The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Joel Robinson

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Public Transport

<html><body>
<h2>Analysis and Comment</h2>

Despite both the Federal Infrastructure Minister and Premier telling <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/federal-money-talks-in-melbourne-transport-debate-20180515-p4zfgv">The Age</a> they were both committed to waiting for the outcome of the various studies business cases into new public transport links that were commited to as part of the budgetary process, the sniping and one-upmanship of both state and federal governments does not look like it'll end all that soon.

In the Federal Budget, $475 million was allocated in the forward estimates for a 'Monash Rail' project which has no link to any 'real' project other than the Rowville Rail concept which was studied under the previous state Liberal government.

Back in 2012 when the Napthine Government released the heavy rail network development plan, Melburnians got a glimpse into what the rail planners in the state government were thinking long-term for the city.

Since then many different rail projects have kicked off - mostly 2014 election promises by the Andrews Government - but there's been no effort to provide an updated bigger picture for public consumption by the current state government. 

That said, the Federal Government appears to be referencing the 2012 era plan with its surprise allocation of funds for what appears to be a first phase of the Rowville Rail concept.  

$475 million won't build 10+ kilometres of double track, 5-6 stations, a flying junction to connect to the Dandenong corridor or procure the vehicles to operate services.

In fact, for such a small amount, it's incredibly hard to see that amount of money building nothing more than an on-the-cheap flat rail junction at Huntingdale, maybe some elevated track down North Road with a station at Monash University.  If the state government were to match the amount, that might pay for a proper flying junction, a few new train sets and pay for the operations of the stub for a few years.

The biggest question mark hanging over this announceable from the Federal Government is how operations will work.  Where will these trains eventually run to?  Through the new metro tunnel?  Shuttle back and forth to Huntingdale, Oakleigh or Caulfield with some more track and platform investment?

For a while now there's been murmurings about the possible lack of capacity on the pair of tracks that will operate services from Pakenham and Cranbourne to Sunbury and Melton through the metro tunnel.  The 2012-era plans show both an Airport and Rowville branch hanging off this track pair as well.  And don't forget Gippsland V/Line services!

The 2012-era plans were created before the upswing in population growth in Melbourne and this is why it is in the public interest for an updated plan to be published, one which takes into account the high population growth scenario we're all living in.

It's a cruel (stupid?) reality of our Federation that we have overlapping departments which will have different ideas about transport infrastructure priorities and this cruelty/stupidity extends to Federal politicians who are able to <a href="http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/pf/releases/2018/may/pf046_2018.aspx">advocate for things</a> which would clearly need to clear a swathe of hurdles that only the local state bureaucracy is going to be able to achieve.

In the state budget, $3 million was allocated to complete a business case for Spring Street's preferred light rail route from Caulfield to Monash and eventually to Rowville which presumably, taking into account recent reports, will also look at other rail solutions as well.

One of the main criticisms of the Rowville rail study from the Ballieu/Napthine era was its scope - it explicitly ruled out identifying other alignments such as joining the Alamein line to Oakleigh with a tunnel via Chadstone then branch out to Rowville along the North/Wellington Road corridor.  It follows that capacity constraints on the Pakenham/Cranbourne tracks are avoided as the line would be an extension of a branch which uses different track closer to the city.

We know that from the 2012-era plans the Alamein and Glen Waverley lines were envisaged to join up with western suburbs lines to create another east-west route through the city.  And given the Airport line is likely not going to be another branch of the Melbourne Metro and the Pakenham/Cranbourne to Melton/Sunbury line &amp; pair of tracks, adding a stub to Monash (and eventually Rowville) will create an imbalance.

So should the scope of the business case &amp; study that is looking at the costs and benefits of extending the Alamein line to Monash via Chadstone and Oakleigh/Huntingdale expand?  Well - if the Federal Government are dead keen on heavy rail, then yes.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://railgallery.wongm.com/melbourne-stations/F124_0657.jpg">Marcus Wong</a>.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Heavy rail 'between Monash University's campuses'? Hold your horses

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australian governments are set to spend more on transport infrastructure than ever before. Federal and state infrastructure spending, driven largely by transport projects, was expected to total $31.6 billion in 2018, increasing to $38 billion in 2021, even before the latest Commonwealth spending announcements. Will all this construction make it easier for us to get around, our journeys more enjoyable, or our cities more liveable for a growing population?
Since the 1950s, spending on transport infrastructure has largely been justified on the basis of its ability to increase travel speeds or reduce travel times. For example, the New South Wales government estimates its $17 billion WestConnex toll road will deliver travel time savings motorists would value at about $13 billion. But new tolls will largely cancel out any benefit. This means the ultimate beneficiary will be the toll road corporations.
As early as the 1960s, however, it become evident that prioritising speed above all else is counterproductive. It’s making our cities less efficient and liveable, and consigns many people to stressful and unhealthy daily commutes.
Faster travel does allow people to move further from work and other destinations – and not have to spend any more time travelling. It’s also true that many households value the ability to move to outer suburbs, where lower land values mean they can afford a home (or a larger one).
But when thousands of households migrate to low-density suburbs, we end up with urban sprawl. This is bad not only for productivity and public health, but also makes public transport less viable. Sprawl entrenches dependence on cars. This limits access to economic and social opportunities for those unable to drive.
High vehicle speeds and longer driving distances create multiple other problems. These include more traffic noise, more road trauma, higher transport costs and neighbourhoods too dangerous for children to venture outdoors on their own.
Rethinking the need for speed
The need for speed is being questioned in other aspects of modern life. The Slow Food Movement urges us to savour and enjoy our meal times, rather than view eating as an unwelcome interruption to our busy days.
For my PhD research, I asked a similar question of our travel time. What if it’s seen not only as a cost to be minimised, but as valuable time that can be used to work, exercise or relax?
It’s important to note that average daily travel times don’t decline no matter how much is spent on transport infrastructure. How then can investment be prioritised to make our travel time more enjoyable and productive, while at the same time improving access to economic and social opportunities?
Choosing to take the ‘slow road’
I had observed that many people willingly choose a slower, more pleasant journey over a faster, less pleasant one. For example, research shows that, after a new cycleway opened in Sydney in 2014, some people switched to cycling from driving and public transport, even though this meant their journeys could take longer. Some people who already cycled opted for a longer route via the cycleway.
Based on such observations, I developed a cost-benefit analysis tool that captures the value people place on having the option to cycle to local destinations and transport interchanges in a traffic-free environment – regardless of whether their travel time changes.
Using this tool to assess the City of Sydney’s proposed 200-kilometre cycling network, I forecast it would increase the proportion of local residents (aged 18-55) commuting by bicycle from 4.5% to 10.7% – freeing up significant space on roads and public transport. The estimated benefit-cost ratio was 3.4. That’s better than many of the multibillion-dollar transport projects on the national Infrastructure Priority List.
Unfortunately, it’s not yet possible to validate these forecasts. Since 2013, the NSW government has done little to promote healthy transport. It has allowed the City of Sydney to build only about five kilometres of new cycleway, demolished one of the busiest cycleways in the CBD to create space for more traffic, and increased fines for trivial cycling offences. It’s not surprising the proportion of people cycling has hardly changed.
What do we want of our cities?
The next step will be to adapt the tool for assessing other transport and land use initiatives that could improve the usefulness and enjoyment of travel time – and access to economic and social opportunities – without necessarily increasing speed. Possible examples include:
<ul>
<li>extra train services to reduce crowding</li>
<li>automated vehicles, which could allow passengers to work while travelling</li>
<li>jobs growth in suburban centres, as in the Greater Sydney Commission’s Metropolis of Three Cities plan</li>
<li>ambitious affordable housing policies, enabling more low-income households to live closer to work.</li>
</ul>
Of course, cost-benefit analysis is just one (far from perfect) tool for informing decisions on transport and land use proposals. Before these proposals are developed, perhaps we need to give more thought to what kind of city we want to live in.
Do we want a city that’s easy and pleasant to get around, with inviting public spaces? Or one where we have to endure stressful and expensive journeys to get anywhere, and the public realm is devoted to traffic, not people?
Christopher Standen, Transport Research Analyst, University of Sydney
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-need-for-speed-transport-spending-priorities-leave-city-residents-worse-off-94166" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Transport spending priorities leave city residents worse off: Christopher Standen

<html><body>
Spring Street has announced a new wave of tram stop upgrades which will see $19 million spent on upgrading stops in both the north and south of the city's network.

6 stops between Victoria Parade and Kerr Street along Nicholson Street in Carlton/Fitzroy will be upgraded with centre island platforms.  The #96 East Brunswick - St Kilda Beach route is now 100% operated by low-floor E-class trams.

Special attention will be given to the tram stop opposite Melbourne Museum and the Royal Exhibition building to enable all passengers between the stop and the Carlton Gardens safely and easily.

The Minister for Public Transport Jacinta Allan said that Melbourne had a fleet of 163 low floor trams and "more than 420 raised stops on the network and we will continue to introduce new trams and stops to make our network more accessible ."  Work on the northern section of the #96 route will begin later in the year.

From mid-2019 onwards works to improve interchange between trains at Flagstaff station and William / La Trobe street trams will kick off and the William Street stops at the corner of Bourke &amp; William Street will be upgrade to match the accessible stops in Bourke Street.

The #58 West Coburg - Toorak route runs past the Royal Children's, Royal Women's and Royal Melbourne Hospitals and began seeing D-class low-floor trams operate some services in 2017.  The older Z-Class and B-Class non-low floor trams, also operate on the #58.

Balaclava station will also see new accessible stops created on Carlisle Street to improve accessibility at the interchange with the #3 tram and Sandringham line trains and the Bundoora RMIT stop on the #86 will also be upgraded.

According to a Spring Street media release, 63 next generation low-floor E-Class trams are now operating on the network with another 17 to be manufactured at Bombardier's facility in Dandenong.

The State Government has also announced the free tram zone's geographic reach will be extended temporarily to help with moving people to major events while various construction blitzs are underway.

On the weekends from the 2nd of June to the 17th of June, while the construction blitz previously announced for the Dandenong line is underway, the free tram zone will be extended to the various stops on Wellington Parade adjacent to the MCG.

Buses will be replacing trains between Caulfield and Westall as works on the level crossing removal projects in the area are finalised. Caulfield junction will see major signalling work completed during the shutdown period.

The entire Gippsland V/Line train service will be replaced with Coaches.

The temporary extension will be in operation for the NRL State of Origin match to be played on Wednesday 6th of June and the Queen's birthday match of Collingwood and Melbourne at the MCG.

The State Government has rolled out a new website where users can enter their postcode and be provided with a map &amp; summary of all transport network disruptions. 

 

See <a href="https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au">bigbuild.vic.gov.au</a> for more information.
</body></html>

Number of accessible trams stops to rise across Melbourne's tram network 

<html><body>
Public transport that is <a href="http://www.ppt.asn.au/pubdocs/ip15-dodson-et-al-2011.pdf" target="_blank">safe, efficient and effective</a> is a core priority when it comes to city-building. While <a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-public-transport-right-means-less-emphasis-on-rail-45" target="_blank">trains get a lot of attention</a>, buses can also deliver successful public transport services – if we can overcome some common problems.
Problems with bus services
The main issues arise because buses share roads with cars. This tends to reduce the efficiency of bus travel, unless given a dedicated corridor like trains. Road congestion leads to frequent stopping, long journey times and delays in passenger pick-up and drop-off. Other issues include limited off-peak service, poor-quality shelters and unreliable timetables.
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885915300500" target="_blank">None of these problems is insurmountable</a>. With some clever planning and targeted investment, buses can play a key role in public transport. Planners call this “<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07293682.2010.526550" target="_blank">service-based network planning</a>”.
<h2>Six principles for better service</h2>
Here we offer six <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/05/5-crucial-principles-for-21st-century-transportation-systems/371782/" target="_blank">principles for making buses better</a>. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692308000306" target="_blank">Research shows</a> that to meet people’s everyday mobility needs, such as dropping children at school, doing shopping, running errands and so on, bus services must be flexible, convenient, safe, reliable, efficient and integrated.
1. Flexibility is a key requirement. People need to be able to use buses for multiple trips – in succession. Rigid timetables and set routes can make buses less appealing and less effective.
New developments such as “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-commuters-get-chance-to-trial-ondemand-buses-20170816-gxx4w5" target="_blank">on-demand</a>” services and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherfarmbrough/2018/01/31/ugly-but-useful-stockholm-introduces-driverless-busses/#dd21ff160f44" target="_blank">driverless buses</a> offer the potential for better service delivery. For instance, Singapore intends that <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42090987" target="_blank">driverless buses will act as shuttles</a>, funnelling people from neighbourhoods to rapid transit services.
 
2. Convenience is also vitally important. Having to wait a long time, especially if it’s in scorching sun, drenching rain, chilly wind or alone in the dark, deters people from using buses.
Services must enable easy access and use, and must be <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692311000202" target="_blank">priced fairly</a>. Shelters should be comfortable, attractive and visible (not just <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberrans-rail-against-encroachment-of-ads-with-billboard-ban-changes-20170707-gx6iad" target="_blank">glorified billboards</a>).
The use of <a href="https://www.wired.com/2011/04/how-smartphones-can-improve-public-transit/" target="_blank">smart phone apps</a> to request schedules, locate services, plan journeys, navigate the transport network – using real-time journey maps and multi-language platforms, for example – and pay for trips can improve convenience. When combined with <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/flexible-route-bus-work-better/523/" target="_blank">flexible pick-up and drop-off</a> locations (off-peak or at night), this can better integrate buses into our busy lives.
<a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/65216/1/2013_liu_charles.pdf" target="_blank">Flexi-fares</a> (for demand management), “tap and go” payment systems, shopper or family passes, <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/07/public-transit-riders-want-better-service-not-free-wifi/" target="_blank">free on-board wifi</a> and USB recharging ports can also improve convenience.
3. Passenger safety is related to the above point. Buses should be accessible to a wide variety of people, such as vision-impaired and mobility-challenged, and everyone should feel safe. Safety can be improved in many ways. These include co-locating <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_and_ride" target="_blank">park-and-ride</a> facilities with neighbourhood shopping centres, schools, higher-density housing, recreation areas and other centres of activity, which maximises “passive surveillance”.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215857/original/file-20180423-75114-1dmf44t.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215857/original/file-20180423-75114-1dmf44t.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Purewell bus stop displays real-time information about services in Dorset, UK. <a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Purewell_Stony_Lane_bus_stop_Real_Time_information_display.JPG" target="_blank">Arriva436/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-SA</a>
4. Reliability is an important requirement for people to use buses. Transit systems must be designed so the buses run on time. And many bus rapid transit systems around the world deliver fast and reliable services.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems" target="_blank">More than 40</a> cities now have rapid transit bus systems. These include Adelaide in Australia, Curitiba in Brazil, Seoul in Korea, Cape Town in South Africa, Ottawa in Canada, Los Angeles in USA, and <a href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-10-21/can-modern-megacity-bogot-get-without-subway">Bogota in Colombia</a>, which is among the largest by passenger volume.
Key here are measures such as dedicated bus lanes (e.g. the <a href="https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/busways.aspx" target="_blank">Brisbane Busway</a>), peak-hour clearways, city clipper services (e.g. crosstown with limited stops), <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281101024X" target="_blank">traffic signals</a> that give priority to buses, and flexi lanes for peak demand. These can be paired with “real-time service” displays indicating the next available bus, and even <a href="https://theconversation.com/london-congestion-charge-why-its-time-to-reconsider-one-of-the-citys-great-successes-92478" target="_blank">congestion charging</a>.
5. Efficiency is a key driver of public transport use and delivery. Many bus services are contracted (albeit with subsidies) so need to “pay their way”. Savings can be achieved by switching fuel (to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/15/uk-first-poo-bio-bus-bristol-regular-service" target="_blank">biofuel</a> or <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/20/europes-oil-capital-turns-to-clean-green-hydrogen-buses" target="_blank">hydrogen</a>, for example). Hybrid and <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/not-just-shenzhen-jaw-dropping-china-electric-bus-roundup/" target="_blank">electric bus</a> fleets use less or no fuel.
Using all doors for boarding can reduce trip times, as can new <a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/04/rethinking-subway-seating/" target="_blank">seating configurations</a>. Flexible payment options, using systems such as “tap and go”, can eliminate “fare fumbling”.
A simple measure to handle variable demand is versatile vehicle fleets. Examples such as Hong Kong’s <a href="http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160713-the-scary-fast-buses-of-hong-kong" target="_blank">light buses</a> and the Swiss town of St Gallen’s high-capacity, bi-articulated trolleybus vehicles show this improved efficiency.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215869/original/file-20180423-75123-12z0gmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215869/original/file-20180423-75123-12z0gmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Jumbo double-articulated trolley buses operate in St Gallen, Switzerland. <a class="source" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.flickr.com/photos/70981241@N00/6813792712" target="_blank">Kecko/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a>
6. Network integration is crucial if buses are to work. This means passengers should be able to transfer easily between walking, cycling, private vehicles, car sharing (e.g. Uber), ferries, trains and other buses.
Fare systems should be designed for easy transfer. Transfers should be free or low-cost within set time periods.
And bus transit should be better integrated into cities. Initiatives such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-30-minute-city-how-do-we-put-the-political-rhetoric-into-practice-56136" target="_blank">transit-oriented development</a> combine transport with housing, recreation, education, commercial activities and other land uses.
The future of bus transit
Of course, not all these solutions will work for every city. Smaller and midsize cities are arguably better positioned to take advantage of bus transit, though it works in larger metro areas too. For example, <a href="https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/lighthouse-activities/guangzhou-bus-rapid-transit-system-china" target="_blank">Guangzhou in China has bus rapid transit</a>.
Not many cities can afford to implement these solutions all at once. While some commentators have suggested <a href="https://theconversation.com/buses-could-be-history-sooner-than-you-think-heres-why-90126" target="_blank">buses could soon be history</a>, cities like Brisbane, Australia, are experimenting with <a href="https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/brisbane-metro" target="_blank">hybrid bus transit systems</a>. The vehicles and stations have the look and feel of light rail, but retain the flexibility of buses.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94984/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">With careful planning and phased implementation, bus transit can help make cities healthier, more efficient and more sustainable.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jason-byrne-6066" target="_blank">Jason Byrne</a>, Professor of Human Geography and Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888" target="_blank">University of Tasmania</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-pharo-446710" target="_blank">Emma Pharo</a>, Senior Lecturer, Geography and Environmental Studies, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888" target="_blank">University of Tasmania</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-forget-buses-six-rules-for-improving-city-bus-services-94984" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Six rules for improving city bus services

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

With the dizzying array of infrastructure projects happening around central Melbourne and many new projects focused on Melbourne's West, you could be forgiven for forgetting about the South East - well, the long-term planning for transport infrastructure at least.

The Regional Rail Link, Melbourne Airport Rail Link, new &amp; faster services to Geelong, maybe Melbourne Metro 2 at some point down the track (pardon the pun) - the array of projects Melbourne's overall westward march when it comes to greenfield and increasingly brownfield development.

We have two tiers of railway service in Victoria - one which is focused on Melbourne, metro, and one that is focused on connecting regional areas, V/Line. 

We've been on a journey to gradually separate these two service layers, physically through different sets of tracks for each, and in no place is this more obvious than in Melbourne's West where the Regional Rail Link has added dedicated tracks from the City through to Sunshine and then around the back of Werribee to connect with the Geelong line.

That separation that has been achieved is strained and is at threat of being unraveled as the Melton line is set to be electrified in the near future which would mean, if there were no extra tracks added, we'd have come full circle. 

Likewise, the Geelong services operating on the Regional Rail Link are doing a large amount of moving suburbanites - the state and federal budget commitments to studying how to 'speed up' Geelong services has an information deficit so we can only surmise that this will mean that corridor might be quadruplicated or an entirely new fast rail corridor for Geelong services is devised and built.

<h2>South-East Melbourne isn't going away any time soon</h2>

While so much focus is on the west, there's one two-track train line in the South East that is seeing major improvements which will unlock passenger carrying capacity but won't achieve the same speed / journey time transformation the railway lines in Melbourne's west look destined to maintain and improve upon.

The Melbourne Metro tunnel project, level crossing removal programme in the area, the new trains and signaling system will squeeze a lot more capacity on the two tracks for metro/V/Line and freight services which run from Caulfield to Pakenham via Dandenong, however V/Line services will still be stuck behind metro trains in peak times.

Consider this: the City of Casey and the Shire of Cardinia, the last remaining greenbelt growth areas in the south-east, have a combined population of 430,000.  That's the equivalent of the population of Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo combined.

In Plan Melbourne, approximately 100,000 new housing units are projected to be built in the Southern Region, which is almost exclusively within the urban growth boundary in both the City of Casey and Shire of Cardinia.  A further 180,000 residential dwellings are projected to be built in established areas which encompass the entire southern region which spans from the Bay to Pakenham and all of the Mornington Peninsula.

Journeys to the city from stations beyond Dandenong start at 47 minutes (from Hallam) and 49 minutes (from Lynbrook) with journeys from remaining stations further out increasing from there.

Not everyone who lives beyond Dandenong works in the city - not by a long shot - but Spring Street wouldn't be upgrading the existing line now with more stopping all stations services if they didn't expect that to grow.

Throw in the planning work on Monash and Dandenong South's national employment clusters, which aim to concentrate and grow more employment in these two specific regions (and similarly they are both serviced by the two-track railway in question), and you have a recipe for increased need for rapid &amp; frequent rail services in Melbourne's South East.

<h2>Let's not forget about the long-term needs of the South East and Gippsland</h2>

In this year's state budget, money would be allocated to study how to speed up Geelong services.  The fastest timetabled journey from Geelong to Southern Cross (80km via the regional rail link) is 1 hour (6:53 from Geelong, arrives 7:53 at Southern Cross - doesn't stop in the outer suburban areas of Melbourne's West).  

The fastest journey from Pakenham (60km from Melbourne) on a metro service is 1 hour 11 minutes (Pakenham to Parliament in morning weekday peak as per existing timetable).

What would 'speeding up' Geelong services involve?  We'll have to wait and see as there's no apparent logic being followed from any publicly available transport plan however I'd surmise it would involve building the second track pair in the regional rail link corridor for Geelong V/Line services, leaving the existing track pair to be electrified and have Werribee line services extended after the third side of the West Werribee triangle junction is added.

Sunshine to the Deer Park junction will likely need quadruplication because the State Government has all but confirmed the Melton line will be electrified and having four tracks in this section, two for regional and two for metro.

If a terminating platform at the new Sunshine transit hub the state government has begun spruiking was built, that would allow the Werribee line to get back to the job of serving people in metropolitan areas and V/Line can get back to its job of serving regional areas.

How would we 'speed up' Gippsland services, Pakenham services and provide capacity for freight trains to run at any time of the day, such as to the long-mooted Port rail shuttle terminal in Lynbrook? 

By effectively doing a regional rail link in the east - two more tracks from the city to at least Dandenong.

While not wanting to lessen the emphasis on benefiting regional passengers with faster journeys, any new rail infrastructure in Melbourne's South-East should at least involve services which benefit outer metropolitan areas as well as provide the capacity to shift trucks from the Port of Melbourne to the distribution centres in the south east off the roads - like what could happen with port rail shuttles.

If we apply equal weight to those three goals (and keep them in mind when assessing both formally and informally the benefits/costs), the scope and type of new rail infrastructure that would need to be built in order to facilitate those three goals narrows and is fairly clear: track capable of relatively fast speeds (100kph versus the 80kph top speed of the existing track, the faster the better) from the city to Dandenong, minimal new stations/platforms and especially in the inner-city (between Caulfield and the city), tunneling.

A casual reminder: the original East-West Eddington study devised an entirely new track pair from South Kensington to Caulfield - the 'hard' (tunnelling) part that would have been completed in two phases (Phase 1 - South Kensington to Domain, Phase 2 - Domain to Caulfield).  The previous Liberal government bastardised that concept into a much shorter tunnel from North Melbourne via Southern Cross to Montague, Domain and then surfacing at South Yarra.

The Metro tunnel that is now under construction is effectively Eddington Phase 1 with the shortened connection to existing tracks just south of South Yarra which will orphan a track pair between the City and South Yarra.

Addressing Western Melbourne's imbalance in infrastructure is rightfully in vogue, however the regional areas to the east and the large amount of new people who will live in the outer south-east, either on the fringe or in established areas is likely to be larger than all the western regional cities combined.

Is it right to 'speed up' Geelong services when there's no long-term plans to undo the short-termism on the Dandenong corridor?

Lead image credit: <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/FlindersStreetStation-clocks.jpg/1280px-FlindersStreetStation-clocks.jpg">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Let's not forget Gippsland and Melbourne's South East in long term rail infrastructure plans

<html><body>
Other cities around the world are looking to building more advanced light rail systems as I discussed in <a href="/news/light-rail-might-already-be-popular-but-some-cities-are-taking-it-to-the-next-level">this article</a>.  In the absence, still, of any transport plan for people who don't need to travel to the CBD for work and in the context of the inevitable growth of Melbourne's already decentralised employment centres which at present have minimal non-road public transport access, I'm going to highlight some areas of the city where where cheaper grade-separated light rail might start addressing those needs.

As I outlined in the earlier piece, Dublin has announced early plans to build a new 26km metro line using light rail vehicles in its own right of way with two major underground sections.  Toronto's been building a similar system along it's Eglington Avenue corridor since the start of the decade which is expected to be open by 2021.

They both have the same maximum passenger capacity - 15,000 passengers per direction per hour - and in Toronto's case, the estimate is that by 2031 it will carry 5400 passengers per direction per hour and 60-70% of its operating costs will be covered by fares - (compared to Melbourne's overall system recovering only 20-30% of costs through fares according to a January 2017 report in the AFR).

So what might an underground light rail system, one of a similar length as Dublin or Toronto, look like in Melbourne? 

The world really is our oyster and should the focus of public transport planning ever shift to moving people around the city (literally) or connecting them to jobs in the suburbs, rather than just moving people to and from the centre of the city, corridors like these might just get a look in.

<h2>Inner City Orbital</h2>

The line shown in the map below measures about the same as the Dublin system and has about the same amount of stations.  Did you know that if you work in Richmond/Abbotsford and live somewhere such as Brunswick or Moonee Ponds, your journey on public transport could take almost the same amount of time as someone commuting to the Ringwood, Watergardens, Cheltenham or Dandenong to the city by train?

What's more, a journey around the inner city forces you onto the same services as those people commuting from longer distance for at least one leg of the journey.  Some might sneer or roll their eyes about inner-city dwellers complaining about commutes but is it right that people who live in or near the inner city and don't work in the CBD itself are forced to travel via the CBD? 

The inner city orbital route below would connect with every radial rail route and the majority of the tram network as well as connecting established or emerging inner-city non-CBD job centres like Fishermans Bend, South Melbourne, Cremorne, Abbotsford with the growing and more predominantly residential inner-north.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1SwNd1WK6x45JzU9tJx0xB_-Z6jmYy3ym" width="100%"></iframe>

<h2>The northern cross-town</h2>

The route on this map is about 5km shorter than the orbital route above but seeks to serve the employment centres in the west and north.  I've only come up with 16 potential sites for stations which includes the terminus and possible location of the maintenance and storage depot in Sunshine, Highpoint, Moonee Ponds, Brunswick, Eastern Thornbury/Preston and Heidelberg.

Much of this route would need to be underground.  There is one exception, depending on local tolerances - the Ballarat Road and Hampshire Road corridors are wide and [obviously cheaper] elevated structures might suffice in this area (remember the aim is to not build more in-street tram lines).

UM commenters have previously made mention this broad corridor (which has featured in articles like this in the past on Apartments.com.au) would solve a medium-long term problem of people trying to get across the Maribyrnong River, and hence I'm rehashing it somewhat and keeping it anchored firmly in the Sunshine-Highpoint-Moonee Ponds corridor.

Depending on the outcome of the planning working being undertaken right now for the La Trobe employment cluster - specifically the public transport plan - this route would also draw people who live to the west of La Trobe closer to it if a frequent bus service eventually runs between Heidelberg and the La Trobe precinct.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1D4E7qLzDed6Cie_3nppTF6O6x22cw8Qm" width="100%"></iframe>

<h2>The Eastern cross-town</h2>

Springvale Road has run point on moving people north-south through the eastern suburbs for years, Eastlink now does a lot of the heavy lifting and arterials like Stephensons Road and Blackburn Road also do a lot of heavy lifting - for private vehicles and for smart buses in some cases.

Monash, like La Trobe, is another university-centric cluster that will see a lot of employment growth over time - in fact Monash has the highest concentration of jobs outside of Melbourne's CBD (as one commenter has mentioned before - decentralisation of jobs in Melbourne is already here if you look closely enough).

The cat is out of the bag in Box Hill as we have reported on Apartments.com.au on many occasions and this cross-town route would bring not one, not two, but three stations to the station-less Manningham LGA (the only council area in metropolitan Melbourne without a rail station or service).

Westall hosts the southern terminus rather than Clayton or Springvale for two reasons:

<ol>
<li>a maintenance and storage facility would require property acquisition no matter where it would be placed on this line, Westall already has one maintenance facility for metro, this might be a good place to expand and/or adapt the facility for the cross-town line</li>
	<li>Westall will likely be the first 'short-stop' on the new Pakenham/Cranbourne metro line - it seems logical to put an interchange here as between Westall and the city is where the highest frequency of metro services will likely run plus from Westall, the cross-town line alignment traverses the greatest amount of land in the Monash cluster.</li>
</ol>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1ooHW3ZjMIN1nI_83Sr_drhC0MonHS8OP" width="100%"></iframe>
</body></html>

Pondering where underground light rail might suit Melbourne

<html><body>
News from abroad this week surfaced that the Irish capital had elected to use light rail vehicles to operate its new <a href="http://www.metrolink.ie">Metrolink</a> project that would run north-south via Dublin's airport and city centre.

The international rail journal <a href="http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/metros/ireland-reveals-route-for-dublin-metro-line">reports</a> the Dublin project will be 26km in length, have 25 stations (of which 15 are brand new) and include two underground sections.

A consultation round is now underway and the reported price tag - presumably only capital costs - is €3 billion or around $4.85 billion Australian Dollars.

Perhaps the most impressive stat in the various reports in both the Irish and Rail media is that by 2030 the system is expected to be carrying 15,000 passengers per direction per hour with rail vehicles measuring approximately 60m long and running on 2-minute frequencies.

To put that into context, the 96 tram route between St Kilda Beach and East Brunswick operates about 10 trams per hour in peak with each E-Class tram able to carry 210 people, that's about 2,100 passengers per direction per hour.

The real difference when you compare the Dublin proposal to the light rail systems that have popped up in Sydney and the Gold Coast as well as any number of US cities over the past decade is that this Dublin metro will almost entirely be separated from road traffic.

<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/ttc_subway_map_2023.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Map of existing and proposed/under construction light and heavy rail lines in Toronto. Image: wikipedia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="385" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ttc_subway_map_2023.png?itok=bBoGoFpF" title="Map of existing and proposed/under construction light and heavy rail lines in Toronto. Image: wikipedia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Map of existing and proposed/under construction light and heavy rail lines in Toronto. Image: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_5_Eglinton">Wikipedia</a></figcaption></figure>Another city which has gone down this path, to a certain extent, is Toronto with its Eglinton cross-town project.  

It was kicked off in 2010 and encompasses a straight east-west cross-town line that links with three of Toronto's existing (heavy-rail) subway lines over 19km.  The route includes a 10km tunnel and the remainder of the line is on the surface but in its own right of way that has minimal interaction with the existing road network (i.e. level crossings).

In total the project will cost $9.1 billion Canadian Dollars ($9.2 billion Australian Dollars)  - and this is where Canadians just get it right, the public has far better access to cost breakdowns - it's $5.3 billion in capital/construction costs and the remaining portion, $3.8 billion, is what it will cost to operate and maintain the system over a 30 year period.

The Toronto Star <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2015/11/03/91b-crosstown-lrt-mega-contract-comes-in-under-estimates">reported</a> and further broke down the capital costs to show the 10km underground section's 15 new underground stations will cost between $80 million and $100 million each.  Surface stations cost very little in comparison with the Toronto Star reporting it will cost between $3 million and $5 million per stop.

Over a 30-year timeframe, that $3.8 billion cost averages out to be approximately $126 million per year and after fares and other revenue streams are taken into account, the <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/10/31/report-outlines-steep-costs-of-running-new-toronto-transit-lines">required subsidy from the public purse</a> to operate the line is expected to come in at $39 million per year.  

In other words, somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of the forecast cost to operate the line will be paid for from the farebox.  For comparison's sake, a report in the Australian Financial Review in January 2017 sets Melbourne's current cost recovery from fares at between 20 and 30 percent.

So what might a 26km mostly underground but definitely separated light rail line cover in Melbourne?  I look at that <a href="/news/pondering-where-underground-light-rail-might-suit-melbourne">here</a>.
</body></html>

Light Rail might already be popular but some cities are taking it to the next level

<html><body>
One year out from the next New South Wales election, the NSW Government has announced that Westmead will feature on the second metro line that at this early stage is having its corridor refined.

Dubbed Sydney Metro West, the aim is to add more passenger capacity between the Sydney CBD and Parramatta with intermediate stops along the line offering connection opportunities.  

Exact travel times are not yet set in stone, given the corridor planning's fluid state, but the Premier of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, said Sydney Metro West will be the fastest journey between the two major centres.

<blockquote>
Sydney Metro West will become the fastest, easiest and most reliable journey between the Sydney and Parramatta CBDs, which could be as little as 20 minutes.

We have been working hand-in-hand with the community on Sydney Metro West and we have taken on board feedback to make it an even greater infrastructure project for greater Western Sydney
<cite>NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian</cite>
</blockquote>

The Sydney Metro is an operationally-independent railway utilising driverless trainsets with its first phase ('Sydney Metro Northwest') set to enter service in 2019 between Cudgerong Road in Rouse Hill and Chatswood. 

The project's second phase ('Sydney Metro City &amp; Southwest') which involves building a new rail crossing under the harbour and new tunnels running north-south under Sydney's CBD achieved planning approval in January 2017.

The second phase of the metro line will also involve converting a portion of the existing Bankstown line for the exclusive use of new driverless metro trains.

Once both phases of are complete, the railway will be 66km in length and provide rail commuter services from Sydney's outer North West through major nodes on the northern and southern side of the harbour through to Bankstown in Sydney's south-west.

The NSW Government also announced the new Sydney Metro West will have a station either at Concord or North Strathfield in order to allow passengers to interchange between the Northern line and faster Sydney CBD or Parramatta services on the new metro line.  

The Westmead and North Strathfield/Concord statements are on top of the already announced station locations at The Bays precinct, Sydney Olympic Park and still as-yet defined stations in the Sydney CBD and at Parramatta.

Further community consultation will continue as it's expected more station locations will be announced with Camellia/Rydalmere, North Burwood/Five Dock, Kings Bay and Pyrmont mentioned as possible locations.

A map published on the project's website shows potential extensions of the second metro line both eastward and westward.

<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/syd_metro_west_map.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The scope of the first stage of Sydney Metro West - image: Sydney Metro"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="297" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/syd_metro_west_map.jpg?itok=zwAJ6YAd" title="The scope of the first stage of Sydney Metro West - image: Sydney Metro" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The scope of the first stage of Sydney Metro West - image: <a href="https://www.sydneymetro.info/west/project-overview">Sydney Metro</a></figcaption></figure>
</body></html>

NSW government announces Westmead will be a stop on the new Sydney Metro West

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Share-bike littering is a problem almost everywhere they’re introduced. In countries as diverse as China, Singapore and Ireland the bikes can be seen abandoned in the worst places. There are three elements to understanding the problems of share-bike dumping and vandalism:
<ul>
<li>
behaviour, or how we make the choices about how to act</li>
<li>
context, or the environment we’re in at the time the action happens, of which national culture is an important part</li>
<li>
cognition or how our brains process information.</li>
</ul>
I have previously discussed the first two elements of behaviour and context.
This article focuses on the third element, cognition.
Biases enable quick decision-making
An important theory in how we process information is called dual processing theory . In summary it says that we have two ways of processing information. One is fast, easy and automatic, which Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman describes as System 1. The other way is slow, effortful and deliberate, referred to as System 2.
Underlying this theory is the assumption that we try to minimise the cognitive effort we put into decision-making. We allow System 1 to do most of the heavy lifting, and refer the complicated stuff to System 2 only when needed.
That’s all well and good, except that under this theory much of our behaviour is an unconsidered reflex. While that should work well for most situations, sometimes it can lead to unintended consequences. Such as when we use share bikes. To be clear, what we’re looking at here is the behaviour of the share bike user who leaves the bike at risk, rather than the vandalism or littering that follows.
System 1 operates on mental shortcuts, or simple decision rules known as heuristics. While these generally work well, heuristics aren’t a good fit for every situation. When they fail the resulting behaviour is a bias.
So what biases are at work here?
When we look at share-bike littering, five biases are likely to be at play.
<ol>
<li>Omission bias is particularly relevant, as it’s how share bikes become available to vandals. This bias roughly says that we judge an action that leads to harm as worse than lack of action that leads to harm. We don’t see inaction, such as failing to park a bike in a safe and appropriate spot, as particularly wrong, even though it still leads to damage. So, a user is likely to justify leaving the share bike somewhere dodgy on the basis that they didn’t do anything wrong. What they won’t admit to unfortunately is they exposed the bike to the risk of vandalism. If more share bikes were left in safer places, the incidence of share-bike littering would be likely to fall. If a share bike has been left somewhere risky and exposed to vandalism, a second bias could kick in.</li>
<li>Self-serving bias says that individuals are much more likely to attribute positive outcomes to their own behaviour, and negative outcomes to someone else’s. So, if a share bike ends up in a river, it can be justified entirely as someone else’s poor behaviour, rather than the result of being left exposed by the user.</li>
<li>Attribution error bias may play a part if the share-bike user happens to be a little reflective. He or she could attribute their risky behaviour to the force of circumstance, which in their minds gave them little choice other than to abandon the bike to its fate. Unfortunately, bike scheme operators don’t help in these situations by not making it clear enough where it is risky or safe to park bikes. The operators try to encourage users to do the right thing with a series of incentives and penalties. Unfortunately, two further biases blunt those measures.</li>
<li>Optimism bias is the first of these. It’s the all-too-familiar idea that, for example, “bad things won’t happen to me”. For a user who is aware of potential penalties, the temptation to think they’ll get away with it could be enough to tip them into abandoning the bike.</li>
<li>Discounting bias also makes potential rewards or penalties less effective. This is the notion that future penalties or rewards are not as powerful as present ones. For the share-bike user, maybe wending their way home after a good night out, the appeal of ditching the bike now and getting to bed, versus a possible penalty some time in the future, could be an easy decision to make.</li>
</ol>
So, how do we counter these biases?
Knowing that some or all of those biases are operating, what are we to do about the problems with share bikes? The answer lies in accepting these biases rather than ignoring them.
Operators could refine their business models and engineer better behaviour. For a start, they could make it much clearer to users where it’s safe or unsafe to park the bikes.
As operators track where users are, they could also notify them through their app that a penalty is highly likely if they behave in certain ways. This could deal with two biases: optimism bias – by reminding the user they’re certain to be penalised if they don’t do as they should – and the discounting bias, i.e. the penalty will happen now, not at some time in the future.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92421/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">The question remains, what will push share bike operators to change their business models? Will market forces such as bike damage and the cost of recovery be enough to get them to change? Or is political leadership needed? For instance, in parts of Malaysia, share bikes have been seized when obstructing sidewalks.
Conor Wynn, PhD Candidate at BehaviourWorks, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-biases-create-problems-with-share-bikes-heres-what-we-can-do-to-counter-them-92421" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Five biases create problems with share bikes – here's what we can do to counter them: Conor Wynn

<html><body>
Australia needs to change the way it assesses potential infrastructure projects, to ensure that governments can better understand which road and rail projects are worth building.
One way would be to make long-overdue changes to how we value the impact of infrastructure on future generations. This is done through the choice of a “<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/discountrate.asp" target="_blank">discount rate</a>” – the mechanism used to compare costs and benefits of projects that occur at different points in time.
Australian governments have chosen to keep their central discount rate at 7% since at least 1989. This is despite one of the key components of the discount rate, the real borrowing rate, varying from as high as 8% to below 1% in this time.
The <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/unfreezing-discount-rates-transport-infrastructure-for-tomorrow/" target="_blank">latest report</a> released by the Grattan Institute recommends that governments adopt discount rates that change when the world changes, and that reflect the riskiness of a project.
While the concept might seem arcane, using an artificially high discount rate muffles the signal that tells governments what projects are worth building and which ones aren’t. Using the wrong discount rate probably means we build the wrong infrastructure.
<h2>Costs and benefits</h2>
A future benefit or cost needs to be converted into today’s dollars because future dollars have a different value to today’s dollars. This is because, even ignoring the effects of inflation, people value a dollar today more than one at some future date.
When a transport project’s benefits mostly come about in the distant future, a high discount rate treats those benefits more sceptically than a low discount rate would.
The Melbourne Metro rail project provides a good example of the discount rate’s importance. If we use a 7% discount rate, as recommended by Infrastructure Australia, the estimated benefits are only a tiny <a href="http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/files/Melbourne_Metro_Project_Evaluation_v2.pdf" target="_blank">10% larger than the costs</a>.
But using a 4% discount rate, the project will deliver benefits that are almost two-and-a-half times greater than the project’s A$9 billion cost.
On one reading, then, the project is expected to be a major economic success. On another its value is marginal. Changing the discount rate has huge implications for the cost-benefit analysis of new projects.
The discount rate is also an important determinant of the mix of projects that governments consider. As you can see in the chart below, changing the discount rate changes the rankings of different projects.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207620/original/file-20180223-108150-1xh6vfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207620/original/file-20180223-108150-1xh6vfh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<h2>Re-examining the basis for Australia’s discount rates</h2>
Discount rates are part of the appraisal and ranking of potential infrastructure projects. The discount rate is designed to reflect the next-best use of the resources for that project, and with the same level of risk.
The next-best project could be another project in the transport portfolio, in another portfolio, or even a financial investment overseas with the same level of risk.
Our report challenges the way Australian governments apply this framework. Instead of being frozen at 7%, discount rates should vary when there is material variation in the cost of money. In addition, discount rates should differentiate between projects that are more risky and those that are less risky. If we are comparing a low-risk project with a riskier one, then we’re comparing apples with oranges.
The cost of money is usually inferred from government borrowing costs, signalled by the 10-year Commonwealth bond rate. Back in 1989, when the 7% discount rate was established in Australia, the government borrowing rate <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-bond-yield" target="_blank">was 6.8% in real terms</a> (adjusted for inflation); in 2017, it was 0.8%.
Discount rates should reflect such a dramatic change in the cost of money.
The type of risk that matters for discounting is the sensitivity of a project’s expected returns to the economy generally – known as the <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/walkthrough/corporate-finance/4/return-risk/systematic-risk.aspx" target="_blank">systematic risk</a>.
Most government transport infrastructure is still used whether the economy is booming or in the doldrums, because most people keep on travelling to work or school and buying transported goods. But some projects are more sensitive than others to the state of the economy, and the discount rate should be higher for them.
If we incorporate risk and the cost of low-risk borrowing, the discount rate in 2018 should be around 3.5% for projects where systematic risk is low, and around 5% where it is high by the standards of transport infrastructure projects.
Both rates are substantially below today’s 7% standard central rate. Sensitivity testing remains important, of course, because precision is difficult.
<h2>Better evaluations</h2>
Lower discount rates will help to make clear which are the most valuable transport projects available. But they will also make the economics of all transport projects look better.
Our recommendations may therefore seem at odds with previous Grattan Institute analysis, which showed that Australian governments have <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/cost-overruns-in-transport-infrastructure/" target="_blank">systematically underestimated the cost of transport projects</a>, making many appear more attractive than they really were.
But our consistent goal is to improve all aspects of project selection and appraisal, so we can know which are the best projects to build and in what order. This accords with past work by both the Productivity Commission and <a href="https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2005/files/report_110.pdf" target="_blank">Bureau of Transport, Infrastructure and Regional Economics</a>, arguing that the discount rate is not the appropriate way to deal with optimism bias.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92265/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Ultimately, using an artificially high discount rate comes at the cost of distorting public policy priorities. We should be aiming to improve every aspect of evaluation wherever better approaches are evident, so we build the right projects in the right order. Better discounting would be a big step in that direction.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-325786" target="_blank">Marion Terrill</a>, Transport Program Director, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hugh-batrouney-318476" target="_blank">Hugh Batrouney</a>, Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/smart-money-a-better-way-for-australia-to-select-big-transport-infrastructure-projects-92265" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Public Transport

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Public Transport

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News