is limited to our ability to monitor multiple sources and up and until this point it has been shared among key UM staff as needed. The subscription revenue we receive will allow us to employ dedicated resources therefore increasing the frequency and quality of updates as well as allow us to expand the scope of data that we collect over time.

What criteria is used?

We track medium and high-density multi-level development right across the metropolitan area. The rule of thumb we use is that the database will include any residential, commercial or institutional project which consists of buildings which have three or more levels.

We do not as a general rule include townhouse projects (as they're more than likely to fall outside the scope of our three level rule) - however townhouse projects will make it into the database if they form part of a larger multi-level residential development.

We do not track detached housing projects on greenfields sites - we will add any multi-level apartment projects which may be located within those areas however.

How we count levels / floors / storeys in a building: the floor which contains the main entry to the building is the first level and the floor above the ground level is the second floor and so on - a building which has 4 levels above the ground level is a 5 level building.

What attributes are collected? How comprehensive is it?

Here's a list of attributes we have available, note: not every attribute is applicable to every project.

<ul>
<li>Project Name. By default project names are the street address and suburb until such a point where a project name is known, e.g. "<a href="/buildings/australia-108-southbank-70-southbank-boulevard-southbank">Australia 108 - 70 Southbank Boulevard, Southbank</a>".</li>
	<li>Project Status.</li>
	<li>Renders. The images will not be included in the fortnightly distributions, the project's URL will be included to enable quick/easy access to view them.</li>
	<li>Building Type.
	<ul>
<li>Low-rise. 1-5 levels</li>
		<li>Mid-rise. 6-12 levels</li>
		<li>High-rise. above 13 levels</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>Building Use.
	<ul>
<li>Residential</li>
		<li>Commercial</li>
		<li>Transportation</li>
		<li>Institutional</li>
		<li>Mixed-use</li>
		<li>Retail</li>
		<li>Hotel.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>Local Government Area (we further break City of Melbourne down in to precincts like CBD West End, Southbank, Docklands etc; City of Port Phillip is likely to have the same treatment as planning applications increase throughout Fishermans Bend).</li>
	<li>Architect.</li>
	<li>Developer.</li>
	<li>Builder. Builder name is only available when a project is in Registration &amp; Sales or Under Construction status.</li>
	<li>Number of buildings</li>
	<li>Number of floors</li>
	<li>Building heights - metres. Not all these fields are applicable to every project but we currently have the capacity to capture these heights from planning applications if they exist.
	<ul>
<li>Roof height</li>
		<li>Architectural height</li>
		<li>Antenna height</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>Amenities.</li>
	<li>Number of dwellings. Total number of residential units in a project.</li>
	<li>Net Leasable Area (NLA). Used only on commercial projects.</li>
	<li>Other dimensional information.</li>
	<li>Nearby Public Transport.</li>
	<li>Bike spaces.</li>
	<li>Car spaces.</li>
	<li>Structured location Information. This information is used for the project name, however we also store it in a structured way for easy searchability.
	<ul>
<li>Street Address</li>
		<li>Suburb</li>
		<li>Postcode</li>
	</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Based on feedback received so far, the following attributes have been requested be added to our road map:

<ul>
<li>More structure around Other Dimensional Information. At present this is a free-form field which can contain multiple attributes and it has been requested that this field perhaps be broken down into searchable attributes like development site size (in square metres).</li>
	<li>Add new height (and depth) aspects of the building: podium height, basement level depth.</li>
	<li>Add number of floors below the surface (i.e basement floor count).</li>
	<li>Break down the total number of residential units in a project. Number of 1 bedroom units, 2 bedroom units, 3 bedroom units as well as capture the average size for each unit type.</li>
</ul>
We will continue to assess the viability of capturing this suggested data and will build a road map once the expression of interest period ends.

As we add attributes to our existing dataset we may not be able to add historical data to projects which have been added in the past - it will be dependent on original planning application information still being readily available / if we can obtain the information from another source. Once we've established our baseline and settled on our roadmap, we'll include the new attributes in new projects that are added.

How much data will be updated with each distribution?

The fortnightly distribution that will land in subscriber's inboxes every second Monday will include all new projects and updates that have been added to the database up until close of business on the Friday the week before.

Reflecting the urban industry at large we expect peaks and troughs will be present in the distributions: there may only be minimal change in one fortnight yet in other fortnights there will be a much greater volume. This will be dependent on the business cycle and likewise if we add new attributes to the database, subscribers should expect increased volume over a series of distributions in the latter case.

We will monitor this and assess whether the delivery frequency should be increased.

Will we be able to publish periodical analysis of the data contained in the distributions?

Yes. In fact we encourage other media outlets, think-tanks, academic institutions or any other organisation which publishes information on the public web to subscribe and set your data journalists/analysts to work - we'll be interested in reading your analysis! We would request that any organisation who may be thinking of going down this path quote the source of the data as coming from Apartments.com.au.

We will not allow total replication of our database - with all the individual attributes in granular form - to be published on another public website.
</body></html>

Call for expressions of interest: Urban.com.au Project Database subscription

<html><body>
The Minister for Public Transport, Jacinta Allan, has announced that South Yarra station will not receive extra underground platforms as part of the Melbourne Metro Rail (MMR) project owing to costs ranging from $700 million up to $970 million under differing scenarios.

The media release distributed on Friday morning cites a cost-benefit ratio of between 0.20 and 0.33 and thus deems the overall outcome as being "very poor". A ratio of less than 1 means net public benefits are lower than the amount paid to build the infrastructure.

The MMR tunnel is to run from South Kensington through Arden, Parkville, the CBD, Domain interchange and join the existing Caulfield group of lines to the south of South Yarra station and one option for an expanded South Yarra station was to locate the underground platforms 200 metres away which attracted a price tag of $700 million.

The Minister's media release further states that in the above scenario 100 properties would need to be removed in order for the station to be built.

Under another scenario, building underground platforms closer to the existing station, the price tag rises to just shy of a billion dollars and would have required the removal of 82 homes and half of the Jam Factory.

<h2>Comment</h2>

So there we have it: a price on expanding South Yarra station from 6 platforms to 8. In the most ideal scenario of locating the new platforms closer to the existing station it would cost upwards of $1 billion. Fair game, I wouldn't want to argue that price is justified either.

The focus on how passengers are going to change between lines now shifts further down the line to Caulfield, a station which hasn't rated much mention in discussion around the MMR project or the level-crossing removal program for the Dandenong line.

Assuming the current stopping pattern for all Pakenham / Cranbourne line trains will remain in place once the MMR project is complete - that is Malvern, Armadale, Toorak and Hawksburn won't see Pakenham/Cranbourne trains stop there - the focus for transfers with the Frankston line centres on Caulfield station.

The first concern for Caulfield, given it's future prominence being enhanced with the completion of the MMR project, is how well the station's ramps comply with accessible public transport standards. If memory serves correctly Caulfield has been highlighted as a concern for accessibility compliance in the past. Likewise the pedestrian subway located underneath the tracks immediately to the west of the station platforms has a train speed restriction.

Furthermore as anyone who frequently uses the Pakenham / Cranbourne Line will be aware of, as trains pull into and out of Caulfield station, the convoluted track layout which forms a complex junction between the Dandenong and Frankston corridors to the east of the station, coupled with curved platforms and an ageing pedestrian subway mandate that trains slow down at a greater distance from the station than what would otherwise be necessary if the rail infrastructure was streamlined.

All in all, despite the disappointment that South Yarra station will not be a full interchange between lines, the costs cited are a significant benchmark and are likely to be used in the years to come if and when new rail lines are proposed across dense inner city areas where roads are narrow and property acquisition requirements go through the roof.

In today's piece by Adam Carey in <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/new-underground-station-for-south-yarra-ruled-out-in-rail-tunnel-plans-20150514-gh1swk">The Age</a>, he notes that the 5 new stations are to be built with capacity increases in mind; each station will have 230 plus metre platforms which could fit 9 car trains in future (Melbourne trains currently run in 6 car configurations) and this is reported to be the primary reason why building two new platforms at South Yarra is uneconomical.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case and after seeing the South Yarra station numbers it's time this was put to bed.

Expansion of our rail network - like the Clifton Hill-Fishermans Bend tunnel from the 2013 PTV heavy rail plan - is going to be prohibitively expensive if Government insists on total system inter-operability; not to mention we'd fail to take full advantage of the innovation that has been proven in cities around the world when it comes to building new transit lines.

Media release in full:

<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_92661" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/265377068/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe>

Lead image credit: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yarra_railway_station">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Comment: South Yarra platforms for Melbourne Metro Rail ruled out

<html><body>
Railways are the freeways of the public transport world. They consume enormous amounts of capital during design and construction phases and require regular maintenance once operational. Comparatively speaking, both railways and freeways allow for the fastest journeys to be made and they also have the highest scope for increasing capacity to transport people around cities in their respective purviews.

In isolation both types of transport modes will have varying degrees of usefulness to cities and thanks to the shemozzle that has been the past twelve months in big ticket transport projects in Victoria, at a high level we now know both types of projects have a similar cost to build, especially when tunneling is involved.

East West Link's eastern section was priced around the $1 billion a kilometre mark and the Melbourne Metro Rail (MMR) project is similarly costed around the $1 billion mark. The benefits of the MMR project are to be felt across 100km of railway line between Pakenham/Cranbourne and Sunbury but at a very high level; one that is no doubt easily understood by the wider public, six lanes of freeway in a tunnel is roughly the same price (on a per kilometre basis) as two rail way tracks in tunnels.

If we assume the cost-benefit ratio of the Melbourne Metro Rail project will be similar to that of the same project Infrastructure Australia assessed a few years ago then we know that the Victorian public is going to derive a positive return out of investing in Melbourne Metro Rail as opposed to the East West Link.

But by the same token, we shouldn't gloss over how incredibly expensive expanding our existing rail system to the same specifications as our existing network is.

<h2>Should we continue doing this with newer railways?</h2>

There comes a point where someone has to say - and I'm not the first - new branch lines (Ballieu/Napthine Government studies into <a href="/new-apartments/rowville-vic-3178">Rowville</a> and <a href="/new-apartments/doncaster-vic-3108">Doncaster</a>) or entirely new rail lines (such as orbital lines) is going to be prohibitively expensive and inevitably result in long delays between projects.

Yes, we could implement a value-capture regimes around new and improved public transport infrastructure to help recover the cost of building new or expanding railways. We could also raise money by applying specific levies broadly across a geographic area, on businesses or residents. All quite legitimate.

However why raise that money to pay for, all intents and purposes, legacy infrastructure? Targeted value-capture regimes and broad-based levies should be the weapon in the arsenal that allows us to build railway infrastructure in greater volume, not simply be used to pay a high price for an expanded network that would allow interoperability between existing and new railway lines.

<h2>Breaking with tradition</h2>

Sydney has started to break with traditional railways construction with the advent of the North West Rail Link. They're going back to the future and ditching the idea of building a new line that would work with existing rolling stock, signalling systems and rail operations. The line will do away with train drivers altogether and be operated remotely.

The headline price is $8.3 billion dollars yet it includes 22km of new track (15km of which is in tunnels), eight new stations and the conversion of the existing tunnels from <a href="/new-apartments/epping-vic-3076">Epping</a> to <a href="/new-apartments/chatswood-nsw-2067">Chatswood</a> to support <a href="http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/metropolis/">Alstom's Metropolis</a> class trains and associated signalling and safe working system that will operate the services once construction is complete.

It's a bit unfair to compare directly to the MMR project as the North West Rail Link is located outside Sydney's city centre and the MMR is right in the middle of ours; but the ​freely available data on the different components of the NWRL could prove very useful should any state government re-look at Doncaster and Rowville; both of which I'd argue are very similar projects to the NWRL.

<h2>But wait, there's more</h2>

Back in May 2013, Alstom launched its Axonis 'light-metro' solution. Axonis is the name given to an integrated solution which includes using trains from its Metropolis product suite, a slim profile viaduct / elevated guideway structure designed by Alstom's construction subsidiary Bouygues, a power supply system, a track laying system and Alstom's new 'Urbalis' communications-based train control system.

The <a href="http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transport/Resources/Documents/brochure2014/Axonis%20-%20Brochure%20-%20EN.pdf?epslanguage=en-GB">marketing material for Axonis</a> includes the following figures:

<ul>
<li>Viaduct/guideway is 6.8 metres wide (a little more than the width of two car lanes). To compare to the North West Rail Link, its elevated "<a href="http://nwrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/The-Project/Skytrain#2">skytrain</a>" section is reportedly to have a width of 11 metres.

	<ul>
<li>The difference in width in this scenario can be put down to the design of Axonis: evacuation, if required, will be through the front/read of the trains, not onto a walkway beside the track which will span the length of the viaduct in the NWRL's case.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>Track is designed to be 10-14 metres above ground in an elevated scenario and the pylons which will support the viaduct have a diameter of 1.6 metres. This could fit in many different arterial road medians around Melbourne.</li>
	<li>Most interestingly the design has a minimum curve radius of 45 metres. It would impact speed and therefore journey time if many of these tiny curves were present along any route but it demonstrates high flexibility when it comes to installing the viaduct in built up areas above road medians.</li>
	<li>The trains are designed to be powered by a third rail system thus reducing the overall visual impact of the viaduct (no overhead catenary protruding above the rail deck); one assumes there's a safety protocol which would shut the power off should evacuation of the trains be required!</li>
	<li>The track configuration is an international standard. We call it standard gauge around these parts and it can run through a tunnel or on the surface if required, on impressive 6% grades as well.</li>
	<li>The Metropolis class trains are 2.7m wide (compared to Melbourne trains: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Nexas">Siemens</a> (2.95m), <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%27Trapolis_100">X'Trapolis</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comeng_(train)">Comeng</a> (3.05m)) and run in two, three, four or five car lengths. Each car is 18m long (compared to 24m in existing Melbourne trains)
	<ul>
<li>Each car is reportedly able to carry a maximum of 200 passengers with a very squeezy crush capacity of six passengers per square metre.</li>
		<li>A five car train would have a crush capacity of 900-1000 passengers and be a total length of 90m compared to a similar crush capacity across existing trains on Melbourne's train network which measure approximately 145 metres.</li>
		<li>The Urbalis train control system utilised in this type of setup is reported to allow headways of 60 seconds to be achieved.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>Overall the system is designed to carry between 10,000 passengers per hour per direction in a two car train configuration and up to 45,000 passengers per hour per direction in a five car train configuration.</li>
</ul>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j16upiZyO0w" width="100%"></iframe>

One thing that sets this total transit solution apart from many others like it, Alstom offer this on non-proprietary terms, meaning owners of the system are not locked into a specific vendor when they need to extend the track or upgrade, replace or expand the number of train vehicles.

​Although the name is not mentioned, it appears <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Metro">Riyadh's new six line, 176km long metro system</a> is to be the first system at least in part built utilising all the components that Alstom brings together under the Axonis brand. In a 2013 <a href="http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2013/7/alstom-awarded-a-turnkey-metro-project-by-the-city-of-riyadh-in-the-kingdom-of-saudi-arabia/">media release</a>, Alstom announced it had won the contract to equip three of the six lines with its system at a cost of €6 billion.

A <a href="http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/-riyadh-metro-saudi-arabia/">Railway-Technology article</a> provides a little more information on the Riyadh project, key among the features listed is that the tunnels which will be built on the three lines which Alstom is directly involved in will have a diameter of 10m, a single tunnel bore catering for two tracks. Sydney's North West Rail Link will be built with <a href="http://nwrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/The-Project/Tunnelling#2">twin six metre internal diameter tunnels</a>.

Comparing construction costs between Saudi Arabia and Australia is naturally fraught with danger (I recommend reading Alan Davies' <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/02/15/why-do-subways-cost-so-much-to-build-here-than-elsewhere/">thoughts on the comparison of rail construction costs</a>) but it appears everything about the Axonis 'package' is highly targeted at all the cities which don't currently have a traditional heavy rail metro and are looking to cost effective solutions to bringing more rapid transit to the masses. That's us.

All of the above, on paper at least, point to likely lower construction and operational costs compared to our existing rail system given the Axonis (and other systems like it from other vendors) is driverless, light-weight and involves smaller stations compared to the size of stations on Melbourne's existing rail network and the enormous stations that are reportedly to be built for Melbourne Metro Rail.

Employing turn-key rail systems like this to mooted (PTV or otherwise) new rail lines could possibly shift the economics and therefore cost-benefit ratios to an even more positive level.

Is it time to re-think the way we want to expand our rail network?

Lead image credit: Alstom.
</body></html>

New rail technology: Alstom's Axonis light metro

<html><body>
It's a prime CBD site that has been under constant redevelopment ever since the 1850s and this decade is set to be no different. The Minister for Creative Industries, Martin Foley, announced in the last week of April that the State Library of Victoria (SLV) will receive $55.4 million dollars in the upcoming State Budget which will see a further 1,000 square metres of public-use space opened up.

The Library is also set to receive a further $28 million in philanthropic support and when that money is combined with the State Government contribution, the SLV plans to re-open the Russell Street entrance, create dedicated children and youth learning space, improve conference facilities and create a centre for digital media.

The SLV looks also set to be a hotspot for entrepreneurship as spaces for hot-desking and collaboration will be included in the library post redevelopment.

Accompanying the development announcement, the SLV has uploaded two videos to its Youtube channel. One video takes us on a journey through the evolution of the site from the 1850s and the other video is a profile of the next chapter of redevelopment. Check them both out:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/prIIBRk4KH8" width="100%"></iframe>

From the <a href="http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/redevelopment-project">SLV's site</a> they key outcomes on the next chapter of redevelopment are:

<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Restoring historic Queen’s Hall as a public reading room and building new rooftop garden terrace.</li>
	<li>Reopening the Russell Street entrance alongside a new major exhibition space, as well as cafe, retail and visitor services.</li>
	<li>Establishing an innovation hub that incorporates a centre for entrepreneurship to support Victorian enterprises, and a centre for digital media with e-Town Hall facilities to provide access to the latest communication technologies and connect with regional centres and public libraries across the state.</li>
	<li>Creating new dedicated spaces for children and young learners to support families in fostering early literacy and a love of reading.</li>
	<li>Reconfiguring the dome annulus galleries into open-access collection areas with more study spaces and a VIP lounge.</li>
	<li>Refurbishing the theatre and conference facilities to meet industry standards.</li>
	<li>Relocating staff office areas to open up more public space.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0QuJXxIR02s" width="100%"></iframe>

Lead image credit: SLV. <a href="http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/redevelopment-project">See the full gallery</a> of redevelopment renders.
</body></html>

The next chapter in the State Library of Victoria's long lifetime

<html><body>
Tollway operator Transurban has announced via <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150430/pdf/42y7czz5nfrj9h.pdf">a market announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange</a> that it has won approval from the Victorian Government to proceed to stage 3 assessment under Spring Street's 'market-led proposal interim guidelines'.

In a nutshell, the Transurban proposal is to widen the existing West Gate Freeway between the 'Western Gateway' (the junction of the M1 and M80 freeways) and the West Gate bridge; construct a tunnel portal near the Williamstown Road interchange with a tunnel running under Yarraville to another portal on the West bank of the Maribyrnong river; and have a bridge traverse the Maribyrnong and then the road would run on an elevated structure above Footscray Road to the eastern side of Citylink.

The proposal from Transurban is one of the first projects to be made public under Spring Street's <a href="http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/Publications/Infrastructure-Delivery-publications/Market-led-Proposals-Interim-Guideline/Market-led-Proposals-Interim-Guideline">market-led proposal interim guidelines</a>. At the time of writing, the <a href="http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/Infrastructure-Delivery/Market-led-proposals">register of projects</a> which under the interim guidelines is supposed to be updated as projects complete phase 2 has not been updated, however Transurban have published information pertaining to the project on their <a href="http://consult.transurban.com/western-distributor-join-the-conversation">website</a>.

<h2>Comment</h2>

On the face of it, this proposal seems like a sweet deal for the Andrews Government. Little Victorian taxpayer contribution, a lot of private capital flowing in and it likewise appears to fit within the ideology of the current Prime Minister who thinks the Federal Government should only be funding roads.

Yes, this project is more than likely to take a lot of trucks off the West Gate Bridge and local road network up and down the west bank of the <a href="/new-apartments/maribyrnong-vic-3032">Maribyrnong</a>, yet reading through the Transurban media release they are making claims - admittedly the audience is their shareholders which would benefit from more traffic using their roads - which fly in the face of countless amounts of research both here and globally.

Transurban claim that "the Western Distributor would nearly halve travel times for trips to the city from the M80 - West Gate Freeway interchange during the morning peak and help wipe 15 minutes off trips to the city from <a href="/new-apartments/geelong-vic-3220">Geelong</a> and Ballarat". That might be so for a short period of time, but in the long run?

Firstly on Ballarat and Geelong: the Regional Rail Link is not far off from opening which will see increased services and clearer paths taken through metropolitan Melbourne resulting in an improved and more consistent service from the city to those regional areas.

Secondly on car trips to the city in general: why on earth should that be encouraged in the first place? It might be a goal for the private operator but it should never be the goal for a growing central city that is increasing in density by the day.

Just last Friday we re-published an article from The Conversation titled '<a href="/news/do-more-roads-really-mean-less-congestion-for-commuters">Do more roads really mean less congestion for commuters</a>'; where, after explaining the concept of induced demand, it concludes by saying:

<blockquote>
Even without the extra road users that new roads create, if the new roads are built in the wrong locations congestion may actually become worse simply because of the way people behave. Roads alone do not solve congestion in the long term; they are only one (problematic) tool in a transport management toolkit.
</blockquote>

For me this proposal is more about opportunism using a faux veneer of actual need. In fact, it's overkill.

If we do have a serious problem with trucks clogging up local road networks in and around the Lower Yarra and Maribyrnong then why isn't this proposal targeted directly at freight?

Wouldn't targeting freight users of the existing road network be better carried out by reducing the scope of this proposal to having a freight-only lanes in each direction inside the current West Gate Freeway corridor that leads to a freight vehicle-only tunnel under Yarraville and then a freight-only road connection from the west bank of the Maribyrnong to Footscray Road?

Do we really want to completely encircle the Lower Yarra and Maribyrnong with Freeways/tollways? What kind of a legacy is that going to leave on the new Fishermans Bend employment precinct and mooted redevelopment areas between Dynon Road and South Kensington station?

While I have no problem with the notion of the private sector approaching the State Government with transport project proposals, and the way in which early disclosure is occurring as evidenced today is very welcome, however a positive cost to benefit ratio is not enough.

If Governments truly want to "balance" our motorised transport mix in Melbourne then they're not going to achieve it by giving the go ahead to road projects like this all the while public transport projects have decade long timeframes on them.

Spring Street should send Transurban back to the drawing board to come up with a solution that is more targeted toward freight, will not induce excessive private-vehicle demand nor encourage more people to drive to the centre of the city and will not entrench auto-centricity in the western suburbs of Melbourne.
</body></html>

Comment: Transurban's Western Distributor proposal

<html><body>
Today's piece is inspired somewhat by <a href="http://www.grantwyeth.com/about/">Grant Wyeth</a>'s (<a href="https://twitter.com/grantwyeth">@grantwyeth</a>) guest post over on Alan Davies' <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/04/07/building-rail-connections-across-the-suburbs/">The Urbanist blog</a> and it centers exclusively on where would an orbital rail line (or set of rail lines) in Melbourne go under the right circumstances.

Is strong projected population growth enough to provide us with the 'right' circumstances in future? What are the 'right' circumstances? How could our 'right' circumstances be different to any other city which has been or is heading down the same path as us?

Back in the sixties when the age of the automobile was beginning to dominate the suburban landscape, the transport boffins of the time appeared to have attempted to answer the same fundamental mobility question. They just answered it with limited-access roads.

If one only focuses on freeway/tollways for a moment, there's a clear missing link in our orbital road network between the end of the Metropolitan Ring Road and the Eastern Freeway/EastLink. However it appears that even in the 60s no-one really thought much of linking the two roads directly either.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/0604-freewayplan-large.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Motorist's paradise of Freeways from the 1969 Victorian Transport Plan. Image from Daniel Bowen's blog"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="471" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/0604-freewayplan-large.jpg?itok=agtqVzzd" title="Tradies' paradise of Freeways from the 1969 Victorian Transport Plan. Image from Daniel Bowen's blog" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Motorist's paradise of Freeways from the 1969 Victorian Transport Plan. Image from <a href="http://www.danielbowen.com/2004/06/04/transport-activist/">Daniel Bowen's blog</a></figcaption></figure>For the cartographically-inclined, you can't go past the sheer beauty of the map above. Every time I see it float to the surface somewhere on the Internet I'm in awe. According to the Wikipedia page, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Melbourne_Transportation_Plan">1969 Melbourne Transport plan</a> called for 510km of freeways creating an enormous mesh of limited access roads all over the metro area.

Boroondara and Stonnington encircled by freeways? Priceless! Two intersecting freeways in St Kilda? Absolutely! Having the ability to zig-zag across the city from Keilor to Dandenong on nine (or more) different freeways? It's the future!

If you hadn't noticed yet, a fair few of those roads have been built, are in the process of being built or are likely to be built to varying degrees. And this aspect serves as a reminder that no matter how large and lofty ideas may appear to be, the creativeness of people regardless of the era (and no matter how batshit crazy you might think it is) can, and in some cases will, come to fruition.

<h2>Beyond peak car</h2>

Successive decades of suburban development have seen employment clusters grow over time in disparate areas and the vast majority of Melburnians work somewhere other than the centre of the city. The tertiary education sector has expanded in to the suburbs and the primary retail centres serving the metropolitan area are isolated from existing high-capacity public transport modes.

<blockquote>
The band-aid solution for many decades has been an increase in bus services. While buses serve a great purpose of being able to negotiate suburbs in a more intimate fashion than trains, what they lack is a direct and efficient way of connecting major hubs.

There is a psychology of purpose that comes with train travel. It is far more direct and efficient than a bus, and therefore far more enticing to people. Transportation networks are most effective when they increase the speed at which people can access opportunity-laden areas. Buses do not provide this.
<cite>Grant Wyeth, <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/04/07/building-rail-connections-across-the-suburbs/">The Urbanist</a></cite>
</blockquote>

I agree with Grant up to a point, and that is with the exception of smart bus routes which seem to have stopped being rolled out, politicians appear to be petrified at the thought of clawing back existing roadspace (or expanding within existing corridors) for the exclusive use of fast and frequent bus routes.

The smart bus routes around Melbourne are the logical starting point in answering the question of where orbital rail lines might go. Warrigal Road, Springvale Road, Stud Road, Dandenong-Frankston Road, Bell Street, Manningham Road: those roads all serve major retail, education and employment zones throughout the east and north of the city.

The west of the city doesn't have the grid road network to the same degree as the north and east, but it does have substantial land allocated to rail use already.

In an attempt to connect as many retail, education, employment zones and areas currently without a rail service at present, I came up with this.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=zLzjYwjjDBk0.kpxS8U94V8JQ" width="100%"></iframe>

<ul>
<li>Black line(s): the orbitals, in four parts passing the following major nodes:
	<ul>
<li>R = retail centres, E = employment or education areas in the vicinity, NS = new rail service area, I = interchange.</li>
		<li>Sandringham-Doncaster (28km), would need to be almost completely underground.
		<ul>
<li>Areas passed: Sandringham (I), Southland (R, I), Kingston (E, NS), Oakleigh South (NS), Oakleigh (E, R, I), Chadstone (R, E, NS), Holmesglen Institute (E, I), Deakin University (E, NS), Box Hill (R, E, I), Doncaster (R, E, NS)</li>
		</ul>
</li>
		<li>Doncaster-Airport (30km), would have an underground/elevated split of about 60/40 respectively.
		<ul>
<li>Areas passed: Doncaster (R, E, NS), Bulleen (NS), Heidelberg (E, I), Northland (R, E, NS), Thornbury (E, I) Coburg (R, E, I), Pascoe Vale (I), Essendon Fields (E, NS), Airport West (R, E, NS), Melbourne Airport business park (E, NS), Airport Terminals (E, NS)</li>
		</ul>
</li>
		<li>Airport-Newport (19km), entirely elevated (to Airport West, shared with Doncaster-Airport) and at grade on new track in existing corridors:
		<ul>
<li>Areas passed: Airport Terminals (E, NS), Melbourne Airport business park (E, NS), Airport West (R, E, NS), Keilor East (NS), Avondale Heights (NS), Sunshine North (NS), Sunshine (R, E, I), Brooklyn (E, NS), South Kingsville (NS), Newport (I).</li>
		</ul>
</li>
		<li>Frankston-Ringwood (42km), big opportunity to have the line run entirely elevated above current Frankston line and then in Dandenong-Frankston Road median, 2km tunnel from Dandenong station from Dandenong North thereafter elevated in Stud Road's median to a short tunnel at Wantirna then elevated above the Belgrave line from Heathmont into Ringwood.
		<ul>
<li>Areas passed: Frankston (E, R, I), Frankston North (NS), Carrum Downs (E, NS), Dandenong South (E, NS), Dandenong (E, R, I), Dandenong Hospital (E, NS), Dandenong North (NS), Rowville (R, NS), Scoresby (E, NS), Knox (R, E, NS), Wantirna (NS), Heathmont (I), Ringwood (R, E, I).</li>
		</ul>
</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>Red lines: current rail projects, the Regional Rail Link (which PTV have previously planned to have metropolitan services running in the corridor in a decade or two, creating a smaller western orbital) and the Melbourne Metro Rail project.</li>
	<li>Green line: extension of the existing rail network from Ashburton via Chadstone, Oakleigh and out to Rowville, refer to <a href="/news/fishermans-bend-transport-fast-frequent-and-automated">this earlier piece</a> on the re-purposing the Alamein line.</li>
	<li>Purple lines: other rail ideas that I've previously written about, <a href="/news/fishermans-bend-transport-fast-frequent-and-automated">in particular Fishermans Bend</a>.</li>
</ul>
Red and Green lines would be the last of the traditional rail lines we all know and understand today. Melbourne Metro Rail Project is going to cost near $1billion per kilometre, that's completely unsustainable and unsuitable for completing an orbital rail network.

Black and Purple lines: completely separate rail technology and system with a focus on proper metro service, smaller vehicles, more frequent services, driverless; a system which will consume a lower amount of capital and operational expenditure compared to our current heavy rail setup. Refer to <a href="/news/vancouvers-skytrain-network-a-model-for-melbournes-future-rail-lines">this 2013 article</a> on Vancouver's Skytrain network and technology.

Over to you.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Orbital rail lines in Melbourne: where would they go?

<html><body>
It seems that no matter which party is in government on Spring Street there's always one eye on the long-term development of central Melbourne. After an intense two days of East-West Link and Melbourne Metro news, it was the Planning Minister's turn to be in the spotlight on Friday.

The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area has been expanded to include the area situated north of the West Gate freeway between both the West Gate and Bolte bridges, bumping the total amount of land located in the area to 455 hectares, up from 250 hectares.

As the new government is about to embark on a new round of engagement activities for a revised Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Plan, it's time to go over transport initiatives that adorned previous plans and start a conversation about elevating transport to the same level as local resident group's have raised height limits, schools and community facilities as planning downfalls.

<h2>The short-lived heavy rail legacy</h2>

Back in July 2014 the Planning Minister at the time approved the <a href="/news/fishermans-bend-strategic-framework-plan-released">Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan</a> and the documents depicted a "rail investigation area" which matched up with the Napthine government's Melbourne Rail Link project. Now that the Andrews government has selected Swanston Street as its preferred route to increase heavy rail capacity through the inner city, it - technically - leaves Fishermans Bend in limbo.

When Denis Napthine assumed the Premiership Public Transport Victoria released its long-term train network plan. At this point the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel project, a product of the Brumby Government, still featured heavily in the plans and the Andrews Government appears to have retrieved the Brumby-era plans from the archives.

However keen observers will have noticed a second cross-city tunnel running from Clifton Hill to Fishermans Bend was present at later stages of the network's projected development.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/schematic_stage_4_0.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Melbourne's heavy rail network plan from March 2013"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="426" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/schematic_stage_4_0.png?itok=vXS32HuW" title="Melbourne's heavy rail network plan from March 2013" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Melbourne's heavy rail network plan from March 2013. <a href="/news">See all maps</a> in the forum.</figcaption></figure>Cast your mind back to the early days of the Ballieu/Napthine government: they were conducting studies into extending the rail network to Rowville, Doncaster, Melbourne Airport and Avalon Airport. This second cross-city tunnel looks to be drawn on the map because with the introduction of a future Doncaster line, something from the existing Clifton Hill group - South Morang and Hurstbridge lines - needed to move to make space for Doncaster services.

The <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PDFs/projects/Doncaster-rail-study-Final-recommendations-report-PTVs-response.pdf">final recommendations</a> from the Doncaster study were that a new branch line from Victoria Park was to cost between $3 and $5 billion and the preferred terminus would have been at the Doncaster park-and-ride, well short of Doncaster Hill where the community expressed a desire to have the line end. The Doncaster line has since, in one sense, been buried.

The focus of this piece is not Doncaster, but it's relevant to keep it in the back of your mind.

<h2>Fishermans Bend, a new town: a fresh look at rail technology</h2>

If the numbers flung about are to be believed (and I believe they're conservative given the long timeframe they're attached to) - that Fishermans Bend will house 80,000 residents and be the workplace for 40,000 new employees by 2050 - then thinking needs to be bigger than trams and likewise needs to be less city-centric and more inclusive of the west.

Now that Fishermans Bend has doubled in size with a fifth precinct that according to the MPA's <a href="http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FBURA-Recast-Fact-Sheet-April-2015.pdf">fact sheet</a> will be focused on attracting new jobs at commercial/industrial premises and include all the remaining land excluding the Port of Melbourne then the strategic transport direction for Fishermans Bend must step up a notch.

Previous plans have placed 'potential' stations in Fishermans Bend along an East-West axis (excluding the Napthine Government's proposal) and the stations have been located along Plummer Street - an artery that has also had tram routes proposed. The West Gate Freeway now sits right in the middle of the entire renewal area and by the same token the focus for mass transit should also be right through the centre of Fishermans Bend.

Sydney is pushing ahead with a new fully automated mass-transit link through its north-western 'burbs and plans are afoot to extend it to provide the harbour city with a second north-south rail crossing through North Sydney, the CBD and out to south west where an existing rail line would be converted to work with the new mass-transit technology.

Last year the NSW Government announced they had awarded a contract to Alstom to provide its <a href="http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/metropolis/">Metropolis solution</a> for the line that will also run through the converted Chatswood-Epping rail link. Alstom <a href="http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transport/Resources/Documents/brochure2014/METROPOLIS%20-%20Product%20sheet%20-%20EN%20-%20LD.pdf?epslanguage=en-GB">say the Metropolis system</a> is a "turnkey system approach that includes signaling, electrification, trackworks as well as maintenance services".

The NSW Government has lead the pack and decided to depart from developing new lines to be compatible with existing rolling stock and infrastructure and instead develop new rail lines to serve a specific purpose.

Back in 2013, I wrote <a href="/news/vancouvers-skytrain-network-a-model-for-melbournes-future-rail-lines">Vancouver's Skytrain Network - a model for Melbourne's future rail lines</a> and the braindump below revolves around utilsing a system such as the one being implemented in Sydney or Vancouver for Fishermans Bend - and beyond.

<h3>The aim</h3>

<ul>
<li>Enable fast and efficient journeys to be made into and out of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area from an easterly/city and westerly direction as well as include maximum connectivity to existing mass transit lines.</li>
	<li>Lower the cost to acquire any land required for a mass-transit line through Fishermans Bend by locking down a route and station locations as part of strategic planning process before too much property changes hands.</li>
	<li>Conduct a full frontal assault on West Gate Freeway and Bridge traffic volumes by providing a high-quality alternative to driving from residential areas in the inner west / south west to more centrally located employment areas.</li>
	<li>Begin the journey and set the city-wide precedent of building new forms of mass transit for Melbourne that are more frequent, adaptable, reliable and cheaper to run than traditional heavy rail services.</li>
</ul>
<h3>The idea</h3>

26 kilometres of rapid transit encompassing a new 10 kilometre line from the CBD to Newport, split roughly 4 kilometres underground from Swanston Street to the West Gate Freeway / Bolte Bridge interchange and 6 kilometres elevated - including a new lower Yarra bridge - from the interchange to Newport. The other 16 kilometres would come from the conversion of both the Newport-Williamstown branch and the existing Newport-Altona-Laverton loop.

At the CBD end, the tunnel would begin at the CBD South/Flinders Street station to be built as part of Melbourne Metro Rail Project under Collins Street, then run under the Yarra and loosely along the West Gate Freeway corridor to the Bolte Interchange. Utilising the large tract of land that already exists at the interchange, the line would transition to elevated structure along the West Gate Freeway corridor where after Todd road the line would then rise to a height of 58-60metres above the Yarra (same height as the West Gate Bridge) then descend along Burleigh Street in Newport and turn south to run above the existing rail corridor into Newport station.

Underground stations would include: CBD South/Flinders Street (under Collins Street and connectivity with the subterranean superstructure to be built as part of the Melbourne Metro Rail Project would be provided), Southern Cross, Sandridge-Lorimer (south of the West Gate Freeway on Ingles Street). Elevated train stations would include: Wirraway (at West Gate Freeway/Salmon Street), to the immediate west of Todd Road and at Newport.

The Williamstown and Altona lines would see existing stations re-used and expanded where required - for instance at Seaholme a second platform would need to be built - or rebuilt where a grade separation necessitates it. Grade to elevated structures would be built to the south of Newport and a dedicated set of track would be built alongside the existing rail corridor between Newport and the Altona junction. A new station at Altona North (at Maddox Road - grade separated) would be built for the rapid transit line to service the employment precinct to the south and residential areas to the north.

Operations, depot and maintenance facilities would be based at Newport workshops and services would connect at Aircraft/Laverton, Newport, Southern Cross and CBD South/Flinders Street ensuring entire rail network connectivity.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=zNF8lPbNaAaM.kOTLXjLN6xmw&amp;ll=-37.8284973,144.92428064&amp;z=13" width="100%"></iframe>

<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zNF8lPbNaAaM.kOTLXjLN6xmw&amp;ll=-37.8284973,144.92428064&amp;z=13">View larger map</a>

<h3>The services</h3>

With Newport and CBD South/Flinders Street housing three platforms, three distinct services are made possible: City-Williamstown, City-Altona-Laverton and City-Newport. The third platform at CBD South/Flinders Street and Newport would allow the operations centre to add and remove service frequency through what's likely to be most heavily used part of the line as demand increases and decreases throughout the day and on special occasions.

Instead of the three different types of service currently running off the two lines south of Newport, it would be simplified by removing existing Werribee services from the Altona loop permanently; existing Williamstown shuttles and Altona shuttles would disappear and Werribee trains would run all stations between Footscray and Newport then use the express route to Laverton and then stop all stations to the end of the line.

<h3>The cost</h3>

I deliberately mentioned the North West Rail Link earlier as the project above would be a total solution just like the NWRL. I used it as a base for estimating costs <a href="/news/the-alamein-line-time-for-a-new-purpose">earlier this year</a> and came up with a $360 million per kilometre cost for the entire package (23 kilometres of new rail line and a total pricetag of $8.3billion).

If we isolate the new track from Newport to the CBD from the existing line conversions - which reducing the project's scope to be just Newport to the CBD is well within the realm of possibility, 4 kilometres of tunnel and 6 kilometres of elevated track (including a bridge) would be $3.6billion.

There are eight existing level crossings along the route from Newport to Laverton via Altona - three of which are adjacent to two stations (Westona and Altona) and there are two existing level-crossings on the Williamstown branch, one of which is adjacent to a station (North Williamstown).

Owing to its length (12.5km), on paper, Altona would be more expensive to convert than the Williamstown branch yet its the added number of grade separations as well as two existing stations that need to be rebuilt (on top of a new station and extra platforms required at Aircraft/Laverton) that would send the cost-per-kilometre sky high.

Williamstown's shorter length (3.5 km) and less grade separations (one of which could arguably just close entirely - Giffard Street) and station rebuilds required would make its cost-per-kilometre far less and thus a prime candidate for conversion if a phase approach were taken. If I were to take a guess, Altona would be somewhere between $150 and $200 million per kilometre, and Williamstown somewhere south of $150 million per kilometre.

<h3>The odds and ends</h3>

The logical conclusion is that this new rapid transit line would extend east from the CBD but I reiterate that's not the focus today. The primary focus is ensuring that the revised Fishermans Bend Strategic plan includes far more than just "possible future station locations".

Fishermans Bend is what many ancient cities did in the Georgian era: we're creating our New Town. And if the rhetoric about 'forests of towers' and 'more community-focused' doesn't disappear into the ether and these appeals to the base by the new government actually come to fruition, the revised Fisherman Bend plan will be more prescriptive than what we're used to.

Mass-transit in a new, dense, grander and enlarged central city has every right and must be in the plan that guides the development of Fishermans Bend over the coming decades.

<h2>Footnote: water transport shouldn't be overlooked either</h2>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/bris_city_cat_flotilla.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Brisbane River with a flotilla of Citycat ferries. Image: Wikipedia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="373" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/bris_city_cat_flotilla.jpg?itok=ONTcvdAX" title="The Brisbane River with a flotilla of Citycat ferries. Image: Wikipedia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Brisbane River with a flotilla of Citycat ferries. Image: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CityCat_and_City_Ferry_flotilla_returns_to_the_river_14_February_(5728364964).jpg">Wikipedia</a></figcaption></figure>It's not exactly mass-transit but as the entire arm of Fishermans Bend is opened up and depending on the strategic direction of the new employment precinct, water transport should likewise feature in any new revised strategic plan.

We can only assume the addition of the employment precinct in Fishermans Bend will mean that some of the industrial and advanced manufacturing facilities presently located in the precinct will remain while other sites - like General Motors Holden's facility - will be cleared, cleaned up and redeveloped.

The new employment precinct will be located in the City of Melbourne and I'm willing to wager the urban designers at council will no doubt want to get stuck in to the entire waterfront area. More intensive land-uses on the water's edge will naturally be conducive to new maritime transport services.

Perhaps taking a leaf out of Brisbane's book at its <a href="http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/citycat-ferry-services">Citycat services</a> should be on the cards?
</body></html>

Fishermans Bend transport: fast, frequent and automated

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sunland-group">Sunland Group</a> has officially lodged plans for its first Gold Coast apartment project since the departure of the Abedian family from the company three years ago, unveiling a new high-rise proposal for a prominent Broadbeach corner site on Old Burleigh Road.

The application was submitted by an entity directed by Tom Jamieson, stepson of longtime Sunland leader Soheil Abedian, and Riaz Rezvanipour, brother-in-law of Sahba Abedian, Soheil’s son.

Sunland acquired the 1,283 sqm site on the corner of Old Burleigh Road and Armrick Avenue for $9.5 million late last year and is now seeking approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/99-101-old-burleigh-road-broadbeach-qld-4218">42-storey tower with 81 apartments</a>.

<img alt="First look: Sunland Group returns to Broadbeach with new Old Burleigh Road tower plans" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fea2946d-90ee-4cfc-babe-2a8ad5db2cb6" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/pers.png?VersionId=BV0fihJw31nDIQ8ozY_h3GbS8mxDyhnm" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/contreras-earl-architecture">Contreras Earl Architecture</a>, the proposed tower at 99-101 Old Burleigh Road would deliver a predominantly larger-format apartment mix aimed at the owner-occupier market. Plans include 17 two-bedroom apartments, 55 three-bedroom apartments, and nine four-bedroom residences across 35 residential levels.

The development also incorporates three basement levels, four podium parking levels, two levels of communal recreation facilities, and rooftop plant and equipment. A total of 189 car spaces are proposed, significantly exceeding the 90 spaces required under the planning scheme.

The architecture adopts a sculpted, curvilinear form, with deep wraparound balconies and integrated landscaping intended to soften the tower’s vertical expression. The planning report states the building’s “slender footprint/form provides a complimentary yet varied built form within the local streetscape” and contributes to “a varied, yet ordered skyline.”

Contreras Earl noted in its Architectural Statement that from the early stages, the project addressed a fundamental challenge: how to accommodate the required residential yield while avoiding the conventional model of a tower sitting on a rigid, fully resolved parking podium.

“The most direct response would have been to consolidate parking into a singular, flat podium and extrude a repetitive tower above,” the statement said. “While efficient, this approach would result in a consolidated built form with limited engagement with the surrounding landscape and public realm.”

Instead, the conventional podium model was “deliberately rejected”. The architects described the base of the building as “a landscaped architectural condition where structure, planting and circulation are integrated”.

“Rather than presenting a continuous built mass, the base of the building is articulated through a series of concrete planter elements that organise the podium into a fragmented system,” the statement said. “This approach reduces the perceived bulk of the lower levels while establishing a more permeable interface with the streetscape and adjacent open space.”

<img alt="Sunland" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="923fad8d-c960-4527-8fbe-975cf1ddf88d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-25%20at%2010.32.03%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=pngwb0hYOIUpq9vDw6F2EsOiVuHF3DiX" />

&nbsp;

The site sits within the High Density Residential Zone and inside the City of Gold Coast’s unrestricted “HX” building height area, where the planning framework anticipates intensified residential development tied to the expanding light rail corridor. The planning report notes the area is undergoing “transition toward more intense development forms” given its proximity to Broadbeach, Surfers Paradise, and high-frequency public transport infrastructure.

Positioned directly opposite Broadbeach Park and within walking distance of Florida Gardens light rail station, the development would sit among a rapidly evolving stretch of Old Burleigh Road that has become one of the Gold Coast’s most active apartment development corridors.

The application joins a growing pipeline of luxury residential projects reshaping Broadbeach, including nearby developments by 5Point Projects, Polycell, and Graya.

The planning report argues the project contributes toward the Gold Coast’s long-term housing targets under the South East Queensland Regional Plan, which forecasts the need for more than 100,000 additional high-rise dwellings across the city by 2046.

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-4" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-1" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-1" dir="auto">
The Abedian family departed Sunland Group in late 2023, ending a four-decade association with the company, and subsequently established the private development firm Abedian &amp; Co. The group is currently delivering <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/greenmount-residences-cnr-hill-street-and-marine-parade-coolangatta-qld-4225">Greenmount Residences</a> at Rainbow Bay and recently launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/18-mary-avenue-14-18-mary-avenue-broadbeach-qld-4218">18 Mary Avenue</a> in Broadbeach.
</section>

Joel Robinson

First look: Sunland Group returns to Broadbeach new apartment market with new Old Burleigh Road tower plans

The Minns Labor Government has established the new Bays West Delivery Authority to lead the development&nbsp;of the Bays West Precinct and Blackwattle Bay Precinct.&nbsp;

The Authority is charged with creating Sydney’s newest precinct, a thriving, connected, sustainable hub with White Bay Power Station as its cultural heart. Its vision is to build on the area’s natural, cultural and industrial history to shape a vibrant new neighbourhood.

The precinct will deliver up to 8,500 well-located homes, including a minimum of 10 per cent affordable and essential worker homes. Combine new housing with public open space, opening public access to the waterfront for the first time in more than 100 years, while retaining important deep-water facilities to support Sydney’s working harbour.

Located just minutes from the Sydney CBD and connected to a world-class metro, ferry, walking and cycling links, the Bays West precinct will rebalance housing growth towards well-serviced inner-city locations and help tackle the state’s housing crisis.

The Bays West Delivery Authority,&nbsp;an agency of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, will report to the NSW Minister for Lands and Property who already has oversight of major precinct renewal projects including at Blackwattle Bay and Barangaroo.

As part of the broader Bays West transformation, the Minns Government recently announced that a proposal from Lendlease to redevelop part of the Bays West Precinct has progressed to Stage 2 of the NSW Government’s unsolicited proposals process.

<img alt="Sydney" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2ed71eb9-d8e8-4fa7-b9d1-de4531dcf2f3" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-25%20at%209.42.31%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=IDryFIbped9SNDg72LEN_EecvhUsOPvp" />

The Minns Labor Government has also confirmed the Bays West precinct will have a new suburb name. This will be the first major suburb built in close proximity to Sydney’s CBD in decades and will encompass the area currently being referred to as Bays West, including Glebe Island and the White Bay Power Station. Served by a new Metro station just five minutes from the CBD, it will become one of the most populous suburbs in the Inner West and one of Sydney’s premier cultural destinations.

An early works program is taking shape, which&nbsp;includes the first stages of an international design competition.&nbsp;

The aim of the Bays West&nbsp;International&nbsp;Design Competition is to&nbsp;ensure design excellence is embedded in the project from the start. The competition will deliver an&nbsp;urban framework that defines the character, ambition and long-term identity of&nbsp;this&nbsp;former industrial precinct as it transitions to a vibrant, inclusive and sustainable residential&nbsp;neighbourhood.

The competition will be led by the Bays West Delivery Authority in partnership with Government Architect NSW.&nbsp;

It will launch with an invitation for a global Expressions of Interest, before moving to an invitation-only stage that will be assessed by a panel that&nbsp;will provide advice to Cabinet who will select a winner.

Premier of NSW, Chris Minns said the establishment of the new Authority is the first step in transforming the Bays West precinct into a vibrant, livable suburb minutes from the Sydney CBD and two stops from Hunter St Station on the Metro West line.

“The Authority will deliver well-located homes close to the heart of the city and integrate the new precinct with Blackwattle Bay and the new Sydney Fish Market.

“This is a generational opportunity to build a new suburb on the city’s edge and open the harbour foreshore to the public for the first time in a century.”&nbsp;

Minister for Lands and Property Steve Kamper said the new Bays West Delivery Authority established by the Minns Government will turbocharge the development of Sydney’s newest suburb.

“The Authority is working at a record pace to deliver an international design competition, planning pathways and a financial model so that this development benefits Sydney with well-designed homes in a central location, close to public transport, jobs, entertainment and essential services.

“If we want Sydney to stay liveable and affordable, we need to be bold about using underutilised government-owned land to deliver homes for the future while making sure essential working harbour functions can be accommodated.”

Bays West Delivery Authority established to "turbocharge" Sydney’s newest suburb

Around 400 additional homes could be built at Southwark Grounds on Port Road, lifting total site capacity from 1300 to around 1700 dwellings.

A recently approved code amendment would allow apartment towers of up to 14 storeys in some areas of Renewal SA’s redevelopment of the former West End Brewery.

Renewal SA Acting Chief Executive Shane Wingard said he welcomed the code amendment, with the increase in heights and homes making a positive impact on the supply of high-quality, well-connected housing close to the city.

“By going higher across some parts of Southwark Grounds, we are adding a substantial number of very well-located homes with little impact on project delivery time or planned open space,” Mr Wingard said.

Since the project officially launched in 2025, Mr Wingard said more than 12,000 enquiries had been received about living at Southwark Grounds.

“The very strong early interest we’ve seen since homes were first released in the precinct reinforces our plans to create more housing opportunities,” he said.

The Southwark Grounds code amendment was launched in December last year, with community engagement undertaken over five weeks from January.

It proposed increasing maximum building heights from eight to 14 storeys on the eastern section of Southwark Grounds, and to 12 storeys across the remainder of the site, with minimum building heights ranging from two to four storeys.

The code amendment was implemented through an Early Commencement policy in late January, allowing developers to quickly explore the viability of increased height and housing yield while other planning processes continue.

One of the first developers delivering apartment sites have already finalised redesigns to increase the number of apartments following the code amendment.

Samaras’ development adjacent to the future Colonel Light Park is now planning to deliver 125 apartments across 11 storeys, significantly greater than original plans of around 50 apartments across four storeys.

The developer is also exploring the potential for additional affordable housing outcomes.

Most of the apartments at Southwark Grounds will be delivered within a master-planned precinct on a large parcel of land on the eastern portion of the site, covering around two-thirds of its 8.4 hectares.

Wingard said detailed precinct planning over the coming months may identify further opportunities to increase yield further that could see total apartment numbers at Southwark Grounds, exceed this number.

Affordable homes at Southwark Grounds will also see a net increase, with Renewal SA maintaining its commitment to a minimum of 20 per cent affordable housing across the development.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Civil works have begun across the site, with construction under way on the first new roads surrounding a townhouse precinct in the south‑west corner of Southwark Grounds. This includes Renewal SA’s 17 Founder’s Row homes, which are on track for completion by Christmas.

“We expect to have people living at Southwark Grounds by the end of the year, so delivering roads and public spaces for those residents is among our highest priorities.”

Construction of 40 townhouses off Anderson Street, known as West Village and being delivered by Contour, is forecast to begin in mid‑2026. Kolabb’s Anderson Lane development will follow shortly after, delivering a further 26 townhouses.

Southwark Grounds is a state government‑led urban renewal project now set to deliver around 1,700 homes over the next decade.

Homes will be supported by a supermarket, a range of retail and hospitality offerings anchored by a revitalised Walkerville Brew Tower, a childcare centre, car parking and well‑connected public spaces.

400 new homes planned for Adelaide's former West End Brewery site

Brisbane developer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/cavcorp">Cavcorp</a> has lodged plans for a new mixed-use residential development at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/55-wyandra-street-teneriffe-qld-4005">55 Wyandra Street</a>, Teneriffe, anchored by an 85-metre public laneway designed to reconnect the suburb’s riverfront with the Gasworks precinct.

The buildings, known as Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane, would replace the existing Queensland Cotton head office site with a 15-storey residential tower transitioning to eight storeys toward Helen Street. The project has been designed by Plazibat Architects and lodged as a code assessable development application for 93 apartments across a 3,401 sqm mixed-use site within the Newstead and Teneriffe Waterfront neighbourhood plan.

Central to the scheme is the transformation of an existing service easement into a publicly accessible cross-block connection linking Wyandra and Helen Streets. Cavcorp says the new laneway will act as both a pedestrian shortcut and a landscaped civic space between the Teneriffe Riverwalk, ferry terminal, and Gasworks precinct.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="26e7f058-b065-4de8-b13d-a2b8cb64dfcc" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/bldg.png?VersionId=sELS0ZKYi361oYipUa1BIKfe_.DLZoFV" />

“The revised proposal delivers a legacy public-realm cross-block link, permanently secured for community use, transforming an existing private easement into a safe, high-quality pedestrian connection between the Teneriffe heritage riverwalk and the Gasworks–Long Island precinct,” the planning report states.

The laneway will sit beneath a large subtropical loggia integrated into the podium levels of the development. The design incorporates deep landscaping, water gardens, lobby spaces, business lounges, and ground-floor apartments to create what Cavcorp describes as a climate-responsive “urban verandah.”

The tower itself has been designed as a slender form with recessed floorplates and curved translucent corners inspired by contemporary Japanese architecture. The building height aligns with the Commercial Road precinct controls, which permit towers up to 15 storeys within proximity to Longland Street.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a8a17d40-43b6-4718-b3fd-67676fcbb485" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/pers%202_1.png?VersionId=i3VwDtp5AmL_8InW7w4qRbDFEpb744Jt" />

The project will comprise a mix of larger-format apartments aimed at owner-occupiers, downsizers, and families. The proposed apartment mix includes 11 loggia apartments across the lower levels, 50 four-bedroom Sky-Terrace apartments from levels three to seven, and 32 Sky-Pool Homes occupying the upper tower levels. The Sky-Pool Homes will feature private thermal plunge pools integrated into oversized balconies.

According to the application, the apartments are intended to reinterpret the scale and character of Teneriffe’s woolstore conversions and Queensland homes within a vertical residential format.

“The sky-pool homes build on Cavcorp’s previous projects and introduce a distinct apartment typology to Teneriffe, informed by both local and international precedent and responding to an identified market demand for enhanced safety, space and amenity,” the planning submission notes.

A major focus of the proposal is its five-level wellness and lifestyle offering, extending from the basement through to the rooftop.

Amenities proposed include a rooftop Swim &amp; Racquet Club with a 25-metre Olympic lap pool and tennis court, coworking spaces and libraries, golf simulators, wine storage, concierge facilities, business lounges, pet wash areas, and rooftop longevity-focused wellness spaces with spas, outdoor fitness zones, and landscaped terraces.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="944b352c-49b9-4247-a4c6-5967b4b69fda" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/amenity.png?VersionId=Ed_qKjAtMwFT.5gfl3jiA9QwdWxSMsaX" />

All parking will be concealed within basement levels accessed from Wyandra and Helen Streets. Cavcorp says the deep-basement engineering approach allows the entire ground plane to prioritise landscaping, pedestrian movement, and active frontage rather than vehicle infrastructure.

The development continues Cavcorp’s concentration in Newstead and Teneriffe, where the Brisbane developer has delivered a number of apartment projects including Lucent, Le Bain, and Luminare, as well as the Long Island Wellness Precinct nearby. Several of those projects have received national design and architecture awards, including recognition under Brisbane’s “Buildings that Breathe” program.

Cavcorp unveils wellness-focused Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane apartment buildings

Focus Group Investments has lodged plans for a new apartment development at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/64-70-hanover-street-fitzroy-vic-3065">64–70 Hanover Street</a> in Fitzroy, seeking to utilise the Victorian Government’s recently introduced Great Design Fast Track pathway to accelerate approvals for the project.

The proposal is among the latest developments to emerge through the state-led initiative, which was established to fast-track well-designed residential projects in activity centres and transport-connected inner-city locations. The pathway allows qualifying developments that meet elevated design and housing benchmarks to bypass traditional council planning timeframes and instead be assessed directly by the Department of Transport and Planning.

Designed by SJB, the development will comprise a mix of apartments above activated lower levels, with a strong focus on architectural articulation, landscaping, and communal amenity. The design response seeks to balance the industrial character of Richmond’s former warehouse precincts with a more contemporary residential form.

<img alt="First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Richmond apartments" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="abea51cc-d85b-479e-9aef-a589f3b37ca7" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/ground.png?VersionId=e1Kf8EyPWwyiVumtqQ4rM5S4GpOR3CCz" />

Proposed are 63 new dwellings, a wide ranging mix of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, and townhouses and duplexes. They will be spread across a part-three, part-eight storey building.

The Planning and Urban Context Report by Tract says the development is of an "exemplary architectural standard" and has been carefully crafted by SJB Architects.

"Dwellings&nbsp;will benefit from excellent access to natural light, cross-ventilation opportunities and extensive communal space," the report noted.

The architectural material highlights the project’s integration of landscaped elements and communal spaces throughout the building. The proposal also incorporates sustainability initiatives aligned with the Victorian Government’s push for higher-performing apartment developments under the fast-track program.

The Great Design Fast Track was unveiled by the Victorian Government in 2024 as part of a broader housing supply strategy aimed at accelerating the delivery of new homes. Projects assessed through the pathway must demonstrate high-quality architecture, sustainability outcomes, and housing diversity while being located close to public transport and existing infrastructure.

<img alt="First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Richmond apartments" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="afdbe834-8dc4-4a77-a943-ba07bc927348" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/site_11.png?VersionId=0J657j.TaChAZfp93wqJYBTqSsnREJx2" />

Focus Group, founder and led by Paul De Lutiis, is increasingly active across Melbourne’s inner suburbs, targeting well-connected urban renewal locations suited to medium and higher-density residential development. The Fitzroy proposal continues that strategy, leveraging the area’s strong transport links, established retail amenity, and proximity to the CBD.

Fitzroy has been one of the most popular spots for developers and buyers in recent years. The likes of PACE Development Group, SMA Projects, Crema Group and Chapter Group, currently selling projects in the suburb.

Alastair Taylor

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Alastair Taylor

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News