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

Alastair Taylor

Timetables for the Regional Rail Link announced

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

Spring Street kicks off Dandenong corridor level crossing removal project

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

Turning the East West Road Link into a rail link

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

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

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

Comment: South Yarra platforms for Melbourne Metro Rail ruled out

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

New rail technology: Alstom's Axonis light metro

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

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

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

Comment: Transurban's Western Distributor proposal

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

Orbital rail lines in Melbourne: where would they go?

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

Fishermans Bend transport: fast, frequent and automated

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/broadbeach-qld-4218">Broadbeach</a> offers plenty of reasons to live vertically, but moving from a substantial family home into an apartment can expose the compromises of high-density living. Privacy, room for guests and usable living space tend to matter more when an apartment is intended as a permanent home rather than an occasional coastal base.

A typical residential floor at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-eveleigh-broadbeach-7-9-surf-parade-broadbeach-qld-4218">The Eveleigh</a>, on Surf Parade,&nbsp;contains just four apartments. The 94-residence development by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/hirsch-faigen">Hirsch &amp; Faigen</a> is predominantly made up of expansive three-bedroom homes, with a limited collection of half-floor penthouses above.

Across the apartment floors, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/rothelowman">Rothelowman</a> has used the relatively limited number of residences to give each home greater access to natural light and outlook. Living spaces extend towards full-height glazing, while a series of bay windows frame selected views across the Pacific Ocean, city and hinterland rather than treating the building edge as a continuous wall of glass.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149670 project_image_fid=360965]

“The apartment floors deliver a collection of homes that embrace controlled outlook via a series of bay windows deliberately framing moments of view,” Rothelowman Director Kim Lowman said.

From outside, those projecting forms contribute to the tower’s faceted profile. Strong horizontal and vertical elements establish its proportions, while the changing position of the sun alters the light, shadow and reflection across the façade throughout the day.

The same attention moves inside the apartments, where the material palette combines warm timber, natural stone, metallic detailing and softer curved forms. Kitchens sit within the main living zone, with stone island benches, integrated joinery and European appliances, before the living areas extend towards the glazing and the outlook.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149670 project_image_fid=360981]

Three genuine bedrooms provide room to accommodate family and guests, while two secure car spaces and storage address some of the practical considerations that can become more noticeable when moving from a larger home. Feedback from the display suite has centred on the warmth and restraint of the interiors, with buyers commenting that the residences feel like homes rather than conventional coastal apartments.

A limited collection of half-floor penthouses occupies the upper levels, increasing the scale of the living spaces and adding private balconies and elevated finishes. From this position, the outlook extends between the ocean and hinterland.

Outside the private residences, The Eveleigh separates its shared spaces between the podium and rooftop. The podium is centred on wellness, with subtropical landscaping surrounding a swimming pool and pool terrace, yoga garden, private gymnasium, sauna and hot and cold plunge facilities. Landscaped retreats and pavilions provide additional places to sit away from the main recreation areas.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149670 project_image_fid=360966]

Higher in the building, a rooftop pavilion and private dining suite sit alongside resident lounge, barbecue and outdoor dining areas, opening towards panoramic views across the ocean, city and hinterland.

“Buyers are no longer just looking for an apartment, but a lifestyle where they can relax, reset, and enjoy a balanced way of living,” Hirsch &amp; Faigen Director of Sales Matt George said.

Interest to date has come from established owner-occupiers and interstate lifestyle purchasers, including buyers planning a future move to the Gold Coast. Many are coming from larger homes and want to reduce ongoing maintenance without giving up space for family and guests, privacy, two car spaces or the ability to entertain at home.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149670 project_image_fid=360969]

Much of that daily life can also take place beyond the building without requiring a drive. Kurrawa Beach and Pratten Park are an easy walk from Surf Parade, while Pacific Fair, Oracle Boulevard, The Oasis, restaurants, cafés, entertainment and public transport are also within walking distance.

The Eveleigh is Hirsch &amp; Faigen's fourth Gold Coast development since entering the market in 2021, following The Hemingway at Palm Beach, The Emerson at Kirra and Yves at Mermaid Beach. Each of the preceding projects sold out before completion.

“Broadbeach had been on our radar throughout our time operating on the Gold Coast,” the developer said. “Following our projects in Palm Beach, Kirra and Mermaid Beach, Broadbeach represented the natural next step for the business.”

The Surf Parade site brought together proximity to the beach, protected coastal outlooks and walkability to dining, shopping and recreation. Hirsch &amp; Faigen also identified the street as an emerging premium residential address, with enough separation from Broadbeach's busier destinations to retain a quieter environment at home.

The Eveleigh is now under construction by Maxcon, with completion forecast for mid-2028. Three-bedroom residences are currently available from $2.87 million.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=149670]

Joel Robinson

The Eveleigh brings house-like apartments to Broadbeach

A long-stalled Campbelltown development site is back in play, with new plans for 139 apartments set to supersede a mixed-use scheme approved almost a decade ago but never built.

The new proposal for 28 Cordeaux Street would deliver 116 market and 23 affordable apartments in a part 14-storey building, bringing a substantial new project into a Campbelltown market where new apartment supply remains limited.

Plans have been filed over the 3,092 sqm corner site at Moore-Oxley Street, around 600 metres from Campbelltown Railway Station and the city-centre retail core.

The site already carries a mixed-use residential approval dating to 2016. Doroch Architects has now been engaged on a larger replacement scheme, which is progressing as a State Significant Development Application following a Housing Delivery Authority determination in August 2025.

The apartment mix comprises 39 one-bedroom, 72 two-bedroom and 28 three-bedroom residences. Two-bedroom apartments make up just over half of the project, while three-bedroom homes account for 20 per cent.

<img alt="First look: New 139-apartment plans revive long-stalled Campbelltown city centre site" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="136dd5b9-3791-4da6-9e31-76f533f5b4de" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Campbelltown%20da2.png?VersionId=LgOSy9nwf5u.MGswBBwaGGxuX8QpHSl_" />

Of the 139 apartments, 23 will be delivered as affordable housing under the in-fill affordable housing provisions of the Housing SEPP. The affordable component represents 15 per cent of the residential gross floor area and will be managed by a registered Community Housing Provider.

Doroch has sought to break the scale of the building into two distinct elements, with a masonry podium of around four storeys establishing the street edge before the residential tower steps back above.

The corner position has shaped that approach. Cordeaux Street faces toward the commercial and civic centre, while Moore-Oxley Street leads into the lower-scale residential neighbourhood to the south, and the design verification report describes the site as "bridging the commercial core to the north and established residential areas to the south."

The podium will be expressed predominantly in face brick, while the upper levels shift to brushed and grooved concrete cladding with darker metal detailing. Recessed sections, deep balcony edges and landscaping break down the upper form, with an approximately 11.8-metre setback to the northern boundary addressing the adjoining St Peters Anglican School.

<img alt="First look: New 139-apartment plans revive long-stalled Campbelltown city centre site" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c8b3d2d3-c561-4bfc-a5d9-a68c0c10dac1" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Campbelltown%20da1.png?VersionId=AeAEyJU02Gk2k5noUj2StziCvdQ7fW4B" />

Campbelltown has been starved of new residential developments in the last decade.

The only other notable development set to come to market this year is ALAND's Queen Square, a mixed-use precinct on over two hectares that will comprise apartments above a vibrant ground-level retail and hospitality dining precinct.

First look: New 139-apartment plans revive long-stalled Campbelltown city centre site

First Look: Sherlock Construction pitches apartments for low-rise Deception Bay

Queensland builder-developer MAYD has revealed the first look at its major North Kirra beachfront development, lodging amended plans that reduce the number of apartments and increase the proportion of larger residences.

The project is planned across a substantial 4,742 sqm amalgamated site spanning seven lots at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/2-6-pacific-parade-bilinga-qld-4225">2-6 Pacific Parade</a> and 27-33 Golden Four Drive in Bilin​ga, directly opposite Nor​th Kirra Beach.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/mayd-group">MAYD</a> secured the site for $32.5 million in 2025, in what was one of the Gold Coast's largest property transactions of the year.

The development will be delivered across two stages, with the first stage carrying an estimated gross realisation value of around $360 million.

The latest amendments seek to reduce the overall apartment count and shift the project further toward the owner-occupier market, with larger residences designed for buyers wanting considerably more space than traditionally offered in a beachfront apartment.

The residential mix will include townhomes, oversized two-bedroom apartments, substantial three-bedroom residences and four-bedroom homes.

MAYD has appointed Cera Stribley to lead the architecture and interiors, with the Melbourne-based design practice drawing on the beachfront setting through a series of ocean-facing terraces and heavily landscaped balconies.

Strong horizontal forms and curved balconies will define the exterior, with subtropical landscaping integrated throughout the building to soften the built form and increase the connection between the residences and the beachfront.

The project will also include an extensive collection of resident wellness and lifestyle facilities, continuing the broader shift across the Gold Coast's luxury apartment market toward larger homes supported by resort-style amenity.

<img alt="MAYD" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d1bcbb05-e659-4b47-8bd4-1e595315e2ad" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-27%20at%202.05.03%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=jj0XEud1X1DuLt7_KyElhjMdZGOXmLHP" />

MAYD Founder Todd Mould said North Kirra was increasingly appealing to buyers attracted to the more established, lower-density character of the southern Gold Coast.

"North Kirra presents one of the most compelling luxury residential opportunities currently emerging in Australia, combining absolute beachfront with the character and authenticity that buyers are increasingly seeking, and the same sense of tight-knit community that defined Burleigh and Currumbin perhaps 10 or 15 years ago," Mould said.

"With Gold Coast Airport on its doorstep, it also offers a level of accessibility that broadens its appeal across almost every market demographic."

The project comes as the southern Gold Coast continues to attract an increasing share of high-end apartment development and buyer activity.

Kirra in particular has emerged as one of the region's more tightly held beachfront markets, with its relatively low-density character, established surf and hospitality scene and proximity to Gold Coast Airport differentiating it from the higher-density markets further north.

Mould said those characteristics had informed the approach MAYD and Cera Stribley had taken to the project.

"We've worked closely with Cera Stribley to create a vision that is deeply connected to its surroundings," he said.

"Inspired by the coastline itself, the architecture has been shaped around space, privacy and resort-style living, creating a collection of homes that reflects the next generation of luxury on the southern Gold Coast."

MOTIV Managing Director Carly Cottam, who has been appointed to market the project, said buyer attention had continued to move south along the Gold Coast.

"Purchasers who may once have defaulted to Broadbeach, Main Beach or Surfers Paradise are increasingly recognising the value of a genuine beachfront location that offers lower density, strong amenity and a more established sense of community," Cottam said.

"Kirra has a powerful combination of growing demand and genuine scarcity. Beachfront supply is inherently constrained, the area remains relatively low density, and buyers are increasingly placing a premium on locations that feel established, uncrowded and authentic rather than heavily developed."

Cottam said the proximity to Gold Coast Airport was also proving increasingly important for interstate and second-home buyers.

"Being minutes from Gold Coast Airport makes it particularly compelling for interstate buyers, frequent travellers and second-home purchasers who can access an authentic coastal lifestyle almost immediately after stepping off a flight."

The acquisition takes MAYD's active development portfolio to more than $500 million, with the North Kirra project representing one of its largest undertakings to date.

MAYD is targeting an early 2027 launch.

First look at MAYD's North Kirra mixed-use precinct

<main data-perf-region="main">
Castle Hill, the longtime hub of the Hills District, has been one of the major beneficiaries of Sydney's Metro expansion, with improved connectivity helping drive continued population growth, development and buyer demand across the Hills District.

But despite that growth, the suburb has seen relatively few major new apartment projects brought to market over the past 18 months.

Hills District developer Reve Group is looking to fill that gap with <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/nova-r-ve-castle-hill-2-garthowen-crescent-castle-hill-nsw-2154">Nova Rêve</a>, a major new mixed-use precinct on the corner of Garthowen Crescent and Old Castle Hill Road, a short walk from Castle Hill Metro Station and Castle Towers.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377679]

The project will comprise three residential towers alongside a hotel, restaurants, cafes and a skybar, more than 1,600 sqm of ground-floor retail and almost an acre of landscaped gardens.

It represents the largest project undertaken by Reve Group, the development arm of the Kassis family, which has been building across the Hills District for more than 30 years through Kassis Homes.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377675]

Nova Rêve also represents a significant step up from the family's first apartment development, Grand Rêve, which was delivered nearby on Garthowen Crescent.

Grand Rêve introduced larger, house-like apartment layouts and premium inclusions including Wolf and Sub-Zero appliances to the Castle Hill market.

Nova Rêve takes that approach to a precinct scale, combining the residential component with hospitality, retail and substantial public and resident landscaping.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377685]

Reve Group Managing Director Sam Kassis said the project reflected the family's three decades of building in the Hills, which has evolved from trophy homes on quarter-acre blocks to larger-scale apartment development.

"Grand Rêve was our first apartment project here and it showed us what this pocket of Castle Hill could be. Nova Rêve is the refinement of that idea: not just apartments, but a place the whole suburb can use," Kassis said.

A key part of that approach is the hotel, which has been designed to operate as an amenity for the wider Castle Hill community rather than solely hotel guests.

It will include restaurants, cafes, skybars and all-day dining, alongside conference and event facilities catering to business functions, community groups and private events.

At ground level, more than 1,600 sqm of shops and cafes will open onto the surrounding streets and landscaped areas.

Almost an acre of gardens designed by Land and Form Studios will run through the precinct, incorporating pathways, seating, barbecue areas and children's play spaces.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377680]

Reve Group's Romio Georges said creating an active ground plane had been central to the planning of Nova Rêve.

"There are gardens with pathways, barbecues, seating and play areas, shops and cafes opening onto the street, and a hotel with restaurants and a skybar that anyone in Castle Hill can walk into," Georges said.

The project's elevated position on one of Sydney's highest ridgelines will also provide apartments with outlooks toward the Sydney skyline, surrounding parkland and the Blue Mountains.

More than 80 per cent of the apartments will occupy corner positions, with Turner responsible for both the architecture and interiors.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=152737]

<h3 data-end="3697" data-section-id="q3n5ak" data-start="3672">&nbsp;</h3>
</main>

Alastair Taylor

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Alastair Taylor

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News