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

Trains

<html><body>
A lot of the Public Transport advocates were licking their lips on Monday when the former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett was quoted as saying <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/borrow-to-build-rail-network-kennett-20130811-2rq88" target="_blank">"There's not a major world city that doesn't have one [an underground rail network]"</a>.  I've always admired the former Premier's drive, regardless of what happened under his leadership, Jeff Kennett is through and through a Melbourne #1 man and is not afraid to say it.

What is Kennett talking about you might ask? A good question, but suffice to say he's more than likely referring to an operationally independent rail network serving the densest parts of the city - or the future densest parts of the city.  Whilst it's generally understood heavy rail running on high frequencies is the best transport mode to support a large amount of people living or working in a specific area there are a lot of ancillary issues which need to be worked out first.

The existing network can partly fill the role of a mass-transit line, as <a href="/news/melbourne-metro-saviour-of-the-outer-burbs" target="_blank">Phil Sturrock</a> wrote back in April.  The Melbourne Metro project is about streamlining existing train line running - adding more capacity to the centre of the city via a new tunnel connecting at two of the five existing rail nodes in the CBD whilst also extending the branch lines further to the East and West.  Whilst the Melbourne Metro tunnel is still likely to be utilised as a commuting method from the outer and middle ring areas into the city, there's a possibility the original Melbourne 2030 goal of having pockets of density surrounding many existing stations might become a reality.  This will be made possible depending on the outcome of local Government planning scheme change (now the Planning Minister has given local Government areas new zones to implement) which is currently underway.

PTV's own <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/ptv-data-and-reports/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/" target="_blank">Network Development Plan</a> already outlines two new underground lines that will cross the city and service the most densely populated suburbs and the future ones.  As part of the plan a new tunnel beginning at Clifton Hill would cross the inner north connect with Southern Cross and then across the Yarra into Fishermans Bend in approximately 20 years - coincidentally when it's expected Fishermans Bend's redevelopment will be in full swing.  Whether this plan is executed along the lines (pardon the pun) as outlined remains another story but it gives an idea on how Government sees Melbourne's development occurring in future: toward the West.

Funding the plan is naturally the sticking point - I put up a <a href="/expert-insights/buying/heres-why-a-gst-rate-increase-should-be-on-the-table" target="_blank">proposal</a> on Sunday just past to increase the GST and the extra revenue raised would then only be used for Transport Infrastructure expansion - we also need to look at the current issues facing Melbourne's public transport system and I believe it's the humble bus.  We simply don't use them enough; if we are to make any large long-lasting impact which would force commuters to rethink their transport options, we need VicRoads and PTV to knock their heads together with a road-based public transport plan just as in-depth (or grandiose?) as the PTV's Network Development Plan but for recalibrating road space.

Other media reports recently about property acquisition as part of a potential widening of Punt Road from the Yarra to St. Kilda Junction perked my interest - I thought: smart if the extra lanes are to be dedicated to buses so we could get a high frequency Bus Rapid Transit line running from Fitzroy St in St.Kilda all the way up Punt Road and Hoddle Street and then the Stonnington City Council could rezone the land around Punt Road allowing further development intensity around the newly created rapid transport corridor.  Alas, it's all about fitting more private vehicles on the road with minimal mention of buses.  Surprise Surprise.

It's interesting to watch organisations such as VECCI and RACV on Twitter - the RACV is the number 1 advocate of a "balanced" transport policy and ever so meekly supports extra investment in Rail, however I'm yet to see a tweet or link to statement which supports truly balancing our road network giving much higher-priority and new infrastructure for road-based Public Transport.  We have a large, robust and good road network - in a sense we have benefited greatly from mass-suburban expansion since the 1940s and 1950s - Governments have focused on building high quality road ways.  

Our problem is that just too many of us are using them in private vehicles.  An architect acquaintance of mine who was born and lived most of his life overseas puts it quite succinctly: Australia grew up with the car and finds it too hard to think otherwise.

As Melbourne nears it's bicentenary I think it's safe to say we don't really need to lobby overly hard for large-scale big ticket rail projects, the State bureaucracy has for over a decade shown a small and incremental change in thinking.  Throw in the climate change &amp; new-world environmentalism mass-media coverage feeding into it, and shifting to public transport or arguably more importantly more sustainable transport modes like cycling and walking is well understood.  What really needs to happen is shifting attitudes toward road-users.  Some road users will never give up on their cars in favour of other modes - this will take 1 or 2 generations to make that kind of behaviour whittle away into an insignificant minority - and there are people and business where public transport just cannot provide an alternative for them to travel to work or actually do their job, but the rest of us who occasionally drive when we could use an alternative: that's the significant majority of our city which policy must target.

It doesn't matter if it's Lakeside Pakenham or St. Kilda; Mernda or Brunswick the humble bus has the greatest scope to challenge attitudes and help the same people make the shift away from roads congested with private cars and truly balancing road usage.  Car users need to understand that roads have never always been there for cars and roads should never just be there for private vehicles.  As both sides of political spectrum balance on the big ticket projects - the State Government hasn't mothballed Melbourne Metro, it's just prioritised East-West before it - focus needs to shift road capacity toward prioritising buses, and in the inner city for trams.  It'll be a hard slog, but it's one which will have the most dramatic impact no matter where you live, work or play in Melbourne.

Whilst I applaud Jeff Kennett for speaking his mind on the use of public debt to building rail lines, this needs to happen in parallel with rebalancing road usage - after all, the best way to feed a train station is a bus.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Comprehensive underground rail networks are fine, but what about the bus?

<html><body>
Despite the dramatic scene depicted in the image below, cars smashing though the fence are the least of Altona Station's problems. PTV released the numbers for daily passenger boardings a few weeks back, and unfortunately for this seaside sleepy hollow, it suffered a huge drop. A drop in popularity so large in fact, its enough to drive its most famous resident, Julia Gillard, back to Adelaide.*  The patronage data, covering the years 2008/09 to 2011/12, can be found <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PDFs/Random/Station-by-station-patronage-data.xls">here</a>.  Its not all doom and gloom - with a bit of left field thinking, the trend can be reversed.

* fn1 - May or may not be true

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Altona%20Station%20Crash.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image courtesy heraldsun.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/Altona%20Station%20Crash.jpg?itok=LVW1tJ0j" title="Image courtesy heraldsun.com.au" typeof="Image"></a>

The Altona Loop has had a bit of a checkered history.  First opening in November 1888 as a branch off the Werribee line, it was meant to encourage the sale of land in the area.  However it closed a mere 2 years later, before opening again in 1917, and then electrified in 1926 when it was taken over by the state run Victorian Railways.  It was almost closed under recommendation of the Lonie Report in 1980, before instead being extended to Westona then Laverton in 1985.  From then Werribee trains all ran via Altona, instead of the previous route via Paisley and Galvin.

And that's how it remained until 2010.  By this stage the city loop had become horribly congested, Metro Trains Melbourne reconfigured how trains traveled to/from/through the CBD.  In peak times, the Altona Loop reverted to being run as a separate line, terminating at Laverton.  Services also no longer ran through the loop, and passengers have to change at Newport in non peak times.  They reacted angrily to this change, resulting in the aforementioned drop in numbers:

                                                               Daily Weekday Boardings, 2008-09 to 2011-12

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Altona%20Loop%20Patronage%20Data%20Table.png" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Altona%20Loop%20Patronage%20Data%20Table.png?itok=pFPi81lQ" typeof="Image"></a>

That's a 27% drop in passengers for Altona, 22% for Seaholme, and 20% for Westona.  A damning decrease by anyone's standards; especially if you consider the sharp growth of the network as a whole over the past decade.  Given the ever increasing capacity issues of the Werribee line and the City Loop, Altona Loop frequencies are unlikely to revert back anytime soon.  So its time to think outside of the square.

One of the major shortcomings of the Altona Loop is that its only single track from Westona Station to the junction with the Werribee Line at West Newport.  This means trains sometimes have lengthy delays at either the WN junction or at Westona Station waiting for trains from the opposite direction.  Not only is Westona Station not that interesting (I think I managed to memorise every bit of graffiti on the wall there during these enforced waits, and its not like they were painted by Banksy!), it severely hampers the throughput of trains.  And whilst duplication would be relatively straight forward between WN Junction and Seaholme station, the rest of the line would be problematic, with limited room between Railway St North and Railway St South.  Mass compulsory acquisition would be required, and obviously not recommended.

When the St Kilda and Port Melbourne lines were scheduled to be closed under the recommendation of the Lonie Report in 1981, they were to be originally replaced by buses.  After much opposition, they were retained until 1987 when they were replaced by light rail.  This conversion has been a fantastic success.  Not only do they provide a rapid commute time (22 minutes Spencer St to Acland St with 12 min frequency for Route 96, 12 minutes Spencer St to Beacon Cove on 12 min frequency for Route 109), they are grade separated for much of the way, meaning commutes for both passengers and motorists are less likely to be affected in peak times.  In fact Route 96 is currently the subject of a proposed upgrade, meaning it will become the first route to be grade separated for its entire length - <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/trams/route-96-project/">East Brunswick to St Kilda</a>.

So this begs the obvious question: Why can't we do this in Altona?

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Tram.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Tram.jpg?itok=-EgBlycr" typeof="Image"></a>

Most of the drop off in passengers can to attributed to the frequency of service - an appalling 22 minutes in peak time, 20 minutes during the day and 30 minutes at night.  This is compounded by having to sometimes change at Newport, where connecting services often aren't synchronised thus blowing out commute times even further.  This is unacceptable by today's standards - most other lines have peak time frequencies of about 10 minutes or less!  Most people would accept having to change if the frequency and connections were improved - something light rail could address.

As mentioned earlier, duplication would be required to improve frequency.  Whilst not possible for Heavy Rail, Light Rail is a different story.  Trams run on a narrower gauge, and are much less wide in size than trains.  They also don't travel as quickly as trains, meaning they can pass with a smaller clearance.  Tram stops are also much smaller and less complex than train platforms, thus reducing cost.  If the Altona Line was converted to Light Rail between Laverton and Newport, duplication would be possible.

Running trams is cheaper than running trains, so having them run at say, 10 minute intervals would be quite plausible. With the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/new-trams-arrive-but-not-on-schedule-20130701-2p71e#ixzz2Xmmpbaml">latest trams</a> able to hold 200 people, capacity should not be a problem, with the morning peak hour (7am to 9.30am) total numbers for Altona, Seaholme and Westona being 401, 187 and 339 respectively.  New stops could even be added at Altona Meadows and West Newport, servicing areas that would otherwise need to drive to the station.  In fact given numbers on the Williamstown line are similar (North Williamstown 1201 Weekday boardings, Williamstown 409 and Williamstown Beach 767) and its already duplicated, conversion all the way through to Williamstown makes sense.

This could result in untold flow on benefits for public transport in the West.  The residents of Altona and Williamstown would get a faster, frequent, better connected, dedicated end to end shuttle service, running independently of the rest of the train network, and so not susceptible to delays created down the line.  This would allow the Werribee Line to run trains dedicated to Werribee, rather than having to share capacity with the Altona and Werribee Lines.  This would result in much more frequent services, important to a line that is one of the network's most crowded, and running through some of Melbourne fastest booming growth corridors of Williams Landing, Point Cook, Wyndham Vale, and eventually, the Werribee East development.  

This would mean services would travel full time through the Paisley section of the line again, possibly justifying the reopening of Paisley station and restoring rail services to Altona North once more.  And the residents of Altona Meadows and Newport West would have direct access to rail services for the first time.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Altona_Williamstown%20Light%20Rail%20Route.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Proposed Altona - Williamstown Light Rail route utilising Google"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Altona_Williamstown%20Light%20Rail%20Route.png?itok=iIPc9EK2" title="Proposed Altona - Williamstown Light Rail route utilising Google" typeof="Image"></a>

And last but not least we would have the Newport Interchange.  To allow passengers a quick, easy changeover to a connecting train, a new tram interchange would have to be built at Newport station.  There is a prefect spot for it - currently a large parcel of land that sits south of the train station, occupied by the rail yards (shown in light blue below).  With a bit of imagination and ingenuity, it could developed as a decking over the rail lines design, much like the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/bold-vision-for-fed-square-east/story-e6frf7kx-1225942971393">Federation Square East Project</a> and Sydney's Central Station.  Imagine a mixture of open space, retail/cafes/restaurants and much needed housing, all serviced by an integrated train/tram/bus interchange and adding even more activation to the regenerating Newport retail district.  Using good urban design principles, it could be the envy of the West.  What would it look like? I'm not an architect, so I'll leave that to our caped crusader, Apartments.com.au's very own <a href="/news">blockhead</a>.  If he dares...

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Newport%20Railyards.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Newport Railyards Site utilising Google"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/Newport%20Railyards.png?itok=XE2BHwjl" title="Newport Railyards Site utilising Google" typeof="Image"></a>

Admittedly, the last part of the proposal is a little ambitious, but certainly plausible in the longer term.  However the light rail proposal is not only doable in the short term but would solve an import transport conundrum that Melbourne's West currently faces.  When the Libs won government in Victoria, they pledged to focus on public transport, a promise that has resulted in a proposed shiny new road tunnel.  Labor has promised to release its 'balanced transport plan' by the end of the year.  Lets hope that balance includes Melbourne's West!
</body></html>

TheHeadOnTheDoor

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

<html><body>
Yesterday the Premier <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/7401-flinders-street-station-designs-revealed">revealed</a> the six short-listed designs in the $1million competition for Flinders Street Station's future. Despite the predictable yarn from the public transport advocates who have an inability to think beyond their next gunzelesque rant (refer to tweet) the amount of people engaging with the people's choice competition has been outstanding.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Of course, first step towards.making the trains run on time is ensuring the station has a functional ballroom. <a href="http://t.co/kxyKrqzUNJ">pic.twitter.com/kxyKrqzUNJ</a>
— Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/danielbowen/statuses/359513312146358273">July 23, 2013</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>We don't get large-scale architectural competitions all that often, well - we barely get them at all, so it was an interesting exercise watching the discussion unfold - especially on the <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23voteflindersst">#voteflindersst</a> hashtag.

One thing I found quite interesting (or ironic?) in mainstream media reporting was the quote the Premier doesn't see any construction happening on site for a decade, yet the <a href="http://vote.majorprojects.vic.gov.au/">site</a> maintains 440,000 people are expected to use the station every day by 2021. That's either an extraordinary belief that Flinders Street has plenty of capacity to cope for the next 8 years (most likely does with some track reconfiguration) or just another State Government <a href="/news/how-to-ruin-an-improving-landscape-east-west-tunnel">faux pas</a>.

The people's choice is not going to affect the judgement of who will win the competition however the feedback provided by the community will be an almighty barometer into how the public thinks of Flinders Street Station as is and where they see it going.

After spending a good two hours downloading all the associated images and drawings, in all honesty, and as I posed on the dedicated <a href="/news">transport forum thread</a> we created for this discussion, I still don't have a clear favourite. There's no single proposal which encompasses all the elements I feel are really positive.

Rather than go into an in-depth proposal-by-proposal I thought I'd just point out common themes which are more positive than negative.

<h2>Tram network changes</h2>

Many of the proposals see varying degrees of network changes: be they new road bridges to fix the awkward 90 degree corner from the current northbank side of Queens Bridge or re-positioning of tram stops. The new Queens Bridge concept has the benefit of removing a left and a right hand turn from the #55 tram route which currently runs along Market Street, Flinders Lane and then onto William Street. ARM and Hadid+BVN should be commended for thinking well beyond the station site and any project, should it go ahead, I believe should incorporate this feature allowing the existing Queens Bridge to be a part of an enlarged Queensbridge Square.

<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/1013-images16of60a.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="New Queens Bridge at left - image © ARM"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/1013-images16of60a.jpg?itok=M03_epdH" title="New Queens Bridge at left - image © ARM" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<figcaption>New Queens Bridge at left - image © ARM</figcaption></figure>Furthermore many of the proposals saw re-positioning of tram stops: Velasquez + Pineda + Medina and Hadid + BVN moved the main tram stop southward to be positioned on Princes Bridge and ARM moved it to the eastern side of Swanston Street. Many proposals see a complete rebuild of the Elizabeth Street tram terminus which is very welcome and special mention to the HASSELL + Herzog and Hadid+BVN proposals for depicting the underground tunnels necessary to connect with the "CBD South" Station to be built as part of the Melbourne Metro tunnel project.

<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/1170-image38of39a.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="New Elizabeth Street tram terminus - image © Hadid + BVN"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/1170-image38of39a.jpg?itok=efzES6Im" title="New Elizabeth Street tram terminus - image © Hadid + BVN" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<figcaption>New Elizabeth Street tram terminus - image © Hadid + BVN</figcaption></figure><h2>The Eastern Entrance</h2>

Whether the entrants have labeled it "Federation Square" entrance or "Eastern" entrance, the clear 'winners' (for lack of a better term) are those that flatten the roadspace and remove the barriers (namely the tram stop).

Hadid + BVN are taking a really radical view. Their main entrance canopy is space-age and very [insert any new Chinese airport terminal built in the past 5 years here], but most dramatic of all looks to be, thanks to the repositioning of the tram stop to the south, even more traffic calming measures put in place on Swanston St allowing for no pedestrian crossing lights and what can only be described as complete integration with Federation Square.

<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/1170-image03of39a.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Extreme traffic calming measures to excite the urbanist in all of us - image © Hadid + BVN"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/1170-image03of39a.jpg?itok=zBxnT6rI" title="Extreme traffic calming measures to excite the urbanist in all of us - image © Hadid + BVN" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<figcaption>Extreme traffic calming measures to excite the urbanist in all of us - image © Hadid + BVN</figcaption></figure>Likewise the UniMelb students Velasquez + Pineda + Medina have also provided an excellent integration with Federation Square, again thanks to moving the tram stop further south. Yet with this proposal, we would get a double amphitheatre effect with Swanston Street becoming somewhat of a stage owing to the existing slope of Federation Square opposite and the Colombian guys' vision to have a (Canberra) Parliament House-like grass-on-roof type arrangement.

<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/1110-image01of43a.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Double amphitheatre with Swanston Street as the stage - image © Velasquez + Pineda + Medina"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/1110-image01of43a.jpg?itok=inpXuA-O" title="Double amphitheatre with Swanston Street as the stage - image © Velasquez + Pineda + Medina" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<figcaption>Double amphitheatre with Swanston Street as the stage - image © Velasquez + Pineda + Medina</figcaption></figure><h2>Central Plaza / Amphitheatre + River Stage</h2>

Hadid + BVN, HASSELL + Herzog and NH have a strong similarity in this regard. Hadid + BVN and NH feature shading utilising canopies and in Hadid+BVN's case, the join between the two main parts of superstructure canvassing the entire site appears to provide shade to their smaller amphitheatre fronting the Yarra. NH's inclusion of a new bridge (below) - piggybacking off the newly finished Hamer Hall concourse - running from St. Kilda Road to near the Western entrance / Elizabeth Street axis warrants further investigation.

<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/NHA001%20V04%20RETOUCHED.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Central plaza/concourse with canopy concept - image © NH"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/NHA001%20V04%20RETOUCHED.jpg?itok=OXWjVNwg" title="Central plaza/concourse with canopy concept - image © NH" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<figcaption>Central plaza/concourse with canopy concept - image © NH</figcaption></figure>One wonders what the plaza in HASSELL + Herzog's proposal would be like in summer. Doubtless to say it would have a lot of foot traffic, passing through but not utilising the space other than as another transit route (however Federation Square is in the same boat, so there may be some merit in it).

<h2>Integration with the Yarra</h2>

One of the strongest proposals in this area is Wardle + Grimshaw's. Bricks: love them, small spaces: check, wooden boardwalk: it's there. It appears as if this would have the effect of extending the same style of riverfront usage like on the eastern side of Princes Bridge where Riverland and the other vault businesses are located - I feel that's a big plus.

<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/1014%20Images%20%20%2830%29a.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Small spaces for small businesses - image © Wardle + Grimshaw"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/1014%20Images%20%20%2830%29a.jpg?itok=5KHWNcZC" title="Small spaces for small businesses - image © Wardle + Grimshaw" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<figcaption>Small spaces for small businesses - image © Wardle + Grimshaw</figcaption></figure><h2>Open Air platforms or Train shed?</h2>

I'm a sucker for the Victorian-era train sheds that exist all over the world, so ARM and HASSELL + Herzog's proposals caught my eye. Big Kudos to ARM for referencing the original Swanston St entrance proposal.

<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/1019-image25of75a.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Reminiscent of the train hall of old - image © HASSELL + Herzog"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/1019-image25of75a.jpg?itok=FN6CGU8c" title="Reminiscent of the train hall of old - image © HASSELL + Herzog" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<figcaption>Reminiscent of the train hall of old - image © HASSELL + Herzog</figcaption></figure><h2>I tried so hard to only be positive</h2>

The only major negative feature of any of the proposals I want to point out is with regards to NH's proposal: lose the existing canopies above platforms, they're outdated and will be out of place with the new concourse. I see them with the least amount of heritage value and actually an impediment; I much prefer an entire roof (like ARM or HASSELL+Herzog) or new canopies and if worst comes to worst incorporate the heritage platform signage. Sorry there's a second negative: Hadid+BVN's over-reliance on shopping centres should be discouraged; hotels fine, but no-one wants another Southern Cross retail outlet shop, no matter how upmarket Hadid+BVN's renders of the retail components are.

While we do have to remember this is a station and its primary function is to have the ability for trains to run more frequently over time to cater for the forecast demand (thanks Daniel), there's a heavy focus - in the imagery at least - on everything above, beside or below the tracks and platforms when the single most important thing in any new development on this site should be focusing on new or less platform space. It might not have been part of the brief, which would explain the lack of detail, but the next stage after a winner is selected (and naturally this should only occur if the State Government is serious about putting this on a long-term road map for actual construction), serious consideration needs to go into what the track and platform layout will be in future.

The primary reason why NH's retention of heritage canopies is not useful is that there are arguments to reduce the number of platforms and therefore space where 3rd overtaking lines may once have existed between two tracks with platforms as the PTV heavy rail plan is gearing itself toward focusing less on Flinders Street station. Melbourne Metro's "CBD South" will remove a large amount of trains from City Loop operations and the dwell times at Flinders Street over time are likely to disappear as driver changes will occur outside the city in future.

While yes, the Ballroom is the least of our concerns, like many have already commented on Twitter and in the mainstream press, we must plan 20 steps ahead for Flinders Street's expansion yet also open the public's mind on what else can be incorporated into the site.

<a href="http://vote.majorprojects.vic.gov.au/">See the videos, write-ups and download all the images/drawings</a> from the Flinders Street Station Design Competition.
</body></html>

Public Transport + Architecture = Seagull on a hot chip; thoughts on Flinders Street Station competition entries

<html><body>
Growing up, I couldn't believe we had no train to the airport. I could catch a train to such distant wonderlands as Hurstbridge, Tecoma and Tyabb (albeit on a 'Red Rattler'!); towns so small and far away that to most people they sound mythical. Yet if I wanted to catch a train to the airport, located in Tullamarine, a suburb just 17km from the CBD, I was left scratching my head whilst dad inserted half his weekly wage into the parking machine in order for us to pick Grandma up on her return from Europe.

Any friends which visited from overseas/interstate would look at me gobsmacked and laugh. “What, there's no train? I thought you said Melbourne was the most liveable city in the world”!

Tullamarine Airport opened fairly recently (1970) in the infrastructure scheme of things. Its predecessor, Essendon Airport (still used for charter and general aviation) also didn't have a rail link, making this continued oversight even more frustrating. Admittedly, the new Tullamarine site was chosen for its relative lack of surrounding housing, theoretically making future expansion an easier proposition. If you look at the debacle that is currently the search for a site of Sydney's second airport, this foresight has turned out to be worth its weight in gold!

43 years on, we still have no end in sight with regards to high capacity (although we do have high frequency) public transport to and from Tullamarine. Multiple rail routes have been mooted – branches from the Craigieburn and Upfield lines, a direct underground line, and a branch from Albion-Jacana standard gauge freight and interstate corridor, as well as an extension of the tram line from Airport West.

Some of these have now been wisely cast aside:

<ol>
<li>The tram line would take much too long. The tram trip from the airport to the city would be almost certainly be in excess of an hour, resulting in a longer trip than a flight from Melbourne to Adelaide or Sydney!</li>
	<li>An underground line would be much too expensive. Underground heavy rail costs about 10 times the cost of heavy rail at grade. And given the much needed 9km Melbourne Metro tunnel has been estimated to cost $9 Billion, the cost of an underground airport link could approach double that.</li>
	<li>A stopping all stations trip via the Craigieburn/Upfield lines would take much too long, and there are too many capacity/signalling problems as it is to run extra express services.</li>
</ol>
That leaves the Albion-Jacana branch line as the only viable option. In some ways it makes sense – The Southern Cross – Sunshine section is currently being upgraded as part of the RRL, so the only new rail line needed is dual track alongside the standard gauge lines in the Albion corridor and a relatively short deviation from Airport West to the airport terminal. When PTV released their multi-decade plan recently choosing this as their preferred option, all seemed right in the world. Except...

<figure class="align-left"><img alt="" height="217" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/0801rail_links-300x0.jpg" title="Source: The Age" width="300"><figcaption>Source: The Age</figcaption></figure>Until last year I just accepted my fate and drove to the airport. However I finally got sick of Melbourne Airport's exorbitant parking prices (the most expensive in the world – more than London Heathrow or JFK New York!) and decided to do something I promised myself I would do for years – catch Skybus!

It was a great experience – it ran direct from Southern Cross to the terminal door, ran every 10 minutes so no need to book a seat, and best of all, only took 20 minutes!

Given the airport train is tipped to take 20 minutes (via Southern Cross option) and up to 30 minutes (via Melbourne Metro Tunnel option), is it really worth spending billions of dollars on an option which wont get us there faster than the current option?

Consider this:

<ol>
<li>Skybus runs direct from Southern Cross Station to the airport, the same as a train would.</li>
	<li>Skybus runs every 10 minutes 24 hours a day. Metro trains do not currently run overnight – running extra trains would be more expensive than running extra buses.</li>
	<li>Skybus is scalable. If extra services need to be added at a later date, buying extra buses is much cheaper than buying extra trains! I also assume that special airport trains would have to be purchased, as current metro trains do not have any luggage storage capacity.</li>
	<li>Skybus costs $17 one way and $28 return, comparable with Sydney's airport train. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/skybus-lane-faces-fight-20130103-2c7ib" target="_blank">There has recently been talk of the government subsidising the fare and installing Myki readers on the buses</a>, thus reducing the cost of a trip to the equivalent of a zone 1 / 2 fare.</li>
	<li>There is no guarantee a train would actually increase mode share over the bus. Both Sydney's Airport Link and Brisbane's Airtrain were initial disasters, with low patronage levels forcing Sydney's train into administration and Brisbane very nearly following suit. They both survived, however even today their mode shares are only 8% and 11% respectively. Skybus' mode share is a tick under 9%. Not bad all things considering.</li>
	<li>Skybus only takes 20 minutes off peak, but up to 40-50 minutes during peak hour. The last point is obviously the most contentious. However its one solved by creating bus express lanes on the Tullamarine Freeway. There is a risk people and organisations such as the RACV will cry foul about the effect this will have on car traffic, however road projects currently underway and planned by the Tullamarine airport authority such as extending &amp; upgrading Airport Drive enabling another high capacity road from the Western Ring Road into the airport would go a long way to alleviating the current crunch at the end of the Tullamarine Freeway.</li>
</ol>
<figure><img alt="" height="271" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/292854-airport-road%20%282%29.jpg" title="Source: Herald Sun" width="482"><figcaption>Source: Herald Sun</figcaption></figure>CityLink and more vigorously Melbourne Airport, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/skybus-lane-faces-fight-20130103-2c7ib" target="_blank">are of course against this proposal</a>. They make a fortune from the borderline criminal parking rates they charge, and aren't keen on this stopping any time soon. It is ridiculous when you think about it – what other organisation in the world would actively campaign against having yet another high quality access method lead directly to their facility?

It is time governments of all persuasions toughened up and stopped pandering to these bully boys, and put an end to this decades old impasse. Reconfiguring the freeway lanes, subsiding the fare, and most of all, promoting the hell out of Skybus, will be orders of magnitude cheaper than building heavy rail. And we can do it now, and not have to bicker about budgets and the best route for the next 10 years. With a fast, fast efficient airport link we can continue to deserve the title of 'the most liveable city in the world', not 'the laughing stock of the developed world' which our current non-existent solution is.

And my non-Melbourne friends will finally stop laughing at me!
</body></html>

Melbourne, a city of two tales - Skybus vs The Airport Train

<html><body>
<a href="http://theage.drive.com.au/roads-and-traffic/west-gate-stretched-to-the-limit-20130602-2nka7" target="_blank">This</a> report in today's Age makes no mention that come late 2015 / early 2016 at the completion of the Regional Rail Link project the Werribee line, servicing the growing Wyndham growth area, will be freed from the current metropolitan and regional service mixing constraints. The aim of the Regional Rail Link is to separate regional and metropolitan services inside Melbourne thus providing a capacity increase to both tiers of rail service.
It's quite extraordinary to omit this key piece of information.
As clearly stated on the <a href="http://www.regionalraillink.vic.gov.au/about/faqs/faq-project" target="_blank">Regional Rail Link</a>'s own website (2nd last FAQ), the project will allow a further 23 metropolitan and 10 new regional services to enter the city in morning and afternoon peaks.  It's safe to say that near 30-40% of the increase (7-9 new peak services) in capacity will be on the Werribee corridor encompassing the Werribee line itself plus the Altona Loop and Williamstown line which branches from the Werribee line at Newport.
If we're to have any 2nd (lower) Yarra crossing, it should be the <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/ptv-data-and-reports/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/" target="_blank">PTV's planned Fisherman's Bend line</a> connecting with the existing network at Newport.  A single high-capacity train line would have a far more positive impact on traffic congestion compared to building a new road bridge or tunnel - and given the PTV plan is to make Fishermans Bend a new cross-town line from South West to North East, it will likewise provide even further incentive for people to get out of their cars by opening up new inner-city areas to high-capacity public transport.
Similarly the article made little mention of the types of jobs people moving to this area are employed in.  Is everyone moving to Wyndham, Melton, Hume working in the centre of the city?  Doubtful.  Many will work in the inner city, but not at all - and the Regional Rail Link + the <a href="http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1424022/alstoms-176-million-order-for-eight-new-trains/" target="_blank">15 new X'trapolis trains</a> - to be used to increase capacity once regional services are off the existing tracks - will be in pole position to capture many of the new residents who will be traveling from Wyndham, Melton and Hume to the city for work.
Perspective needs to be maintained when we start screaming for more road capacity, as more often than not there will invariably be a public transport project more worthy of funding (or one underway that is not entirely understood by the community) which will have a greater impact on reducing congestion, reducing carbon emissions and boosting productivity in our knowledge and other service industry jobs that are located around central Melbourne.
<img alt="" class="image-article_full_width_702px" height="414" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Westgate_Bridge_wiki_commons.jpg?itok=73D-TNnf" title="West Gate Bridge - Image credit Simon Whitehead wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westgate_Bridge.jpg" width="702">
Image credit Simon Whitehead wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westgate_Bridge.jpg
</body></html>

The West Gate has a few more years in it yet

<html><body>
Williams Landing is the newest station to be added to the Metro network.  Costing $86 million for the station itself + track, catenary and signalling rework.  Lack of foresight with regards to including higher-density development around the station aside, it's quite a handsome station - and came with a feeder bus network from opening as well (however, as is mostly the case in the outer suburbs, the bus frequencies leave a lot to be desired).
I could go on about the futile nature of why the outer suburbs should not expect infrastructure such as this as soon as the first sod of soil on the next contribution to Melbourne's sprawling expanse is turned (that's for a future Transport Wednesday), however given the infrequency of any new public transport infrastructure being proposed let alone built, it's best not to kick an own goal.  Right? 
All photos taken by and copyright Ryan Seychell.
</body></html>

Williams Landing station, a photographic overview

<html><body>
Ever since the 2008 Eddington Study named the Melbourne Metro (MM) rail tunnel as one of the key pieces of transport infrastructure needed to cater for population growth and address congestion, critics have pondered questions like:
<ul>
<li>
		“Why waste money on a rail tunnel in the city when the people of Doncaster/Rowville/Woop-Woop can’t even get a train line built to their suburb?”</li>
	<li>
		“Why is it called a metro when it doesn’t look anything like the one in Paris?”</li>
	<li>
		“Why is the government making it easier for rampaging western suburban bogans to travel to the leafy east?”</li>
</ul>
Answers to these questions and others like it won’t be answered here.  Instead, this article will look at what impact the creation of the Sunshine to Dandenong line, enabled by the proposed Melbourne Metro tunnel, could have for the outer suburbs, based on the trends experienced in Paris following the development of the RER network.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the suburbs of Paris expanded rapidly, attributed to factors such as high population growth, economic prosperity, a constrained city centre, and enhanced mobility brought about by private vehicles – a story not dissimilar to Melbourne’s post-WW2 experiences.  
In order to provide a transit network to the growing suburban areas, it was decided not to continually extend the Paris metro network, as this would be akin to Melbourne extending its tram routes – it would take forever to travel from outer suburbs to the centre, and metro trains would fill up with outer suburbanites, leaving no room for inner urban dwellers (although that didn’t stop us from extending the tram to Vermont).
Instead, in 1960, as part of the development plan for the Paris region, the idea of a high-speed regional rail network was put forward, known as RER (Réseau Express Régional, or Regional Express Network).  The development master plan for the Paris region later described the concept in detail, and the proposed RER project was subsequently accepted by the Government, despite requiring considerable investment.  
The RER didn’t totally reinvent the wheel – much of the network was already there, comprising suburban train lines operating into one of several termini in inner Paris.  What the RER concept proposed was construction of the missing links through the centre of Paris to link the termini, enabling trains to run across the city. 
This provided rapid transit for suburban folks to multiple points throughout the city, improving access and capacity while also relieving the congested metro.  Incidentally, the recently released PTV Rail Plan for Melbourne follows a similar methodology.  It features the separation of existing suburban lines and operations coupled with new tunnel sections in the inner city to create distinct lines, in order to extend coverage and increase capacity.
RER Line A, the first major line to cross Paris, was constructed in sections between La Défense (terminus on western side of city) and Vincennes (equivalent on eastern side).  Work started in 1961, with incremental extensions opened every year or two. 
In 1977, the 15km tunnel was completed, and trains were able to run all the way through the city.  The stations in the new tunnel section are massive - Auber station was designed to accommodate 50,000 passengers an hour.
<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/Central_RER_network.gif" rel="gallery-all" title="RER network in central Paris"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Central_RER_network.gif?itok=CQMhRrNc" title="RER network in central Paris" typeof="Image"></a>
Today, Line A is acknowledged as the busiest line in Europe, with over 1 million passenger trips per weekday (Melbourne’s entire rail network carries about 800,000 trips / weekday). 
It has proven to be so popular that further investments to squeeze even more capacity out of the line have been implemented over the years, including an automatic train control system which allows trains to run every 2 minutes in the central section (this will be implemented in the Melbourne Metro tunnel from day 1).  Currently, the existing fleet of single deck fleet of trains on RER Line A is being replaced with double deckers, which despite running at 3 minute intervals (as opposed to 2 minutes for single decks), will boost capacity on the line by 30%.
The development of the RER network, and particularly Line A, is acknowledged as a huge success, based on the positive social and economic benefits generated.  For instance, the RER is accredited in bringing far-flung suburbs within easy reach of central Paris, which has significantly aided the reintegration of the traditionally insular capital with its outer suburbs. 
The evidence of this social impact can be seen at Châtelet - Les Halles (Flinders Street equivalent), which is now crowded with suburbanites on evenings and weekends. 
As the RER did for Paris, the Melbourne Metro will provide enhanced capacity through the city, serve new destinations, enable rapid transit from outer suburbs to multiple destinations across the city and provide relief to other transit routes. 
One of the key social benefits could be to stall if not reverse the widening gulf in housing affordability and living standards between inner and outer suburban households in Melbourne, which has been attributed to the relative level of accessibility to “opportunities” (i.e. employment, education, retail, health, leisure and others).
If this is the case, the question that the critics will probably ask is – “Why didn’t they build it sooner?”
 
A tale of 2 lines
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td>
				Sunshine-Dandenong line, with MM tunnel 1
			</td>
			<td>
				RER Line A 2
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				Operating hours: 4.15 a.m. to 1:15 a.m. 3
			</td>
			<td>
				Operating hours: 5:00 a.m. to 1:20 a.m.
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				160 route km, extending to: 4
				<ul>
<li>
						Melton (36km)</li>
					<li>
						Sunbury (33km)</li>
					<li>
						Melbourne Airport (18km)</li>
					<li>
						Pakenham (55km)</li>
					<li>
						Cranbourne (42km)</li>
					<li>
						Rowville (27km)</li>
				</ul>
</td>
			<td>
				109 route km, extending to: 5
				<ul>
<li>
						Cergy – Le Haut (33km)</li>
					<li>
						Poissy (26km)</li>
					<li>
						Saint-Germain-en-Laye (19km)</li>
					<li>
						Boissy-Saint-Leger (17km)</li>
					<li>
						Marne-le- Vallée -Chessy (32km)</li>
				</ul>
 
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				77 trains in service
			</td>
			<td>
				207 (half-length) trains in service (note that during peak periods, 2 units are joined to form a full length train)
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				Stations in 14 of Melbourne’s 31 Councils
			</td>
			<td>
				Stations in 7 of Ile-de-France’s 8 departments
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				3 eastern branches and 3 western branches
			</td>
			<td>
				2 eastern branches and 3 western branches
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				Serves several important centres of activity: Footscray, Parkville, the central business district, St Kilda Rd
			</td>
			<td>
				Serves several important centres of activity: La Défense, the central business district, Cergy and Marne-la-Vallée
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				Trains every 2 ½ minutes during peak hours on the central section
			</td>
			<td>
				Trains every 2 minutes during peak hours on the central section
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				Connections with all other rail lines, and 20 out of 28 tram routes
			</td>
			<td>
				Connections with all other RER lines (except line C), and 10 out of 14 lines of the metro
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				A commercial speed of ~55 kph 6
			</td>
			<td>
				A commercial speed of 49 kph
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>
				Part of a network comprising 7 lines
			</td>
			<td>
				Part of a network comprising 5 lines
			</td>
		</tr>
</tbody></table>
 
1 Based on Stage 4 network as shown in PTV Rail Plan, unless otherwise stated
2 Information from <a href="http://www.ratp.fr/">www.ratp.fr</a>, unless otherwise stated
3 From 2013 timetable for Sunbury, Pakenham, Cranbourne lines
4 Approximate distances to GPO, from satellite images
5 Approximate distances to Chatelet, from satellite images
6 Travel time calculated using existing off-peak timetable, estimated for new lines.
 
Phil Sturrock is an independent Transport Consultant who has previously worked for the Victorian Department of Transport, VicRoads and Transport for London.
 
</body></html>

Phil Ess

Melbourne Metro: saviour of the outer 'burbs?

<html><body>
... and that's the problem.
Melbourne was very good at locating shopping centres away from rail lines and stations when they were first proposed, and we're paying for it now.  Well at least, the good 'burghers of Chadstone, who live opposite or in the immediate vicinity of the shopping centre that bears the same name, are.
In our <a href="http://urbanmelbourne.info/development/2013/04/16/chadstones-twin-towers-sharpen-up#content">piece</a> yesterday on the updated proposals for a Hotel and Office at Chadstone Shopping Centre, Mark posted images from Atomic 3D and Bates Smart that act as a perfect example of  how utterly auto-centric these “activity” centres are. Have a look at the Dandenong Road vista – shopping centres have always been internally focused and Chadstone is no exception – however the new proposal has solidified this internal mentality by only providing a barely windowed facade at ground level, completely cut off from the footpath.
There’s absolutely zero active frontage and it's dominated by vehicular access paths.  Some effort in opening the proposed section of the site to Dandenong Road may have been been a good sign of things to come; nevertheless we're stuck with the ode to auto-centric suburbia that Chadstone and other centres are synonymous with.
Sure, Dandenong Road is a major arterial and not the most pedestrian friendly environment comes to mind of but Chadstone could do so much better.  If we accept shopping centres are going to become legitimate multi-use activity centres in the decades to come, we must correct the past mistakes of not integrating them with high capacity mass public transport routes, reject dumb design that turns its back on the street and start opening them up to their surrounds.
Chadstone’s public transport is currently riding on the back of the humble bus.  At present the best train + bus option is to take a train to Oakleigh and then swap to the 802, 900 or 902, or walk from Hughesdale Station.  The buses are timetabled for 9 minutes between Oakleigh and Chadstone SC, but as we all know that is susceptible to Warrigal Road and Middle Road traffic. PTV’s site states there’s a 4-5 combined frequency across the aforementioned routes - excellent service compared to other routes around the metropolitan area.
It is interesting to see the bus bay has been placed closer to the Dandenong Road entry for Chadstone in yesterday’s piece by Mark.  Buses – from Oakleigh – will be able to avoid all the Monash FWY-bound traffic on Middle Road and turn left at Dandenong Road from Warrigal Rd and then right turn almost directly into the bus station.  This should improve reliability and potentially shave a minute or two off the timetable.
But going by how quickly Chadstone expands and its popularity citywide – good marketing will do that – at what point do we say: enough is enough, bite the bullet and start providing alternative high-capacity access?
As I alluded to a few weeks ago, one of the biggest elephants in the room with regards to the Rowville Rail Study was the ignoring of Chadstone and more recently with the release of the PTV Heavy Rail plan, the Rowville line is completely dependent on the Metro Tunnel.
Rowville study Mark II (as the first one outlined further investigation must be carried out on the city side of Huntingdale) should focus on studying the benefits of removing the Rowville line’s dependency on the Metro Tunnel and as an alternative, study how the Burnley group of lines could work in Rowville’s favour.
We now know that PTV sees the eventual quadruplication of Burnley to Camberwell, but before we get to that – lets look at how Rowville can assume the operation of Alamein with a terminus at Camberwell – at least for the first stage.
We know that there is some spectre of hope for a Rowville rail line eventually, so lets take that for granted. 
From Huntingdale another track pair could be built alongside the existing corridor to Oakleigh, with a 1-2km tunnel built from Oakleigh underneath Dandenong Road and adjacent to Chadstone SC to the old Outer Circle Rail alignment just south of Waverley Road.  From there a line could transition to an elevated structure with a station at East Malvern, and then traverse the Monash Freeway and Gardiner’s Creek valley (where the old trestle bridge from the outer ciricle line did 100 years ago) and then use the old alignment to south of Alamein.
The existing Alamein line would require grade separation at Riversdale Rd and Prospect Hill Rd offering an opportunity to delete Willison Station as Willison and Riversdale stations are 300m from one another. Entries to the newly grade separated Riversdale station located to the south of Riversdale road could eaasily cater for the loss of Willison and reposition the new Riversdale station to cater for both catchments.  Click <a href="https://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?msid=211205020527797360410.0004da78fe6cb979be7b7&amp;msa=0&amp;ll=-37.876208,145.082788&amp;spn=0.054538,0.132093" target="_blank">here</a> to see full map.
<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/chad_line_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/chad_line_1.jpg?itok=PBMS-dXu" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>
PTV similarly wouldn't need to create expensive and longer stations on the Rowville line - as the Alamein and Camberwell-City sections are not mooted to get the same upgrades as the Dandenong corridor.  And as a start, off-peak 10 minute services moving to 7-8 minutes in peak would interface with all the activity centres and the 3 primary lines this Camberwell-Rowville shuttle would intersect.
Creating this line will not only provide a one-stop rail journey for the East and South East of Melbourne to Chadstone, it will start linking the region’s other activity centres (Monash/Mulgrave, Camberwell and Glenferrie), provide numerous more non-car Public Transport options for those who live or work in the east and also add heavy rail network redundancy to all Eastern and South Eastern lines.  
Rowville Mark II needs to look at how linking Alamein and Oakleigh via Chadstone could impact the economic case for the Rowville rail line and it should similarly probe Gandel/CFS on their thoughts on potentially going into a PPP - i.e Gandel/CFS pay for the Chadstone station allowing them to fully integrate it into the centre in return for being allowed to expand the use of the land - residential apartments and more commercial above the shopping centre below.
It’s clear that Gandel and CFS have their eyes on diversifying the land use at Chadstone Shopping Centre, and in order to make it work let's integrate it so as to start linking even more eastern suburbs activity centres at the same time.
 
 
</body></html>

All roads lead to Chadstone

<html><body>
Thank the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunzel" target="_blank">gunzel</a> Gods for both the Victorian and Federal Governments releasing their grandiose plans within the space of two weeks.  So much to analyse, so much to salivate over.
On Thursday when Federal Transport Minister Albanese released the <a href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/" target="_blank">Phase 2 study into High Speed Rail</a>, the immediate thing which drew my attention was the preferred path to be taken into Melbourne.
The Federal Government's High Speed Rail (HSR) study favours the Upfield corridor path as the primary access to central Melbourne with the terminus at Southern Cross.  Putting my past-life Business Analyst cap on: hello project synergies!
<a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/news/news-promotions/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/" target="_blank">Public Transport Victoria's (PTV) plan for heavy rail in Melbourne</a> states that in 20 years time, the Upfield corridor will be upgraded to allow far more frequent service than currently exists (a paltry 20 minute all day every day service regardless of peak or off peak).  Let's try and reconcile both plans for a moment.
The HSR plan sets out:  Sydney to Canberra as Phase 1.  Canberra to Melbourne Phase 2.  And all those areas north of Sydney in later stages.  It's not completely absurd to assume Phase 2 will more or less co-incide with PTV's Phase 4 in about 20 years from now.  
As a 2 year resident of the City of Moreland, I've long loathed using the Upfield line as a means to get to/from the city or any further up and down the Sydney Road corridor owing to the substandard frequencies that currently opeate (I prefer, and do, walk 25 minutes further west to Moonee Ponds to catch far more frequent Craigieburn services).  Upfield requires more frequent trains and far more frequent cross-town bus routes feeding it to make it a real mass-transit corridor.
You don't need a crystal ball to predict the response from naysayers and the foamers over the High-Speed Rail plan, but if you assume:
<ul>
<li>
		it will go ahead in some shape or form, in the phased stages as outlined in the study,</li>
	<li>
		Melbourne airport will receive some kind of heavy-rail treatment within 10-20 years (PTV estimate is within 15 years),</li>
	<li>
		the Federal Coalition stops brain-farting and starts to look at the benefit of investing in Urban as well as National Rail - to keep the PTV and High Speed Rail plan momentum alive if the Gillard government loses power on September 14</li>
</ul>
... you can easily draw this conclusion:
Despite the Phase 2 of High-Speed Rail being a minimum 15 years away, the difficult and most expensive work at this end of the whole Brisbane-Melbourne line could be done sooner by combining the national and local projects.  PTV's plan studied an Upfield (and Craigieburn) line option, and assumes an Airport metro service will branch off the Melbourne Metro Tunnel, but let's take 3 steps back and look at it this way.
The Victorian and Federal governments can go into a joint venture in building the Southern Cross - Upfield section of the eventual High Speed Line sooner.  
<ul>
<li>
		Shut down the Upfield corridor for 2-3 years,</li>
	<li>
		Add longer clearways to Sydney Road and then double the amount of tram services on the Sydney Road route to cater for the temporary loss of Upfield Train services,</li>
	<li>
		Rip up the existing track in the Upfield corridor and associated infrastructure, all the way from Park St in Brunswick to Mahoneys Road in Campbellfield,</li>
	<li>
		Dig a long trench, wide enough for 4 tracks - the two outer tracks would become a subterranean Upfield Metro corridor upon re-opening and the two inner tracks would be the High-Speed through lines,</li>
	<li>
		Re-build Jewell, Brunswick, Anstey, Moreland, Coburg, Batman, Merlynston, Fawkner and Gowrie stations underground to interface with the outer Metro lines,</li>
	<li>
		The new airspace created above this trench will provide a small benefit in financing the construction of the cut and cover tunnel by allowing developers, subject to a new Moreland City council structure plan, to build on the newly created surface above the rail corridor,</li>
	<li>
		PTV and/or Melbourne Airport Rail Link study partners can re-factor this newly created train path into a revised PTV project to bring heavy rail to Tullamarine along the High Speed Lines into the airport from the East.</li>
</ul>
There is enormous scope for synergising the PTV and High Speed Rail plans - with numerous urban benefits as outlined above.  And it shouldn't be dependent on the later phase 2 Canberra - Melbourne construction of the High Speed Rail line.  
And it's over to you.
Editor's Note: too much gunzelling can be bad for your health, seek professional help (or just stop waiting for a damned Hitachi to roll on by) if you feel it is getting the better of you. 
 
</body></html>

Thanking the gunzel Gods: PTV and High Speed Rail synergies in Melbourne

<html><body>
Sticking with the Fishermans Bend theme, today I want to have a brief look at the Transport aspects of the area.
At present, and reflected in City of Port Phillip’s structure plan for Montague, the eastern extremities bordering Southbank of the Fishermans Bend precinct is served by the very high frequency #96 tram to St. Kilda Beach while slicing right through the heart of the Montague precinct, the #109 Port Melbourne tram will be the primary non-road transport option for the area.
The PTV’s recent public release of the heavy rail plan that has more or less been in use for 5-6 years states that an extension of the Clifton Hill – Parkville – Flagstaff – Southern Cross tunnel, envisaged to be operating by 2030, will eventually end up as a terminus in Fishermans Bend.
<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.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Stage 4 of the PTV's plan shows an extension to Fisherman's Bend"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/schematic_stage_4.png?itok=nR7DOsLE" title="Stage 4 of the PTV's plan shows an extension to Fisherman's Bend" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>
As a footnote to the Fishermans Bend extension, PTV states the line may end up crossing the Yarra and connecting with Werribee/Altona Loop/Williamstown lines at Newport. This footnote requires a much more detailed look as there are significant impacts for the West Gate bridge should Fishermans Bend develop without any significant public transport investment to enable south-western connectivity.
Using the statistics from City of Port Phillip’s Montague structure plan, the three precincts inside Montague are planned to have 379, 519 and 520 people per hectare in the City road, Southern neighbourhood and Northern neighbourhood precincts respectively – or an average of 472 people per hectare.
Likewise the jobs density is planned to be 233, 412 and 148 jobs per hectare in the City Road, Southern neighbourhood and Northern neighbourhood precincts respectively – or an average of 264 jobs per hectare.
Applying those averages across the whole Fishermans Bend area (240 hectares) that equates to a potential resident population of 113,000 people and 63,000 jobs.
Montague in isolation may be able to cope by utilizing the two Light Rail lines + bus route improvements but when we look at greater Fishermans Bend area, it’s not hard to see that two small tram lines navigating through congested Clarendon and Spencer Street city intersections just won’t cut it.
The PTV’s plan appears to place a Clifton Hill-Southern Cross tunnel dependency on the Fishermans Bend line and it was grouped with all the potential network extensions that have been studied – Rowville, Airport and Doncaster – in the later stages of the plan.
There’s some obvious reasons for this as the PTV plan tends to revolve around building capacity through the centre of the city in order to then expand branch lines.  
However, like all proposed rail extensions or new lines in Melbourne, serious consideration for differing railway technologies operating independently of the existing and soon-to-be upgraded network over the next 2 decades should be studied sooner rather than later.
A Newport-Clifton Hill line via Fishermans Bend and the CBD is a prime candidate as a start to implement something similar to the Canada Line in Vancouver for Melbourne with extensions via conversions of existing rail lines to Williamstown and Laverton via Altona to the west and extensions to Doncaster from Clifton Hill (or Victoria Park) to the east thereafter.  Refer to the Orange line on this <a href="https://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?msid=211205020527797360410.0004d2a9a5c2cf8aaec20&amp;msa=0&amp;ll=-37.822802,144.951811&amp;spn=0.058646,0.132093" target="_blank">map</a>.
This could in turn remove the need to build a larger and therefore more expensive rail tunnels from Clifton Hill to Southern Cross.  Similarly it removes the Clifton Hill-Southern Cross dependency for a Doncaster Line and frees up capacity on the existing Newport-Footscray corridor for more trains running into Werribee, and as per the PTV plan, eventually to Wyndham Vale/Tarneit.  Further minimizing potential costs could be another bridge across the lower Yarra adjacent to the West Gate Bridge.
It’s possible that Fishermans Bend may be implemented in a way that Docklands should have been: one stage at a time, and therefore the pressure to build heavy or hybrid heavy/light rail infrastructure for full connectivity to both the east and the west will not be as great. However, judging by the speed in which large development sites are being secured by developers and proposals being drawn up in the Montague precinct already, the PTV’s plans to roll out this necessary piece of rail infrastructure is in danger of being rolled out too late.
The Victorian Government would be wise to set aside funds in the upcoming budget to study the potential for long-term Public Transport connectivity in this important urban renewal project.
</body></html>

Trains

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Trains

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News