<html><body>
Australians love a good rivalry.  Holden vs Ford, Carlton vs Collingwood, NSW vs Queensland, Keating vs Hewson.  We are currently witnessing one of the greatest rivalries of all - Australia vs England in the Ashes. There's something about them that makes for riveting viewing, that captures our imagination even if we have no connection or love for any of the combatants.  
We crave the blood, sweat and tears oozed by the competitors, the mental disintegration of the weaker party, the killer blow that renders the loser to a lifetime of missed opportunity and regret, the winner an abundance of fame and adulation, whether they are worthy or not.  And so, coming to a TV near you, we have the latest installment - The battle of the tunnels.
We are all familiar with the tunnel in the blue corner - the much vaunted East-West Tunnel.  Sporting bling worth a reputed $8 Billion, its brashness and arrogance would put a LA gangster to shame.  It has also shown a ruthlessness not to be proud of, boasting of a desire to knock out defenseless houses and parkland without an inch of remorse or regret.  A worthy foe to be greatly feared, if not respected, it has spent the last 6 months or so dancing around the ring, arms akimbo, Rose Tattoo's 'We can't be beaten' blaring from the PA system, waiting for its opponent to enter the arena.  And a few weeks ago, with bated breath, it finally arrived...
<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/ipad1605twotunnels-620x349.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image courtesy www.smh.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="326" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ipad1605twotunnels-620x349.jpg?itok=CwKjteqW" title="Image courtesy www.smh.com.au" width="580"></a>
And so, in the red corner, we have the opponent who, despite many stories of its existence, had many people questioning whether it was all just a myth.  Promising to be the Messiah of a rail system bursting at the seams, the Saviour of the outer burbs.  Ladies and Gentlemen, please give a rousing cheer to everybody's favourite project - The Melbourne Metro Tunnel!  
Now every fighter has an entourage, but the MM tunnel has an impressive one - 10,000 will be on the red corner's payroll, barracking at the top of their voices, baying for the EW Tunnel's blood, giving rise to the red team's name - Project 10,000.  With an army of support staff also doing their best to ensure the EW Tunnel never even gets in the ring, the odds look increasingly healthy, with the latest poll showing a whopping 73% of Victorian supporting the upgrade of public transport.  So whilst red team captain, Daniel Andrews looks set to win the battle, is it enough to win the war - ie the 2014 state election?
Ted Ballieu unexpectedly won the 2010 poll on the back of promising to fix our public transport system.  So after two years of diddly daddling where no major projects got off the ground (Labor legacy project the RRL aside), new Premier Dennis Napthine, in a desperate attempt to look like he was doing something, decided to build a road.  Costed at $8 billion, it created immediate fury from local residents when it was revealed that many houses would be compulsorily acquired, along with much parkland lost.  Seemingly handed a free kick, Daniel Andrews reaction was?
Nothing.  Tumbleweed bounced down the corridors of the opposition offices at Spring St, much to the chagrin of the many protest groups.  It was then revealed that the much vaunted business case contained a BCR that had inexplicitly jumped from Rod Eddington's original number of 0.5 to a whopping 1.5.  Problem is no one has actually seen it - its existence is about as mythical as a unicorn running through a field of four-leaf clovers on February 29th.  Yet still Daniel Andrews remained silent as anger turned to bewilderment whilst people started to wonder if Labor was actually going to support it.  With no other alternatives, and just like the ugly girl/guy at the pub who starts to look good after 13 beers, even the Greens overly ambitious plans started to look appealing!
After what seemed like an eternity, Andrews uttered the words everyone was waiting to hear - "The tunnel's a dud"!  Promising an alternative 'balanced' transport plan, it finally arrive in late October in the form of '<a href="http://www.danielandrews.com.au/media/news/project-10000/">Project 10,000</a>', and carries the follwing features:
1 - Remove Melbourne's 50 worst level crossings
The piece de resistance of the manifesto is the idea to remove 50 level crossings.  Sydney has 5 - Melbourne has almost 300, Victoria has over 1800!  Whilst many would agree with this approach on the basis of freeing up traffic, the benefits are far greater.  Level crossings force trains to slow down, and most importantly, the removal of level crossings saves lives.  Any perceived traffic relief is just a bonus.  Whilst grade separation has historically been expensive (&gt; $100,000 each), doing multiple separations located in the same vicinity together should provide some economies of scale.  A big tick for this initiative.
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="396" scrolling="no" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KQ7WxIw4LCw" width="100%"></iframe>
2 - Get 5,000 trucks a day off the West Gate Bridge
Napthine's plan to tackle this was to build a new freeway, except he was going to build the half that went no where near the West.  Labour's plan is to implement what the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group have been pushing for many years - off ramps from the Westgate Freeway onto Hyde St.  Not only will this provide an extra entry/exit from the freeway, it will eliminate the need for trucks to use Williamstown Rd/Francis St, a route that runs through suburban streets and cause much noise, pollution and risk to pedestrians. Essentially a good solution that will cost a fraction of what Westlink would, it will also have a much smaller gestation period to completion.  A big tick again.
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="396" scrolling="no" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7KaDLfx8eho" width="100%"></iframe>
3 - Build Melbourne Metro Rail
Hooray!  Just when everyone feared this would be consigned to the scrap heap that contains projects such as the original Australia 108 tower or Parliament's intended dome, Labor has pledged $300,000 in order to get this project going.  A step forward forward from the current government who won't even submit all the details to Infrastructure Australia, the downside is that it still won't be built for a decade.  In a day and age when one term governments are a real possibility, the Labor Party would be foolhardy indeed to assume they would have years to realise their dream if they won office in 2014.  Nonetheless it's great to see they support this desperately needed piece of infrastructure, but a braver approach may be needed.
4 - Guarantee $2 billion for country and suburban roads 
Uh oh, this is where it gets a little wobbly. The main reason we are in this transport dilemma is because the obsession we had with building freeways.  Even current transport minister Terry Mulder once quipped that 'You can't drive your way out of congestion', before he did a back flip Nadia Comaneci would be proud of.  After chastising The Liberals for throwing all their eggs in the one basket with East West tunnel, it seems Labor are somewhat overcompensating by including the upgrade of roads in order to seemed balanced.  Adding extra lanes to the Tullamarine freeway and Hoddle St would all be well and good if it involved dedicated bus lanes rather just allowing more cars and giving the false hope of traffic decongestion.  Unfortunately it's a cross here.
5 - Create 10,000 construction jobs
Wham!  Its the old left jab/right hook one/two punch - a transport plan and a jobs plan!  Whilst Napthine says the Unions support of his tunnel is vindication, that's nothing more than a self fulfilling prophecy.  The current government's complete lack of ability to get any major projects up has made the unions so anxious that they'd agree to build a hole and fill it back on again if it meant the prospect of work in the short term.  The difference here is that when the East West tunnel is finished, so are the jobs. However a piece of infrastructure such as the Melbourne Metro requires much ongoing maintenance to run, so will be a gift that keeps on giving.  So a points decision to Labor's plan here.
Whilst Project 10,000 is a definite step in the right direction, is it the killer punch that will prevent their opponents from getting off the canvas? Daniel Andrews has promised there is more to come. Suffice to say we wait with bated breath. Right now they have Dennis Napthine staggering around the ring punch drunk.  Only a knockout blow will do come November 2014. Ding ding ding - Round 2 begins whilst the public watches intently with great expectations.
</body></html>

TheHeadOnTheDoor

10,000 Maniacs - The Battle Of The Tunnels

<html><body>
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, lived a band of humble trams. As Melbourne grew rapidly in the 1850's on the back of the gold rush, the trams tirelessly and loyally ferried the expanding population all around the city. With help of their big brothers, the trains, their future looked bright and assured. But then in true Australian fashion, we introduced a foreign species into the natural habitat: the car. Brought here in the misguided idea they would solve all our transport problems, they soon started to cause as much havoc as a cane toad. Getting into every nook and cranny of our roads, it clogged them up like last night's Irish Stew stuffed down the plughole of the kitchen sink. To prove we are nothing but consistent, to deal with this foreign introduced species gone rogue we introduced yet another foreign species: the freeway. History shows of course that they did little to help the problem - in fact the concept of 'induced traffic' proved they did just the opposite - it just made it worse.

So where did that leave the hero of our story, the humble tram? Having had its natural habitat encroached on more and more by the car, it became slower and slower, its usefulness slowly diminishing. So much so, that in the 1980's they approached extinction, with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonie_Report">Lonie report</a> proposing to cull half their population. Fortunately they were spared, and they are now the largest colony of their kind in the galaxy... err, world.

Fast forward 30 years and today trams are experiencing somewhat of a renaissance in Australia. Up until roughly a decade ago, the only commuter tram line outside Melbourne was the Glenelg tram in Adelaide. Today Perth, Gold Coast, Sydney, Canberra and Adelaide all have light rail projects planned, under construction or recently completed. All these projects will be true light rail projects (i.e. grade separated), with one line in Adelaide even planning to run dual-voltage trams so that they can share track space with trains. In Melbourne, we have seen no such innovation or upgrades in a very long time. Despite the network's large size (about 250 kilometres of track) and pedestrian-slow average speeds of 15km/h (11 km/h in the CBD - I can actually run faster than that), we seemed to be content to leave this state of neglect as the status quo.

Then a few months ago we saw a glimmer of hope: Project 96. No, not a reboot of the famously risqué 70s TV show Number 96, but an upgrade of the 96 tram line from East Brunswick to St Kilda. With part of the route already grade separated as a legacy of conversion from heavy rail in the late 80s, and both termini located in high volume cafe/restaurant spots, it was an obvious choice to go first. Once completed, it will be the first true end-to-end light rail line in Melbourne, with no shared road space of trams and cars, and tram priority at all traffic lights. It seems everyone wins: trams will run more frequently, will be more reliable, and will have better access (and therefore be safer) through more level access stops. Everyone it seems, except one group. The people who in all likelihood will benefit the most from this upgrade: the Acland Street traders.

<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/Image2_20.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Map outlining expected upgrades over route 96"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Image2_20.jpg?itok=Y-QZjdF9" title="Map outlining expected upgrades over route 96" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<figcaption>Map outlining expected upgrades over route 96</figcaption></figure>Recently the St Kilda Village Traders staged a 'Don't let them kill Acland St' event in protest against the upgrade; an effort that would be paramount to a protest against the building of a childrens' hospital in a third world country. At the heart of their concerns is the plan to remove about 50 car spaces from Acland St and ban cars from it altogether. This according to the traders, will be enough to drive all their customers away screaming like its the beginning of the rapture. "We have surveyed our customers and found most drive" one trader was quoted as saying in The Age. This begs the question: how is a scenario that relies on your customers being able to get a park out the front of your shop a sustainable business model? How will your customer base grow if the number of parking spaces in the street can't grow? How can it grow if car usage in Melbourne has started to flatline, and in some cases, even decrease?

Let's do the maths. Cars usually carry a maximum of five passengers. With 50 spots and assuming an average stay of two hours, this means a potential 125 customers an hour. The new E-class trams have a capacity of 210 passengers and will arrive/leave the new terminus at Acland St every four minutes. That's a staggering 3,150 potential customers an hour, delivered to their doorstep! That's not just double or triple the volume of cars, but an order of magnitude higher; 25 times more tram passengers than car passengers to be exact. And that's not even taking into consideration people who walk and ride there, a number that will surely see a significant rise in the near future as the number of apartment developments steadily rises.

And to add further doubt to an already crumbling argument, the St Kilda Village Traders Association president, Chris Hickey, came up with this gem: "For every tram load of visitors that it brings, there is also a tram load of visitors that it takes away". Of course it does, the visitors need to go home again, don't they!? I can't begin to even make sense of this argument. Do they think people in cars don't leave again? This is possibly the worst opposing argument I've heard yet, and that's saying a lot!

Not to stop there, they keep digging. "We believe it would make St Kilda village a better place if we had the terminus outside O'Donnell Gardens, effectively acting as a gateway". The whole point of public transport is to make it as easy as possible, for as many people as possible, to get to their destination. Making it harder for tram users by having the terminus further away, and easier for motorists by allowing them to remain, does nothing to facilitate the migration from car to public transport that Melbourne is desperately craving.

<figure><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/trams_729-420x0.jpg?itok=dGry7TjQ" title="Image courtesy of www.theage.com.au" typeof="Image"><figcaption>Image courtesy of www.theage.com.au</figcaption></figure>Of course we have seen this all before. The East Brunswick traders at the other end of route 96 have jumped on the same bandwagon. Clearways were removed from High Street Prahan, as well as Victoria Street (Richmond), Sydney Road (Moreland) and High Street (Kew), all of which could have improved bus services no end, but for the protests of local traders. And more recently, we had motorists cry like babies when a bike lane was added to Princes Bridge, claiming it would add up to 20 minutes to their daily commute. But once it opened, what did the City of Melbourne's official study find? The commute lengthened by a mere 48 seconds, while cycling increased by 40%. A triumph of common sense over sanctimonious bleating.

For far too long, we have allowed cars, and parking spaces, to be an excuse not to upgrade public transport. But this is a case where the traders, like a petulant child, need to be forced to take their medicine. The community-wide support and obvious universal benefits has to outweigh the unfounded protests of the NIMBY minority. And not only that, but 12 months after this upgrade is completed, and the statistics show there has been an increase in customers in the area, they should be big enough to take out a full-page ad in a newspaper and apologise for their silly stunt.

Despite the clear room for improvement, our tram network remains the jewel in our public transport crown, providing inner-city coverage that even some subway systems around the world can only dream about. With upgrades like this making our network faster, more reliable and more frequent, combined with the many planned heavy rail upgrades, Melbourne could quite conceivably have one of the best public transport systems in the world. And this is why project 96 needs to be just a stepping stone. Route 109, another partial light rail line, would be the obvious next cab off the rank. An upgraded/extended route 24 could be a viable alternative to a Doncaster rail line, while an upgraded/extended route 82 from Docklands to Highpoint could provide Melbourne with its first fast rail link to one of its major shopping centres (the state government will probably build the Death Star before Southland railway station is built!).

It is time to bring back some balance to the force that is our tram network. So to the Public Transport Victoria 'rebel alliance' team battling hard to have our trams upgraded. May the force be with you!
</body></html>

Car Wars: Time for trams to strike back?

<html><body>
With the federal election now done and dusted, its almost hard to remember a time when Tony Abbott wasn't PM. For those of us who actually miss the spin, gaffes and broken promises of an impending election (aside from the ones our esteemed PM still provides), never fear - the state election is only 12 months away - even less if Geoff Shaw manages to alienate yet another subsection of the Victorian population before then.  For those of you who would rather stick pins in your eyes than endure another campaign, there is a light at the end of the tunnel (and not the East-West kind) - the next election has promised to be fought with a strong focus on everyone's most cherished everyday experience - public transport!
Whilst public transport was an issue at the last state election (remember Ted Ballieu's war cry to 'fix the problems'?), that will pale into insignificance compared to the role it will play in the 2014 poll, thanks to everyone's favourite boondoggle - the East-West tunnel. Having won the last election promising a raft of rail projects, they quite inexplicitly back flipped and decided to build a road tunnel instead.  Whilst the common perception is that it will do nothing to ease congestion, and with no business case to even justify its existence, the government's motive to pump $8 billion into it is the biggest mystery since the 1980s asked 'Who shot JR?'.  Whilst it has provided opposition leader Daniel Andrews a much needed bat to whack Premier Napthine around the head with, the tunnel's location has also provided plenty of ammunition for one of the Greens' and PTUA's favourite obsessions - the Doncaster Rail Line.
The PTUA's and Greens' obsession with Doncaster is the stuff of legend.  In fact, if Doncaster Rail was a person, they'd both be charged with stalking.  Whilst the benefits of the Melbourne Metro and high capacity signaling are obvious, they continue to bang the Doncaster drum with monotonous regularity.  The romance of it makes for a great sob story - 'The people of Doncaster have been waiting 90 years for this' we're constantly told.  Anyone would think that Doncaster is a remote village that has to wait for a twice a week horse and cart service to visit the big smoke in Melbourne.  The much improved DART bus service is all but forgotten when it comes to talking about existing alternatives. So is a Doncaster rail link really needed? Or even viable for that matter?
<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/art-doncaster_rail-620x349_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image courtesy www.theage.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/art-doncaster_rail-620x349_1.jpg?itok=PzN2NmdH" title="Image courtesy www.theage.com.au" typeof="Image"></a>
Doncaster should be, in theory, the perfect rail project.  With a ready made reservation down the middle of a freeway, there are no debates about underground or overground, route or compulsory acquisitions; important factors when retro fitting rail through brownfield sites; but the list of negatives are just as striking.  Whilst a freeway makes for an obvious route, no one actually lives on a freeway. The distance to housing is even more pronounced in the case of the Eastern Freeway, as much of it runs through parkland. This means walk up patronage is already reduced, removing one of the major draw cards of catching public transport in the first place.  To address this, large park and rides would be be required at EVERY station (5 are planned), not just at the terminus at Doncaster Rd or Doncaster Hill.  Not only would parkland be consumed to build them, patronage is also restricted by the size of the car parks.  This in turn removes motivation to catch the train - 'Why bother driving to the nearest available car park? I may as well drive all the way in...'.
The 2nd major problem is cost where some ridiculous figures have been bandied about to build it.  A report by Curtin University, RMIT and engineering firm Arup claims it could be done for the bargain basement price of $840 million, whilst the PTUA claim they could build stage 1 to Bulleen for a paltry $100 million.  Melbourne's most recent completed rail project, the South Morang extension, cost $498 million, for a 3.5km extension with 1 new station and no tunnels (though there was a grade separation at Cooper St).  Doncaster is a 12km line with 5 new stations and major tunneling involved at both ends; the Doncaster Hill tunnel being especially tricky as it requires an uphill tunnel that would be the deepest in Melbourne.
This makes those quoted figures look absurd.  Hardly surprising given the $840 million figure was based on Perth's Mandurah rail line - a project built almost 10 years ago and through predominantly greenfield sites. The PTUA figures are just downright irresponsible - in the current environment of high infrastructure costs, it's most unlikely they couldn't even build the incredibly complex interchange at Collingwood for $0.1 billion, let alone the track, wires and station.  I'll run the length of the entire rail line naked if they could build it for under double that figure!  More sensible quotes seem to start at $3 billion (Collingwood to Doncaster Park &amp; Ride) and go up to about $11 billion for the whole shebang (to Doncaster Hill + tunnel from Clifton Hill to Southern Cross).
Complicating matters further is the issue of patronage.  Some outlandish claims have been made here too; one study even claiming that the Doncaster line could carry about 100,000 passengers a day equating to 20,000 per station, somewhat unlikely numbers for a predominantly suburban line with no interchanges.  As a reference point, the network's busiest non loop station is Footscray, carrying about 15,000 a day and it's a major metro rail/vline/tram/bus interchange.  Furthermore the recently completed Doncaster rail study showed a train would actually take few cars off the road, with the majority of passengers coming from the previously mentioned DART bus.  Regardless of the numbers, just running trains to Doncaster would put extra strain on the Clifton Hill - Flinders St section.
The South Morang Line is already bursting at the seams, and with South Morang now the fastest growing suburb in the country, its thirst for capacity is only going to get bigger.  Compromising this with a new line that will carry a questionable number of passengers is simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.  The only way to avoid this is to build the Clifton Hill to Southern Cross tunnel, which will probably be needed to de-couple the South Morang Line regardless.  But of course, this tunnel can't be built until the Melbourne Metro tunnel is built first.
<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/731929-train-line1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image courtesy www.ycat.org.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/731929-train-line1.jpg?itok=_ig8teJX" title="Image courtesy www.ycat.org.au" typeof="Image"></a>
Whilst the Doncaster rail line is hardly on my Christmas wish list for 2013, I'm not saying we should throw it on the eternal scrap heap.  It may very well be viable, even necessary down the track with the current number of apartment developments being proposed for Doncaster itself, demand could eventually outstrip the capacity the DART buses can deliver.  The Clifton Hill - Southern Cross tunnel will already be built, ensuring the Doncaster wont take capacity away from the South Morang line (or Mernda line by then, or hopefully Whittlesea line), allowing money to be used for the necessarily large park and rides.  And as was recently suggested, maybe the Eastern Freeway will be tolled, providing the bulk of the required funds for the project, as well as an extra incentive for people to use the train instead.
Doncaster, Rowville, Melton electrification, Mernda Extension are all great future projects, but to use some of Paul Keating's terminology, the Melbourne Metro Tunnel is the 'Black Caviar' of transport projects.  It is the only project that benefits the whole network, whilst transforming it into a true rapid transport network.  It could be argued that high capacity signaling would also be universally beneficial, however we wont see its full potential if we don't remove the bottlenecks that only de-coupling will provide.  In a day and age where high infrastructure costs reduce us to picking winners, the Melbourne Metro tunnel must be our first priority - not a disproportionately expensive suburban line with dubious benefits.
Whilst the Greens &amp; PTUA's hearts may be in the right place with its unconditional support of public transport, choosing to back populist projects over more necessary ones is hardly helping the cause.  The only way we can stop misconceptions like the East West tunnel is to be united on its opposition.  The public has spoken loudly in its support of public transport over roads - its time the PTUA took one for the team and supported all those voices, not just a select few.  Bring on the State election!
 
Further reading
<a href="http://www.doncasterrailstudy.com/">http://www.doncasterrailstudy.com/</a>
</body></html>

Is DONcaster rail, is good?

<html><body>
Like clockwork, the bi-annual debate on the merits of High Speed Rail is upon us again.  Usually coinciding with elections (state and federal) the debate is policy gold for the Greens as it's a big ticket item that, as a minor party, they'll never have to fund.  Likewise for the major parties, it will take so long to become a reality, it's never part of their forward estimates either.  Notionally it sounds like a good idea - Melbourne to Sydney in less than 3 hours.  It looks like a good idea - all those pretty renders of blurry trains going so fast it sweeps the hair off the heads of the models standing in the vicinity of a space age looking station.  But is it actually a good idea?

The Melbourne - Sydney flight route is the third busiest in the world, carrying over 8 million passengers per annum.  That's no mean feat for a country of only 23 million, especially when you compare the population and densities of other countries also in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_passenger_air_routes" target="_blank">top 10</a> - South Korea, Japan, China and India.  With such high passenger numbers, you'd expect competition to be high.  And with the first 3 mentioned, not only are there several airlines servicing those routes, but also a high speed rail link which leaves Australia - with four major domestic airlines and no high speed rail!

Melbourne - Sydney route is of course serviced by standard rail - the<a href="http://www.railaustralia.com.au/xpt.php" target="_blank"> </a><a href="http://www.railaustralia.com.au/xpt.php" target="_blank">XPT</a> link, although with a travel time of roughly 11 hours its hardly a direct competitor for a 1 hour 20 min plane ride.  And at $110 for a mid week economy fare, its not really price competitive either; though kids 15 years and under currently travel for $1 - Bargain!  However through a combination of high fuel prices, a crowded airspace (as evidenced by Sydney's increasingly desperate search for a second airport site), and a growing national environmental conscience, the thirst for a high speed rail link has become greater and greater, so much so that there was even a political party solely dedicated to the cause during the recent Federal Election - <a href="http://bullettrainforaustralia.com.au/" target="_blank">The Bullet Train For Australia Party</a>!

Despite millions of dollars being spent over the last few years on various feasibility studies (<a href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase1_Report.pdf" target="_blank">Phase 1 report</a> released August 2011, <a href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2-Main_Report_Low_Res.pdf" target="_blank">Phase 2 report</a> released April 2013), Australia is still no closer to HSR becoming a reality and with good reason -  an estimated price tag for a complete Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne link of $114 Billion.  It's no wonder transport experts such as Alan Davies have said the project is starting to smell awfully like the 'B' word - Boondoggle (for those unsure what a 'Boondoggle' is, see Melbourne's planned East-West tunnel).  

<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/imagejmlv.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Japanse Maglev testbed, capable of 500km/h. Image courtesy businessinsider.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/imagejmlv.jpg?itok=nUDG8yDb" title="The Japanse Maglev testbed, capable of 500km/h. Image courtesy businessinsider.com.au" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

Various experts agree that the CBR is break even at best, and that in order to keep fares at a competitive price, we'll never actually recoup the $114 Billion price tag.  That's copious amounts of your and my money potentially spent with no real ROI, and would almost certainly mean that private investors would balk at getting involved, leaving the Federal government to foot the entire cost.

In order to make these numbers viable the train would have to take an awful lot of mode share away from planes.  Whilst theoretically possible, I can't see what the incentive to change would be given the price is unlikely to be orders of magnitude lower, and the projected travel time is still more than double than that of air!  Even taking into account travel time to and from the airport, its still unlikely to be better, so as much as I love the idea of a train link, my assessment of the HSR plan as it stands remains - Boondoggle!

But fret not.  Before you decide to give in and strap on the reflective vest and help Tony Abbott build yet another pointless freeway, it doesn't mean HSR is not possible under a different guise.  My biggest concern for the current plan is this: Whilst it is not planned to be fully operational until 2065, the technology is outdated now!  If technology allowed us to cut the journey time considerably, then perhaps the incentive to switch is much more substantial.

Shanghai's airport link train, the Maglev, uses magnetic levitation technology and travels at approximately 400 km/h.  However the Japanese are currently working on an improved unit, with their planned Tokyo - Nagoya Maglev train to be operational by 2027.  A 24 km test track exists and planned speeds are apparently 581 km/h; to put this into perspective the 900 km Melbourne to Sydney journey would take a mere 1.5 hours!  Now that's a serious saving yet before you throw your stop/slow sign away and abandon your post at the construction site of the East West Tunnel to run home and buy shares in the company that builds Maglev trains, there could be an even faster solution!

<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/Image3cstv.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Renders of the Hyperloop concept. Images courtesy cisatv.com"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Image3cstv.jpg?itok=nS7cO5jM" title="Renders of the Hyperloop concept. Images courtesy cisatv.com" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

Last month Tesla Motors Inc CEO Elon Musk, unveiled a a new mode of super fast transport called the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13/musk-shows-hyperloop-transport-design-for-people-to-cars" target="_blank">Hyperloop</a>.  Described as "a cross between a Concorde, a railgun, and an air-hockey table", people would travel in pods in a tube at speeds up to 1100 km/h, thus reducing a Melbourne to Sydney trip to a mind boggling 50 minutes!  Add to that Musk's claim that it could run on solar power and that construction cost would be only one tenth of current HSR solutions and it certainly provides some food for thought, even if it is still at a conceptual stage.

Whilst HSR may currently look like a pie-in-the-sky proposal, rapid technological advances certainly suggest there is hope for the future.  Whilst the current plan may be too slow to make it feasible, that's not to say we should at least prepare for the future.  Ensuring we make the necessary reservations for the route is paramount - the last thing we need is to blow out any future cost due to expensive land acquisitions.  Train technology is currently moving at an extraordinary pace and it's not out of the question that any of the above proposals, or maybe even something faster, would be available in the coming decades.  

So next time you're being thrown all about the place whilst standing in a packed Hitachi train on your commute to Flinders Street, consider trying out your train surfing skills on a train going 10 times as fast!  Or on the <a href="/news/easey-does-it-end-to-end-gains-its-train-set" target="_blank">roof of a building in Collingwood</a> for that matter...
</body></html>

HSR - High Speed Rail or Highly Sceptical Rip-off?

<html><body>
Recently Apartments.com.au published an article discussing <a href="/news/harbouring-doubts-are-ferries-for-melbourne-viable">the new development at Wyndham Harbour</a>. I must admit it looks spectacular. Talking some cues from Williamstown and some from Perth's Hillary's Harbour, it makes great use of one of the West's most underused assets: its coastline. However one thing does bother me about it's the land public transport forgot. There has been a proposal put forward to address this: a ferry service from Wyndham Harbour to the CBD. Sounds great in theory, but is it viable?

Ferries has been part of the Sydney transport landscape as a commercial service since 1861. With services to over 40 destinations to locations on both sides of the Harbour and even up the river to Parramatta, Sydney Ferries carry about 14 million passengers a year, six million of them to Manly alone. And while catching a ferry and taking a ridiculous amount of photos of the Harbour Bridge as you do the ubiquitous Titanic pose on the front of the boat is a right of passage for any tourist, commuters actually make up a significant proportion of those numbers, thanks mainly to a train/ticketing system that is as confusing as it is frustrating.

Now, the Sydney/Melbourne rivalry is the stuff of Legend. So much so, that it resulted in the rather soulless city of Canberra being built to settle an argument on where the nation's capital should be built. So you'd think Melbourne would be falling over itself to emulate its great rival in this department, especially given its geographic location on one of the largest natural harbours in the world, Port Phillip Bay. Yet, last year, the total number of commercial commuter ferry passengers (i.e. not a Midday cruise from Williamstown to St Kilda by the grey army) in Melbourne was (drum roll)...

ZERO!

Zip. Zilch. Nada. You get the picture. So why is this? Historically, Melbourne has had a pig headed obsession with cars, one that is starting to wane with the ever increasing congestion of the last decade. More recently, it's probably a testament to our fairly efficient public transport system, although it is starting to show signs of strain as it reaches capacity, patiently awaiting the arrival of its savior, the Melbourne Metro. So given these factors, and the arrival of the outer suburbs on the west side of the bay for the first time, the tide may finally be turning.

As mentioned above, a proposed ferry service from Wyndham Harbour to Station Pier was recently mooted by ferry operator Riverside Marine. With an estimated return fare of $22 and no government subsidy, questions remain whether it will be viable, or even get off the ground for that matter. That would be a tragedy for the fledgling development; given its relative isolation and traffic chaos of its nearest neighbour Point Cook, the failure of the proposed ferry would confine it to yet another car dependent suburban fringe failure.

I was actually in Sydney recently, running in the City 2 Surf. After a mandatory visit to Manly's 4 Pines brewery, I found myself seated behind some other Melbourne tourists on the return trip to Circular Quay, when one of them quipped "What a great service. Why don't we have these in Melbourne"? Why not indeed. This made me think that the Wyndham proposal could be helped by some economies of scale. i.e. Why not run services to other destinations as well?

Portsea/Sorrento/Rye/Dromana would be a perfect candidate. No heavy rail and unlikely to ever get it, and a massively congested Nepean Highway and Mornington Peninsula Freeway in the peak to boot. Still technically part of Melbourne, the PTV website informs me that if I were to commute by bus then train, the commute would take an eye watering 2 hours 51 minutes from Portsea to Southern Cross. By car, Tom Tom says it would take 1 hour 42 minutes, notwithstanding any traffic problems, so more than likely close to 2 hours. By Ferry, traveling at an average of 25 knots as per the Wyndham ferry plan, that trip is reduced to a 70 minutes boat trip + 13 minutes tram trip = a mere 1 hour 23 minutes! Similarly, other possible destinations and their comparative travel times are listed below:

<table>
<caption>Travel times to the Central Business District by mode. For car times, this assumes a clear run in normal traffic; peak-hour travel times could be considerably longer.</caption>
	<thead><tr>
<th>Destination</th>
			<th>PT Travel Time</th>
			<th>Car Travel Time</th>
			<th>Ferry/Tram Travel Time</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Portsea/Sorrento</td>
			<td>2h 51m</td>
			<td>1h 42m</td>
			<td>1h 23m</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rye</td>
			<td>2h 36m</td>
			<td>1h 25m</td>
			<td>1h 28m</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dromana</td>
			<td>2h 16m</td>
			<td>1h 08m</td>
			<td>1h 23m</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mornington</td>
			<td>1h 45m</td>
			<td>1h 03m</td>
			<td>1h 07m</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Frankston</td>
			<td>1h 04m</td>
			<td>0h 46m</td>
			<td>1h 00m</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Black Rock</td>
			<td>1h 01m</td>
			<td>0h 34m</td>
			<td>0h 34m</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Brighton Beach</td>
			<td>0h 32m</td>
			<td>0h 27m</td>
			<td>0h 27m</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>St Kilda</td>
			<td>0h 16m</td>
			<td>0h 18m</td>
			<td>0h 19m</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Obviously some of the above destinations are quite close to the CBD, and don't offer a lot of time savings over traditional Public Transport. However, just like in Sydney, many would have appeal as tourist routes. Even for commuters, they are pretty much immune from delays such as traffic jams and network congestion. Also not all of the above would be run as independent routes. Some could be combined without adding too much overhead to the overall travel time, such as Mornington-&gt;Black Rock-&gt;Station Pier, with the first 2 stops perfect for such a service due to their lack of a rail connection.

<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/Port%20Phillip%20Bay%20Ferry%20Routes.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Possible Ferry Routes in Port Phillip Bay"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="598" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Port%20Phillip%20Bay%20Ferry%20Routes.png?itok=g5nNM6B0" title="Possible Ferry Routes in Port Phillip Bay" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Possible Ferry Routes in Port Phillip Bay</figcaption></figure>As well as bay routes, there is one other route that is ripe for the picking: the Maribyrnong River. Starting at Avondale Heights neat the VU student village, it could stop at: Highpoint Shopping Centre, Edgewater, VU Footscray Campus, Footscray Wharf and eventually an extra stop at the <a href="http://maribyrnong-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/bomb-site-boom-time-at-maribyrnong-defence-land/">Maribyrnong Explosives Development</a> (proposed population 6000) when its built. With Maribyrnong set for a major density upgrade in the near future, the ferry could provide students, shoppers, young professionals and families with a fast and direct service to the CBD. Better still most of the stops already have a boat landing, and all of them (bar Footscray Wharf) would be serving areas that are currently not served by heavy rail.

<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/Maribyrnong%20Ferry%20Route.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Maribyrnong Ferry Route"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="497" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Maribyrnong%20Ferry%20Route.png?itok=fYgVWEGq" title="Maribyrnong Ferry Route" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Maribyrnong Ferry Route</figcaption></figure>Of course, there are several other criteria which would need to be met in order for ferries to be viable:

<ol>
<li>Cost: While the current proposed cost of $22 return may seem steep, it should be noted that Sydney's ferries prices are considerably higher than their trains. Despite this, commuters still show a propensity to pay, as long as the service is quicker and more reliable than the alternative.</li>
	<li>Travel time: As demonstrated earlier, most routes would offer a considerable time saving over either traditional PT and/or driving. The Wyndham service has promised a commute time of about 40 mins with stops at Altona and Williamstown; quite acceptable when compared to commute times for most other outer suburbs.</li>
	<li>Frequency: While train like frequencies of 10-20 mins is probably not viable, services every 30 mins in the peak would probably need to be a minimum.</li>
	<li>Capacity: Unlike trains, you can't attach extra carriages to a ferry! And with services only every 30 mins or so, waiting for the next one isn't really an option. So boats will have to be big enough to cope with growth, or be replaced when demand outstrips capacity. This could be pricey if underestimated.</li>
	<li>Connectivity: Firstly, space for bikes to cater for people to commute to other destinations should be a given. Secondly, connecting train/tram bus services at the city end. Currently the plan is for services to terminate at Station Pier in Port Melbourne. Apparently there is an option to finish in Docklands, but this is dependent on speed limits along the Yarra being lifted. I can't help but think this is the better option, as the CBD would be the end destination for most commuters, and would provide a better range of options for those that go on. A Circular Quay style ferry interchange would add some great activation to Docklands' Victoria Harbour!</li>
</ol>
 

While Trains/Trams/Buses should continue to provide the bulk of Melbourne's public transport needs, there is real potential for ferries to play a secondary role. With the Wyndham Harbour ferry, we have a real chance to provide a snapshot of what may be for other parts of Melbourne. Of course, unlike Sydney, Melburnians aren't accustomed to this mode of transport for commuting, so patience will be required to get patronage to a sufficient level. If that requires some initial government subsidy, then it may be a case of 'short term pain, long term gain'. Queue the music to the Aussie children's TV classic, Ship to Shore!
</body></html>

Harbouring doubts - are ferries for Melbourne viable?

<html><body>
Despite the dramatic scene depicted in the image below, cars smashing though the fence are the least of Altona Station's problems. PTV released the numbers for daily passenger boardings a few weeks back, and unfortunately for this seaside sleepy hollow, it suffered a huge drop. A drop in popularity so large in fact, its enough to drive its most famous resident, Julia Gillard, back to Adelaide.*  The patronage data, covering the years 2008/09 to 2011/12, can be found <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PDFs/Random/Station-by-station-patronage-data.xls">here</a>.  Its not all doom and gloom - with a bit of left field thinking, the trend can be reversed.

* fn1 - May or may not be true

<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/Altona%20Station%20Crash.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image courtesy heraldsun.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/Altona%20Station%20Crash.jpg?itok=LVW1tJ0j" title="Image courtesy heraldsun.com.au" typeof="Image"></a>

The Altona Loop has had a bit of a checkered history.  First opening in November 1888 as a branch off the Werribee line, it was meant to encourage the sale of land in the area.  However it closed a mere 2 years later, before opening again in 1917, and then electrified in 1926 when it was taken over by the state run Victorian Railways.  It was almost closed under recommendation of the Lonie Report in 1980, before instead being extended to Westona then Laverton in 1985.  From then Werribee trains all ran via Altona, instead of the previous route via Paisley and Galvin.

And that's how it remained until 2010.  By this stage the city loop had become horribly congested, Metro Trains Melbourne reconfigured how trains traveled to/from/through the CBD.  In peak times, the Altona Loop reverted to being run as a separate line, terminating at Laverton.  Services also no longer ran through the loop, and passengers have to change at Newport in non peak times.  They reacted angrily to this change, resulting in the aforementioned drop in numbers:

                                                               Daily Weekday Boardings, 2008-09 to 2011-12

<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/Altona%20Loop%20Patronage%20Data%20Table.png" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Altona%20Loop%20Patronage%20Data%20Table.png?itok=pFPi81lQ" typeof="Image"></a>

That's a 27% drop in passengers for Altona, 22% for Seaholme, and 20% for Westona.  A damning decrease by anyone's standards; especially if you consider the sharp growth of the network as a whole over the past decade.  Given the ever increasing capacity issues of the Werribee line and the City Loop, Altona Loop frequencies are unlikely to revert back anytime soon.  So its time to think outside of the square.

One of the major shortcomings of the Altona Loop is that its only single track from Westona Station to the junction with the Werribee Line at West Newport.  This means trains sometimes have lengthy delays at either the WN junction or at Westona Station waiting for trains from the opposite direction.  Not only is Westona Station not that interesting (I think I managed to memorise every bit of graffiti on the wall there during these enforced waits, and its not like they were painted by Banksy!), it severely hampers the throughput of trains.  And whilst duplication would be relatively straight forward between WN Junction and Seaholme station, the rest of the line would be problematic, with limited room between Railway St North and Railway St South.  Mass compulsory acquisition would be required, and obviously not recommended.

When the St Kilda and Port Melbourne lines were scheduled to be closed under the recommendation of the Lonie Report in 1981, they were to be originally replaced by buses.  After much opposition, they were retained until 1987 when they were replaced by light rail.  This conversion has been a fantastic success.  Not only do they provide a rapid commute time (22 minutes Spencer St to Acland St with 12 min frequency for Route 96, 12 minutes Spencer St to Beacon Cove on 12 min frequency for Route 109), they are grade separated for much of the way, meaning commutes for both passengers and motorists are less likely to be affected in peak times.  In fact Route 96 is currently the subject of a proposed upgrade, meaning it will become the first route to be grade separated for its entire length - <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/trams/route-96-project/">East Brunswick to St Kilda</a>.

So this begs the obvious question: Why can't we do this in Altona?

<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/Tram.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Tram.jpg?itok=-EgBlycr" typeof="Image"></a>

Most of the drop off in passengers can to attributed to the frequency of service - an appalling 22 minutes in peak time, 20 minutes during the day and 30 minutes at night.  This is compounded by having to sometimes change at Newport, where connecting services often aren't synchronised thus blowing out commute times even further.  This is unacceptable by today's standards - most other lines have peak time frequencies of about 10 minutes or less!  Most people would accept having to change if the frequency and connections were improved - something light rail could address.

As mentioned earlier, duplication would be required to improve frequency.  Whilst not possible for Heavy Rail, Light Rail is a different story.  Trams run on a narrower gauge, and are much less wide in size than trains.  They also don't travel as quickly as trains, meaning they can pass with a smaller clearance.  Tram stops are also much smaller and less complex than train platforms, thus reducing cost.  If the Altona Line was converted to Light Rail between Laverton and Newport, duplication would be possible.

Running trams is cheaper than running trains, so having them run at say, 10 minute intervals would be quite plausible. With the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/new-trams-arrive-but-not-on-schedule-20130701-2p71e#ixzz2Xmmpbaml">latest trams</a> able to hold 200 people, capacity should not be a problem, with the morning peak hour (7am to 9.30am) total numbers for Altona, Seaholme and Westona being 401, 187 and 339 respectively.  New stops could even be added at Altona Meadows and West Newport, servicing areas that would otherwise need to drive to the station.  In fact given numbers on the Williamstown line are similar (North Williamstown 1201 Weekday boardings, Williamstown 409 and Williamstown Beach 767) and its already duplicated, conversion all the way through to Williamstown makes sense.

This could result in untold flow on benefits for public transport in the West.  The residents of Altona and Williamstown would get a faster, frequent, better connected, dedicated end to end shuttle service, running independently of the rest of the train network, and so not susceptible to delays created down the line.  This would allow the Werribee Line to run trains dedicated to Werribee, rather than having to share capacity with the Altona and Werribee Lines.  This would result in much more frequent services, important to a line that is one of the network's most crowded, and running through some of Melbourne fastest booming growth corridors of Williams Landing, Point Cook, Wyndham Vale, and eventually, the Werribee East development.  

This would mean services would travel full time through the Paisley section of the line again, possibly justifying the reopening of Paisley station and restoring rail services to Altona North once more.  And the residents of Altona Meadows and Newport West would have direct access to rail services for the first time.

<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/Altona_Williamstown%20Light%20Rail%20Route.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Proposed Altona - Williamstown Light Rail route utilising Google"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Altona_Williamstown%20Light%20Rail%20Route.png?itok=iIPc9EK2" title="Proposed Altona - Williamstown Light Rail route utilising Google" typeof="Image"></a>

And last but not least we would have the Newport Interchange.  To allow passengers a quick, easy changeover to a connecting train, a new tram interchange would have to be built at Newport station.  There is a prefect spot for it - currently a large parcel of land that sits south of the train station, occupied by the rail yards (shown in light blue below).  With a bit of imagination and ingenuity, it could developed as a decking over the rail lines design, much like the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/bold-vision-for-fed-square-east/story-e6frf7kx-1225942971393">Federation Square East Project</a> and Sydney's Central Station.  Imagine a mixture of open space, retail/cafes/restaurants and much needed housing, all serviced by an integrated train/tram/bus interchange and adding even more activation to the regenerating Newport retail district.  Using good urban design principles, it could be the envy of the West.  What would it look like? I'm not an architect, so I'll leave that to our caped crusader, Apartments.com.au's very own <a href="/news">blockhead</a>.  If he dares...

<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/Newport%20Railyards.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Newport Railyards Site utilising Google"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/Newport%20Railyards.png?itok=XE2BHwjl" title="Newport Railyards Site utilising Google" typeof="Image"></a>

Admittedly, the last part of the proposal is a little ambitious, but certainly plausible in the longer term.  However the light rail proposal is not only doable in the short term but would solve an import transport conundrum that Melbourne's West currently faces.  When the Libs won government in Victoria, they pledged to focus on public transport, a promise that has resulted in a proposed shiny new road tunnel.  Labor has promised to release its 'balanced transport plan' by the end of the year.  Lets hope that balance includes Melbourne's West!
</body></html>

Altona Smashed! - A Light Rail solution to a heavy problem

<html><body>
Recently at Apartments.com.au the transport focus has been on the big ticket modes: rail and bus. Whilst their mode share has increased steadily over the last decade, the underlying trend towards inner city living has seen a dramatic uptake for the humble bicycle. Fueled by rising petrol costs, an increasing interest in exercise, and a population explosion of hipsters in the inner north, Melburnians have been blessed with a plethora of new cycle paths, and not so blessed with the popularity of faux vintage fixie bikes (Ok, Ok, I'll try to reframe from any further hipster bashing!).

Whilst we have seen rapid improvement in off road places to ride, Amsterdam we are not quite yet. Admittedly, they have about a 50 year head start on us, and a smaller, denser area to work with. We have come a long way in a short time though; as a kid it was basically run the gauntlet on the road, or risk bowling over a few grannies on the footpath. These days there are a variety of cycle paths and cycle 'highways' dedicated to the commute of the lycra army. Just go to Melbourne on Google Maps and select the 'Bicycling' overlay; the amount of corresponding light and dark green lines is quite mind boggling.

Cycling is no longer a Sunday morning sojourn with the wife/husband and kids. Its now a serious weekday commuter option for many. Subsequently we now have a network of paths to lead to the CBD: the Gardiners Creek Trail, The Merri Creek Trail, The Upfield Path, The Maribyrnong Trail and the Capital City Trail just to name a few. However in the Western Suburbs it's a bit more problematic. Aside from the Coastal Trail which provides a good link from Altona/Williamstown via Footscray Road, further out residents are limited despite the presence of what should be the cycling jewel in its crown: the Federation Trail.

<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/Image46_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Images courtesy wayfinding.com and Wikipedia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="207" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Image46_0.jpg?itok=2GEjJEzy" title="Images courtesy wayfinding.com and Wikipedia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Images courtesy wayfinding.com and Wikipedia</figcaption></figure>The Federation Trail opened in 2006, costing a purported $12.5 million. Starting in Werribee, it mainly follows the old sewer outfall, passing through parts of Hopper Crossing, Truganina, Williams Landing and Laverton North, before coming to an abrupt halt in Brooklyn at Millers Road, not unlike the Eastern Freeway at Hoddle Street. From here options to the CBD gets a bit tricky: Millers Road, Geelong Road and Francis Street all have major traffic volumes, and are truck routes to boot, restricting it as an option to everyone bar those with a death wish. The Westgate is of course off limits, especially now that the emergency lanes have been removed from the bridge.

<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/Image8125.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The missing link, utilising Google"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="271" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Image8125.jpg?itok=sq_IqvRF" title="The missing link, utilising Google" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The missing link, utilising Google</figcaption></figure>The answer is the 'missing link'. Starting at Millers Road, it would wend its way next to the Westgate Freeway to Williamstown Road, before following Stony Creek to Hyde Street and connecting to the Coastal Trail. From here cyclists can go left and into the CBD, or right and onto the Westgate Punt, a ferry service to Fisherman's Bend. Its an important link; currently only the inner west is really served well. Building it means not only would the large suburbs or Werribee and Hopper Crossing be connected, but the major growth areas of Truganina, Point Cook and Williams Landing would have a much more direct path into the CBD than the much longer and more tourist orientated option of the Coastal Trail.

The best part is its relatively straight forward to construct: no houses need to be compulsorily acquired, no parks need to be savaged, and it wouldn't cost $9 billion to build! The cost to complete it has been estimated at less than $1 million; a drop in the ocean as a proportion of today's total infrastructure budget. And the west would finally have the (close to) complete commuter cycling network it deserves. Given that it would run through the trendy suburb of Yarraville, maybe, just maybe, some cafes will open up along the route, giving the hipsters somewhere to park their fixies and have a well deserved organic cider and gluten free salted caramel muffin…*

* no hipsters were hurt in the writing of this article.
</body></html>

Cycle routes that need improving: the Federation Trail

<html><body>
One of the best things about working at an insurance company in the city was how close it was to Southern Cross Station - about 60 seconds. As my train trip was only 2 stops away, it meant I could get to work in less than 1/2 hour - door to door. I thought that was pretty good - there's nothing like an extra 30 minutes sleep on a cold, dark winter morning. My colleague whom I sat next to would regularly turn up late, cursing and blaming the traffic and the up to 90 minute car trip into the city. "Where do you live?" I asked her once, feeling sorry that she had to commute from some far flung outer suburb.

 

"Oh, in Caulfield"

 

"What? But its only 10km away! Why don't you just catch the train"?

 

"Nah, work pays my my parking. So why bother"?

 

Its an excuse I hear often.  Melbourne introduced a parking levy back in 2006, but it has done little to curb congestion.  This year, that levy was increased by 130%.  Whilst this is a step in the right direction, it's unlikely to make a huge difference.  Why?  As in my example above, most people don't pay for their parking spot - its paid for by their employer.  So in spite of the high cost of petrol, registration, insurance and vehicle maintenance, it is far outweighed by the price of a yearly car space (roughly worth $7-8K a year) plus the now $1300 levy.  It's clear we need to take a different tact if we are to pry people out of their cars.

 

In a recent UrbanMelbourne article titled <a href="/expert-insights/buying/will-the-party-of-urbanism-please-stand-up">'Will the party of urbanism please stand up'</a>, it was suggested that we we could help pay for urban infrastructure by introducing a levy or raise the GST.  A great idea, and one that warrants further exploration.  However there is some things we can do in addition.  To quote Tony Abbott*, "Why not introduce a simple tax?" - i.e. a congestion charge for driving into the CBD.

*Tony Abbott was of course infamously referring to the carbon tax here, a position we would later totally back flip on.  The author of this article promises to 'never ever' quote Tony Abbott again...

 

Now the idea of a congestion charge is not a new one.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge">London</a> has had one since 2003, with claims of a 30% reduction in vehicles entering the charge zone, and a 20% drop in CO2 emissions.  Melbourne Mayor Robert Doyle has floated the idea in the past, but didn't quite have the balls to introduce it when talk turned to re-election time.  At the federal level, Infrastructure Australia floated the idea again just a few days ago (read more <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/london-style-congestion-tax-could-be-introduced-to-cut-melbourne-cbd-traffic-after-infrastructure-australia-report/story-fni0fit3-1226673439352#">here</a>).  So maybe its time that the state government ran with it instead - but with a slight twist.

 

Much of the criticism directed toward a congestion tax is derived from the fact that traders think their businesses will suffer. Its no revelation that commuters make up the majority of the traffic in the CBD, with peak hour levels especially horrendous. Shoppers generally don't drive in during peak hour and stay all day - so why don't we just exempt them from the charge?  Business owners would of course, be exempt as well.

 

Enforcement of the charge in London is done by a series of cameras using ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition), much like Citylink, allowing a differential payment scale.  In Melbourne, if this can be extended to record the time the vehicle enters/exits the charge zone, then we have an easy way of differentiating the commuters from the shoppers.  A 4 hour window can be designated, giving shoppers plenty of time to do their shopping and exit the zone, and therefore, no charge.  Commuters who stay parked inside the zone all day, will be charged. Simple.

 

<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/cameracongestioncharge.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Camera technology. Image courtesy cchargelondon.com"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/cameracongestioncharge.jpg?itok=vHSWYQuU" title="Camera technology. Image courtesy cchargelondon.com" typeof="Image"></a>

 

Several other people/groups would also need to be exempt.  Such as (but not limited to):

<ul>
<li>Owners with businesses in the CBD</li>
	<li>Police/Ambulance/Fire</li>
	<li>Breakdown services - i.e. tow trucks, RACV roadside assistance etc</li>
	<li>Cyclists</li>
	<li>Residents</li>
</ul>
 

Residents are the most contentious group here.  Living in the city is meant to negate the need for having a car, and so technically, charging them at the normal rate could act as a further disincentive to having a vehicle.  However as they are unlikely to significantly contribute to the problem (after all, they can walk to work!), giving them an exemption is probably academic.

 

One other point of contention are the off peak exemptions.  In London, the charge is only applicable 7am to 6pm, Monday to Friday, with public holidays and weekends not applicable.  The 7am - 6pm rule makes sense - if people still insist on driving, they are at least encouraged to do so outside of peak congestion times.  I'm not sure about making weekends free though - Melbourne can still get very busy on weekends - especially if there is a sporting/major event on.  I would suggest a 50% discount, as there are usually extra trains to cover these events. 

 

<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/CCZ_Melb_Map.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Central City Zone with congestion tax boundaries"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/CCZ_Melb_Map.png?itok=moExSWwO" title="Central City Zone with congestion tax boundaries" typeof="Image"></a>

 

And that brings us to the boundaries of the charge zone itself (see above), which inevitably, will be the subject of much debate.  Note my suggestion has 2 noticeable additions - Docklands and the Jolimont sporting precinct.  This is quite deliberate - both these areas are served quite well my multiple modes of public transport, leaving no real reason why people need to drive to the footy, or other events.  One further area which could be added is Southbank, discouraging people from driving in and parking at Crown Casino.

 

That leaves one final detail - the price.  London charges £10($16.70) if you pay by midnight on the day you travel, £12($20.09) if you pay by the next day, or £9($15.07) if you are registered for Autopay.  Fines for non payment range from £60($100.44) to £187($313.03), depending on how late you pay.  These may seem high, but it is meant to act as a deterrent.  There are a few other incentives the government could create - offering employers discounted yearly MYKI passes for their employees, and removing any associated FBT for doing so; these are seemingly plausible.  Add the price of existing Citylink tolls, and you have some serious reasons to get on the train.  

 

Judging by the results in London, a congestion charge could result in some major reductions in traffic numbers and pollution.  It would require some upgrades to the PT system, but it would also raise some serious revenue, helping fund these upgrades as well as other urban infrastructure as mentioned earlier.  And as an added bonus, it would reduce the number of parking lots needed in the CBD, thus freeing up sites for further residential and commercial development.  With more people living within the CBD's boundaries, it would result in even fewer people having to drive to work.  The benefits seem immense, but of course with any new tax/levy/charge, the political risks are high too - hence the standoff we now have between council, state and federal governments.

 

Robert Doyle, Dennis Napthine, Kevin Rudd - who will blink first?

 
</body></html>

Charge it up - Decongesting The Hoddle Grid

<html><body>
Last month <a href="http://urbanmelbourne.info/transport/2013/05/11/williams-landing-station-a-photographic-overview#content" target="_blank">Williams Landing Railway Station</a> opened to much fanfare, and much relief for the residents of Point Cook and Williams Landing. Costing a total of $110 million (Station $86 million, access road $24 million), it's the Taj Mahal of train stations! Containing 500 car spaces, a bridge linking Point Cook and Williams Landing and a major bus interchange, it should be a commuter's wet dream. But it has one major drawback - it's in zone 2.
I attended the grand opening of the station, where it seemed hundreds of families admired the very grand architecture, the impressive view from the bridge, and the somewhat ghost town appearance of the multiple bus stops stretching out into the distance waiting to be used. It turned out I was quite naive in thinking people were there to check out the facilities for possible future use - it seems they were there for the free balloons and sausage in a sandwich. The more I listened to people comment on it, the more disturbed I became...
"Looks nice but there's no way I'm gonna use it as it's in Zone 2. Still gonna drive to Laverton".
Now for anyone that hasn't tried to park at Laverton Station in peak hour before, let's just say you have a better chance of getting a park at Highpoint on Christmas Eve! Yet due to the price differential between Zone 1 and 2, people are still happy to run this gauntlet, and even risk fines for parking in illegal spots.
I've often heard the argument of 'My station is just outside of the boundary, they should just change it to Zone 1'. Of course, you can take this argument to the nth degree. If you keep moving the boundary by one station, people who use the next station will always be 'just one station from the boundary'. Eventually you'll just end up with the whole network in Zone 1! And whilst many people would be happy with that scenario, it's hardly viable economically, nor fair, to have someone traveling from Footscray to Flinders St (2 stops, 6.4km) pay the same as some traveling from Pakenham (29 stops, 56.9km).
So lets do the maths. A full fare 7 day Zone 1 Myki Pass costs $35, compared to a Zone 1/2 pass at $59.20. That's a weekly saving of almost $25, quite substantial by most people's standards. And rightfully so - $25 buys you almost 3 bottles of Holgate 'Temptress' Chocolate Porter at the Station Hotel in Footscray on a lazy Sunday afternoon. So people are well vindicated in their avoidance measures.
Current weekly rate 7 day pass
<img alt="" class="image-article_full_width_702px" height="80" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Zone_1-2_Price_table.jpg?itok=Rj2eegxe" width="702">
So what's the solution? Basically the price gap needs to be narrowed between the zones; so much so the incentive to drive to Zone 1 is no longer there. Dramatically reducing the cost of a Zone 1/2 ticket will create the inequality mentioned earlier, not to mention a massive revenue shortfall. So my solution is... (drum roll for expectant backlash)... More zones! (OK, I'm covering my face; you can throw the tomatoes now)!
Now I'm not advocating a return to the old 3 zone system with its associated price structure. The old cost of a zone 1/2/3 ticket was cost prohibitive. The cost of a zone 1 ticket should remain the same as a minimum, and the highest cost should be the same as the maximum now, i.e. of a zone 1/2 ticket. However, there should be 6 zones in between.
Proposed weekly rate 7 day pass
<img alt="" class="image-article_full_width_702px" height="72" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Zone_1-6_Price_table.jpg?itok=6F5dXM3T" width="702">
* Any combinations of zones 2-6
People's first reaction may be that this is too complex. However the introduction of Myki has taken any guess work out of the equation - you don't need to know what zones you are traveling through, Myki will automatically work out the appropriate fare for you.  Zone boundaries would be at 10km intervals.  This would mean that the current end-of-the-line stations would be in the following zones:
Zone 1: Flemington Racecourse (7.8km)
Zone 2: Alamein (14.9km), Williamstown (15.5km), Sandringham (17.9km)
Zone 3: Upfield (20.1km), Glen Waverly (20.9km), South Morang (24.7km), Craigiburn (27.0km)
Zone 4: Werribee(32.9km), Hurstibridge (36.7km), Lilydale (37.8km), Melton (39km), Sunbury (39.5km)
Zone 5: Belgrave (41.3km), Frankston (42.7km), Cranbourne (44.0km)
Zone 6: Pakenham (56.9km), Stony Point (73.3km)*
* Technically Stony Point would fall outside of Zone 6 (50-59km). Myki is soon being rolled out for regional areas, which have their own Zone system, but could easily be integrated with this proposal by beginning at Zone 7.  However as the Stony Point Line is currently part of the Metro network, I am happy for it to remain so as part of an 'extended' Zone 6.
Under this proposal, no-one in the current Zone 2 would pay more.  As the radius of the current Zone 1 is approx 20km (it varies for each line), some people in the current Zone 1 may incur a slight increase.  This is not only necessary to balance the the revenue shortfall of the people paying less in the other zones, it is also fair.  Not only do commuters closer to the city have a greater choice (trams, more train lines/stations closer together), they also benefit from more frequent services), thus making the small price differential justifiable.  Furthermore PTV could impose a 3 year price freeze to offset any of the once off price increases.
<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/Huntingdale%20Rd.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Huntingdale Rd in the morning"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/Huntingdale%20Rd.jpg?itok=UPNi0WFc" title="Huntingdale Rd in the morning" typeof="Image"></a>
Huntingdale Rd 'Car park' in the mornings
A $5 weekly fare gap is much lower than $25, and should reduce the incentive for people to drive across zones to catch a train.  In fact, in my initial example, Williams Landing would be in the same zone as Laverton, thus sparing Laverton station car park the massive overcrowding it currently suffers.  Huntingdale station is another that comes to mind, with cars parked along Huntingdale Rd for several hundred metres, much to the chagrin of the local residents.  
It also makes sense that commuters who travel further distances, placing more running and maintenance costs on the system, pay for this imbalance. And that the price rises incrementally, rather than one huge jump as is now.  
As a bonus, it may act to help something this very website is trying champion - the reduction of urban sprawl.  If prices are significantly dearer on the outer rim, maybe, just maybe, people will start to think twice before buying that McMansion in Pakenham!
</body></html>

Fair's Fare - Making Public Transport Pricing More Equitable

<html><body>
In a previous job, I used to work for a mail house in Laverton North.  For those who don't know where that is, it's an industrial area in the west, wedged between Laverton, Derrimut and Altona North.  Traditionally a heavy industrial area for the petrochemical industry, in recent years it has grown in size significantly to include not only factories but light industrial/warehouses/showrooms as well.  Linked to this growth has been the somewhat burgeoning cafe and (takeaway) restaurant scene, which has helped make this area one of the major employers in the western region.

Given this is not a residential area, it goes without saying apart from a few dedicated souls that spend the night at the office, 100% of the workforce need to commute to work.  Despite 3 buses servicing this area, cars, by far and away, still make up the vast majority of mode share.  Why is this the case?  Because not for the first time, PTV have got this region's bus routes sewn up in a tangled mess.

The 3 routes serving Laverton North are: the 400, the 414 and the 417.

1 - The 400 mainly serves the correctional facilities in the area. Starting at Laverton Station, it stops at Port Phillip Prison, The Metropolitan Remand Centre and the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre (Women's Prison), before terminating at Sunshine Railway Station via Deer Park.  An obviously important service, it however circumnavigates the majority of the 'business park' precinct.

2 - The 414 also starts at Laverton Station, before running along Cherry Lane, Geelong Rd through Brooklyn, West Footscray before terminating at Footscray Station.  A good trunk route in the inner west, however it merely scrapes the sides of Laverton North.

3 - And that leaves us with the 417. Also starting at Laverton Station, it travels north before following a loop course around the precinct before returning to Laverton Station.  And herein lies the problem.  

<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/3469_Bus417.gif" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/3469_Bus417.gif?itok=LOqWQB1D" typeof="Image"></a>

An example - according to PTV's journey planner, if I catch the bus from Laverton Station at 8am and get off at the corner or Fitzgerald Rd and William Angliss Drive, it takes less than 15 minutes.  However to catch the bus back after work, I can't just cross the road and catch the bus going in the opposite direction.  I have to continue in the same direction, doing a massive loop and blowing out my return journey to 1/2 an hour - double my morning journey!  This differential can blow out even more, depending on where I get on/off the route.

To add even less incentive to getting the bus, there is a distinct lack of bus shelters on the route.  Laverton North is a very open and sparse area, making exposure to the elements a real concern.  There are not many trees or any tall buildings around, so standing at a bus stop in the pouring rain or 35 degrees without a shelter hardly sugar-coats the route with incentives for people to use it in all weather conditions.

How do PTV fix this?  There are 3 basic options:

1 - Run the route in reverse in the afternoon.  This would ensure everyone's AM trip is the same as their PM trip.  However this would increase the PM trip for the commuters on Pipe Rd and Cherry Lane.  And given the amount of factories in the area, who presumably operate on different shifts, this may not make any difference for commuters working hours outside of the traditional 9-5.

2 - Run buses in both directions!  This may require more buses, but if buses are running in both directions, frequency could probably be reduced.  Currently they run every 15 minutes (in peak), if you reduced this to 30 minutes (each bus) and staggered the two directional services by 15 minutes, you'd still get a bus every 15 minutes, alternating between a clockwise and anti-clockwise option.

3 - Chop Cherry Lane from the route.  The Cherry Lane section is already covered by the 414 bus, and so would reduce the travel time of the 417 loop considerably.

One of these options, plus some extra bus shelters, would surely increase incentives for more workers in this area to use the route.  Traffic in the surrounding Laverton area, especially on the Princes Freeway and Sayers Rd, is a nightmare in peak periods.  The recent addition of Williams Landing Train station, coupled with an improved 417 bus route, could go a long way to alleviating it.
</body></html>

Bus routes which need improvement: the #417

<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.

Martin Mankowski

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News