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

Urban Affairs

<html><body>
The Premier and Minister for Public Transport this morning announced four more level crossing removals had been funded - Main and Furlong Roads in St. Albans, Blackburn Road in Blackburn and Heatherdale Road in Mitcham.

"These four level crossings will all be removed by 2018, and are part of our $2-2.4 billion commitment in the 2015-2016 Victorian Budget to remove at least 20 of these congested death traps over four years" the Premier said.

Leighton Contractors, Aurecon and Hyder Consulting will be working together to both design and build the four grade separation projects with input from public sector agencies VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria and the operator of the metropolitan rail network, Metro Trains Melbourne.

In a media release distributed on Tuesday morning, the Government has announced the package of works will cost around $480 million including $151 million from the Federal Government. This federal money is reportedly derived from savings made on the Regional Rail Project which began operations on Sunday.

Heatherdale Road, Blackburn Road and Furlong Road projects will be funded by the Victorian Government and the Main Road grade separation project funded by the Regional Rail Link savings.

In terms of rail corridor changes, at all four project sites the rail lines will be lowered under the existing road grade and three stations will be re-built as a consequence: St. Albans, Ginifter and Heatherdale.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="450" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sau!4v1435019591184!6m8!1m7!1so6nLJDygseyT_7R6joKtsQ!2m2!1d-37.818875!2d145.213361!3f282.51!4f-2.819999999999993!5f0.7820865974627469" style="border:0" width="100%"></iframe>

​Of all four level crossing removal projects which were awarded today, Heatherdale is likely to be the more intriguing from a design perspective. As seen in the google street view above, the existing station is already on a downhill (toward Ringwood) grade and lowering the rail line below the existing road grade will likely require a large amount of excavation to the west of the station in order to smooth out the rail corridor between Mitcham and Heatherdale stations.

As Blackburn Road and Heatherdale Road are completed, the only remaining level crossings between the city and Ringwood will be located at Union Road in Surrey Hills and Mont Albert Road in Mont Albert. Given Surrey Hills and Mont Albert Stations are located within a kilometre of each other, Apartments.com.au expects that both of these stations - which have three tracks and platforms like the recently announced Frankston line level crossing removals - would be completed at the same time, whenever they are prioritised by Government. These two level crossings do not feature in the list of 50 grade separation projects.

With the announcement of Main Road and Furlong Road projects today, once complete in 2018, all Sunbury line trains as far as Watergardens will be running on track with no level crossings, thanks to previous removal projects in the region with the most recent being Anderson Road as part of the Regional Rail Link project.

The State Government has also announced that geotechnical investigations have begun in the Dandenong corridor where nine previously announced level crossings are to be removed and four stations are scheduled to be rebuilt.

<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/level-crossing-removal-locations.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The 50 level crossings the Government aims to remove over eight years. Economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="417" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/level-crossing-removal-locations.jpg?itok=doEZZzJe" title="The 50 level crossings the Government aims to remove over eight years. Economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The 50 level crossings the Government aims to remove over eight years. <a href="http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/major-projects/level-crossing-removal-project/level-crossing-removal-locations">economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au</a></figcaption></figure><h2>Level crossing removals announced to date</h2>

The Dandenong corridor:

<ul>
<li>Grange Road, Carnegie</li>
	<li>Koornang Road, Carnegie - includes rebuilding Carnegie station.</li>
	<li>Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena - includes rebuilding Murrumbeena station.</li>
	<li>Poath Road, Murrumbeena - includes rebuilding Hughesdale station.</li>
	<li>Clayton Road, Clayton - includes rebuilding Clayton station.</li>
	<li>Centre Road, Clayton</li>
	<li>Corrigan Road, Noble Park</li>
	<li>Heatherton Road, Noble Park</li>
	<li>Chandler Road, Noble Park</li>
</ul>
Expressions of interest were being sought in June and an earlier media release from the Minister for Public Transport stated the work was expected to start in 2016 - and today's announcement confirms that - and complete by 2018. Total value, designs and contractors not yet announced.

The Frankston Line:

<ul>
<li>North Road, Ormond - includes rebuilding Ormond station.</li>
	<li>McKinnon Road, McKinnon - includes rebuilding McKinnon station.</li>
	<li>Centre Road, Bentleigh - includes rebuilding Bentleight station.</li>
</ul>
The Glen Waverley Line:

<ul>
<li>Burke Road, Glen Iris - includes rebuilding Gardiner station.</li>
</ul>
Contracts for these four level crossing removals were awarded to a consortium which comprises John Holland and KBR. $524 million and complete by 2018.

The Ringwood corridor:

<ul>
<li>Blackburn Road, Blackburn.</li>
	<li>Heatherdale Road, Mitcham - includes rebuilding Heatherdale station.</li>
</ul>
The Sunbury Line

<ul>
<li>Furlong Road, St. Albans - includes rebuilding Ginifer station.</li>
	<li>Main Road, St. Albans - includes rebuilding St. Albans station.</li>
</ul>
Contracts awarded to an alliance of Leighton Contractors, Aurecon and Hayder Consulting. $480 million. St. Albans projects complete by 2017, Ringwood corridor projects complete by 2018.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.818875,145.213361,3a,75y,282.51h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so6nLJDygseyT_7R6joKtsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-GB">Google Street View</a>.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

St. Albans, Blackburn and Mitcham set to see more level crossing removals

<html><body>
For many a year now there's been talk of a rail link to Melbourne Airport with the Albion corridor named as the preferred alignment. While an airport heavy rail link via the preferred corridor would serve the Airport, Sunshine, the city centre and most parts of the metropolitan area in the East and South via a change of trains in the city, it doesn't do much for people living in the north and working at the airport, let alone cater for passengers accessing the airport.

On top of origin/destination trips to the airport's terminals, the airport master plan foresees significant non-aviation development and employment sprouting on the outer edges of the land it controls between Melrose Drive and the Tullamarine Freeway, notwithstanding the large amount of semi-industrial employment already in the region.

Essendon Fields is seeing ongoing commercial development, most notably in recent times with Linfox moving in, and Moonee Valley have currently zoned the area to the west of Matthews Ave as Business Zone 3 which allows for mixed-use residential and commercial uses. Apartments.com.au even has its eyes on development in this very precinct: see <a href="/news/the-northern-light-rail-link">83 Matthews Avenue</a>.

Suffice it to say residents of Moonee Valley, Darebin and Moreland - areas where many people who work at Melbourne Airport reside - wouldn't directly benefit from a heavy rail link. These residents either have to travel into the city to catch the skybus (or in future the train) back out to the airport or play roulette with infrequent bus to bus (and rail to bus) connections; the only exception to this rule is the frequent connection between the Craigieburn line and Airport smart bus connection at Broadmeadows.

<h2>The idea: a light rail line stretching from Thornbury to Melbourne Airport</h2>

<iframe height="480" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=zLzjYwjjDBk0.k7Yg81lZOXQQ" width="100%"></iframe>

<h2>Airport West to Melbourne Airport</h2>

From the current terminus of route 59 at Airport West, new tram track would be built along the western side of Melrose Drive into the airport zone.

In order to not play havoc with existing vehicular traffic from the current terminus, the tram track would be elevated across the Matthews Ave/Dromana Ave/Melrose Drive intersection at the main entrance to Westfield Airport West, remain elevated across Mascoma Street and the Albion corridor rail line and then would transition to an open trench in order to have a clear path underneath the Malvern Avenue/Western Ring Road/Sharps Road interchange.

Between the Western Ring Road and Melbourne Airport, save for a short 200-300m section of Melrose Drive, the tram track would be laid at grade in the median that currently separates the northbound Melrose Drive traffic lanes and the service road. All sections where the tram track intersects with streets would be signalised and only triggered as trams approach the crossings, effectively giving light rail services priority.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="400" src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sau!4v1434616867136!6m8!1m7!1sRWP8PKQYzvOWihNysMOo6Q!2m2!1d-37.703101!2d144.882849!3f172.6402970433707!4f-2.7853582439360167!5f0.7820865974627469" style="border:0" width="100%"></iframe>

From Trade Park Drive right up into the Airport lands - and where the new Tullamarine freeway exit intersects with Melrose drive - the trams would run in the ample space beside Melrose Drive and then switch to the Melrose Drive median up to Service Road and the Melbourne Airport Terminals.

The total length of this route is 6.3km, 350m of which is in an open below-grade trench and 550m is elevated at Airport West.

<h2>Essendon to Coburg</h2>

Using the short section of track which currently hosts the route 8 on Moreland Road, this idea would see both ends of that track extended west and east.

The first new track section from Essendon would run from where the existing route 59 trams turn out of Fletcher Street into Pascoe Vale Road down to the Moreland Road intersection and then turn eastward and run all the way to Moreland Station, where the existing tram track ends at Brunswick tram depot.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="400" src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sau!4v1434617381097!6m8!1m7!1sAiNojxEgGGCYXBqiiBgrqQ!2m2!1d-37.753691!2d144.949251!3f253.85!4f-2.6299999999999955!5f0.7820865974627469" style="border:0" width="100%"></iframe>

Engineering issues which would need to be dealt with along this route: Moreland road descends moderately from Pascoe Vale Road and the general road corridor narrows over the Moonee Ponds Creek Bridge, this would need to be widened.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="400" src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sau!4v1434617059827!6m8!1m7!1sRgdL9xm5HmNKSG1dITqHFQ!2m2!1d-37.751078!2d144.927044!3f283.0521102350623!4f-7.56721222747305!5f0.7820865974627469" style="border:0" width="100%"></iframe>

Similarly Moreland Road at Moreland station on the Upfield line would need to be grade separated - that's aken care of as it's already on the current government's <a href="http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/news-and-media-releases/work-begins-to-remove-50-of-the-worst-level-crossings-in-melbourne">map of 50 level crossing removals</a> - but for the most part, Moreland Road is quite wide (parallel parking, bike and a single traffic lanes in each direction) and somewhat similar in profile to other roads in the area which have trams running on them.

This section of new tram track would measure 3.9km in length, connect/interchange with 3 existing tram routes (59, 55 and 19) and connect with 1 rail line (Upfield).

<h2>Coburg to Thornbury</h2>

Running on the existing tram track from Moreland Station across Sydney Road to Nicholson/Holmes Street the new track would be laid in the centre of Moreland Road and then across the Merri Creek along Normanby Avenue to St. Georges Road. From this point the route would use the existing track in St. Georges Road and Miller Street and Terminate at Thornbury junction in Miller Street.

There's an opportunity near the terminus to remove the existing Thornbury rail station and rebuild it 300m north in order for a) the station to be closer to the junction and b) directly interface with this new light rail route.

The width of Normanby Avenue from the Northcote Golf Club across St. Georges Road and into High Street is narrow and a straight route to High Street would need to include a grade separation. There is just one short 500m section of Normanby Avenue which would require some kind of tram prioritisation if the existing St. Georges road track were to be re-used.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="400" src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sau!4v1434617163241!6m8!1m7!1sXSV3aqlX1jOiwQj5PiUKXA!2m2!1d-37.758711!2d144.992573!3f293.19504533329155!4f-10.876194806512643!5f0.7820865974627469" style="border:0" width="100%"></iframe>

This section of new track from Nicholson Street to St. Georges Road measures 1.6km in length. 1.4km of existing double tram track would be re-used for the Northern Light Rail line and from the St. Georges Road/Normanby Ave intersection to Thornbury junction. The new service would connect with 4 tram routes (1, 8, 11 and 86) as well as 1 rail line (South Morang).

<h2>Some employment numbers</h2>

Demographer's <a href="http://home.id.com.au/">.id</a> publish a great set of data on where residents of LGA's work. Melbourne Airport sits in the <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/hume/workers?SLACode=205353274">Hume - Craigieburn SLA</a> which also includes Greenvale, Craigieburn and Roxburgh Park.

The 2011 census data shows that the <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/hume/residents?SLACode=205353274">Hume - Craigieburn</a> area (where the airport is located) is the employment destination for:

<ul>
<li>1860 people, or 3.5% of <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/moonee-valley/residents">Moonee Valley's residents</a>
</li>
	<li>1724 people or 2.5% of <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/moreland/residents">Moreland's residents</a>
</li>
	<li>870 people or 1.5% of <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/darebin/residents">Darebin's residents</a>
</li>
</ul>
Interestingly, the Hume - Broadmeadows area which stretches from Gladstone Park (where this Light Rail line would go) over to Broadmeadows itself is the destination for:

<ul>
<li>1763 people or 3.3% of Moonee Valley's residents.</li>
	<li>1620 people or 2.5% of Moreland's residents.</li>
	<li>338 people or 1.3% of Darebin's residents.</li>
</ul>
The <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/moonee-valley/workers?SLACode=205105065">Moonee Valley - West</a> region stretches from the Maribyrnong to Avondale Heights. The overwhelming majority of employment in this region is centred around Essendon Fields/Airport and Airport West.

It sees 2550 or 20% of its local residents work in the same region. 985 or 8% of its employees travel from the neighbouring Moonee Valley - Essendon region and 531 people or 4.3% travel from both the Brunswick and Coburg sub-regions of Moreland.

If we assume 75% of employees living in Darebin/Moreland/Moonee Valley work at/near the airport, 35% of employees from those LGAs are travelling to the Gladstone Park-Tullamarine area for work and 90% of the people are travelling to Essendon Fields/Airport West for work, then that totals approximately 8,000 employees traveling to a work place destination in the vicinity of this light rail line.

Throw in the wholesale integration with 7 tram routes plus 3 rail lines and the potential pool of passengers for this light rail line for travel to Melbourne airport will no doubt increase.

<h2>Services</h2>

The new light rail line - let's number it route 60 - running from the Airport to Thornbury via Essendon Station, Fletcher Street and Moreland Road could start with 10 minute off-peak, 8 minute peak and 20 minute late night frequencies. All new stops along the line would be accessibility compliant and services would be operated with E-Class trams.

<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/e-class_interior.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Interior of a locally made Bombardier E-Class tram, image Wikipedia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="360" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/e-class_interior.jpg?itok=gcrZ09ig" title="Interior of a locally made Bombardier E-Class tram, image Wikipedia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Interior of a locally made Bombardier E-Class tram, image <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-class_Melbourne_tram">Wikipedia</a></figcaption></figure>Even though the journey would take over an hour from the city (remembering this isn't the main aim of the light rail line), there would be merit in extending the route 59 trams the extra 6km to Melbourne Airport. Using the current timetable as an example, that would mean 8 minute frequencies in off-peak times, 6 minutes in peak and 20 minute frequencies at night. Between Essendon and the Airport when combined with the new route 60 there would be an extensive amount of services.

According to the current route 59 timetable, from Fletcher Street and Pascoe Vale Road - where the new Moreland road extension would connect to the existing network - the journey to the terminus at Airport West Shopping Centre takes 18 minutes in off-peak times. This route travels mixed with traffic on Fletcher Street, freely via the Mount Alexander Road median, mixes with traffic on Keilor Road through the popular Niddrie shopping strip and then on its own separate track alongside Matthews Avenue up to the shopping centre.

By way of eliminating a future tram bottleneck, the existing track between Matthews Avenue and the Tullamarine Freeway should be grade separated at English Street: the Tullamarine freeway interchange with Matthews Avenue / primary entrance to Essendon Airport / Essendon Fields.

Using the Keilor Road to Airport West segment - a distance of 2.5 km - as a guide, the current timestable states this journey takes 5 minutes. Given much of the extension north of Airport West SC would be in a dedicated corridor and measures 6.3km, the journey time from Airport West to the Melbourne Airport would take in the region of 12-15 minutes. This allows us to calculate journey times on route 59 as follows:

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Journey</th>
			<th scope="col">Time</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to Airport West</td>
			<td>12 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to Niddrie</td>
			<td>18 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to North Essendon village</td>
			<td>23 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to Essendon Station</td>
			<td>26 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to Moonee Ponds junction</td>
			<td>34 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to Flemington Bridge station</td>
			<td>45 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to route 59 terminus - Elizabeth/Flinders Street</td>
			<td>Approximately 1 hour</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
For route 60 as there is no precedent on an east-west route for estimating travel times however I'll use route 55's timetable. Melville Road, which Moreland Road intersects with, is of a comparable width and sees a similar volume of traffic throughout the day. From Smith Street to Bell Street - the entire length of Melville Road where route 55 runs - measures 3.25km. The current timetable for route 55 sees this segment's journey time at 9 minutes; this allows us to provide a journey time estimate for route 60:

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Journey</th>
			<th scope="col">Time</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to Melville Road (interchange with route 55)</td>
			<td>33-35 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to Moreland Station / Sydney Road (interchange with route 19 and Upfield line)</td>
			<td>39-41 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne Airport to Thornbury Junction (interchange with route 86 and South Morang Line)</td>
			<td>47-49 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Essendon Station to Brunswick (Sydney Road)</td>
			<td>12-14 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Brunswick (Sydney Road) to Thornbury Junction</td>
			<td>11-13 minutes</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Essendon Station to Thornbury Junction</td>
			<td>23-27 minutes</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Making things a little bit faster (and servicing different areas)</h2>

You'll note on the map there are two red lines: one from Airport West slicing through Essendon Fields and heading to the North Essendon village and a second red line running from North Essendon village to the Pascoe Vale Road / Moreland Road intersection via Glenbervie. They only exist to illustrate how new areas could be opened up for direct light rail services and would allow a more direct route 60 service to operate while interfacing with the existing route 59 in North Essendon and Airport West.

From Airport West Shopping Centre the tram track would stay elevated and cross the Tullamarine Freeway and then use the Wirraway Road median where just before the aviation zone starts, the track would enter a 1.1km tunnel and traverse the airfield and surface next to the DFO Essendon Fields. From there, another short section of elevated track above the Bulla Road freeway interchange would then deposit the track in the Bulla Road median where it would join up with the existing route 59 track.

From Mount Alexander Road, to the south of the North Essendon village strip, new track would divert down Glass street then cross the top of a newly rebuilt and sunken Glenbervie station and turn south onto Pascoe Vale Road and then east onto Moreland Road.

These two new routes marked in red on the map measure 4km and 1.65km respectively. The existing route from Airport West via Matthews Avenue, Keilor Road, Mount Alexander Road and Fletcher Street measures 6.5km plus another 500m to connect to Moreland Road.

5.65km versus 7km with the shorter route servicing Essendon Fields directly - specifically the southern end with its major retail uses and the northern end with its commercial focus - and providing a higher quality tram to rail connection at Glenbervie (passengers wouldn't need to walk 300m like they do at Essendon station for a connection).

<h2>Costs</h2>

One of the best sources of discussion on this topic is from <a href="https://melbpt.wordpress.com/tram-construction-costs/">this 2008 blog post</a>. The author used the Box Hill, Vermont South and Docklands Drive tram extensions as an example and when you place the figures in that blog post through RBA's inflation calculator, the capital cost of constructing tram track - on road mind you - turns out to be $13.4 million per kilometre in 2014 dollars.

From the same post, the author asserts that the operational cost of running the tram network is (in 2014 dollars, thanks to RBA's inflation calculator) $1.1million per kilometre.

The original order of 50 E-Class trams by the State Government in 2009 cost $300 million according to this <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/test-proves-yarra-trams-eclass-trams-too-power-hungry-for-network-20140710-zt2jd">2014 Age article</a>; I'd estimate that 30 trams would be required for the new route 60.

<h2>Estimates</h2>

<ul>
<li>$15 million per kilometre for standard in-road track.</li>
	<li>$25 million per kilometre for elevated/trench track.</li>
	<li>$30 million per kilometre for tunnel.</li>
	<li>Melbourne Airport - Airport West (6.3km total, 500m elevated, 300m trench): $82.5 million + $20 million = $102.5 million.</li>
	<li>Essendon-Coburg (all in-road, 3.8km): $57 million.</li>
	<li>Coburg - Thornbury (all in-road, 1.6km): $24 million.</li>
	<li>Total capital expenditure: $183.5 million for 12 kilometres of new track.</li>
</ul>
Alternative route 60 track:

<ul>
<li>Essendon Fields (4km total, 900m elevated, 1.1 km tunnel): $30 million + $22.5 million + $33 million = $85.5 million.</li>
	<li>Glenbervie (all in-road, 1.65km, station rebuild costs not included): $25 million.</li>
</ul>
Lead image credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tram_stop_56_(_Earl_St-Matthews_Ave)_at_Airport_West_(2).jpg">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

The Northern Light Rail link

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

Spring Street kicks off Dandenong corridor level crossing removal project

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

Turning the East West Road Link into a rail link

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

Comment: South Yarra platforms for Melbourne Metro Rail ruled out

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

New rail technology: Alstom's Axonis light metro

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

Comment: Transurban's Western Distributor proposal

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

Orbital rail lines in Melbourne: where would they go?

<html><body>
By <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-beck-90705">Matthew Beck</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/michiel-bliemer-14639">Michiel Bliemer</a> (<a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney">University of Sydney)</a>.

Congestion is a major source of frustration for road users and has worsened over time in most cities. Different solutions have been proposed, such as introducing congestion charging (a favourite of transport economists) or investing in public transport. One solution that is most <a href="https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases-premier/busting-congestion-300-million-create-gateway-south">often</a> put forward is to <a href="http://www.danielandrews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Victorian-Labors-Project-10000.pdf">build</a> more roads, but does this approach work?

A recent <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2014/03/04/the-most-traffic-jammed-cities-in-the-u-s/">study</a> in the United States identified Los Angeles, Honolulu and San Francisco as the top three most gridlocked cities in the United States. All of these cities use almost exclusively road-based solutions to transport citizens.

While China has increased its <a href="https://www.kpmg.com/cn/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Transport-Logistics-in-China-201112.pdf">expressway network</a> from 16,300 km in the year 2000 to around 70,000 km in 2010, the average commute time in <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-09/29/content_18679171.htm">Beijing</a> for 2013 was 1 hour and 55 minutes, up 25 minutes from just the year before.

Why, then, do residents of these cities with large amounts of road capacity, not live in a driving utopia?

<h2>Induced demand</h2>

The first concept you need to get your head around is called induced demand.

Think about the street on which you live. If a new road makes driving to work quicker, you may benefit from that, but this reduced travel time might be enough to encourage two other people in your street to start driving; and two more people in the next street; and two more people in the street after that; and so on. Very quickly the drive to work takes just as long as it ever did.

In transportation, this well-established response is known in various contexts as the Downs-Thomson Paradox, The Pigou-Knight-Downs Paradox or the Lewis-Mogridge Position: a new road may provide motorists with some level of respite from congestion in the short term but almost all of the benefit from the road will be lost in the longer term.

Further, while more roads may solve congestion locally, more traffic on the road network may result in more congestion elsewhere. In Sydney, for example, the <a href="http://www.westconnex.com.au/">WestConnex</a> may improve traffic conditions on Parramatta Road, but may worsen congestion in the city.

<h2>Weakest links</h2>

Congestion is determined by the weakest links in the road network. If road capacity expansion does not involve widening of these bottleneck links, congestion may simply move to another part of the network without solving the congestion problem. Moreover, it could potentially make congestion even worse.

The Braess Paradox is a famous example in which building new roads in the wrong location can lead to longer travel times for everyone, even without induced demand, because such new roads may lead more car drivers to the weakest links in the network. The reverse may also be true: removing roads may even improve traffic conditions.

This paradox occurs because each driver chooses the route that is quickest without considering the implications his or her choice has on other drivers. Car drivers only care about the number of vehicles in the queue in front of them and do not care about vehicles queueing behind them. This is a classic problem in game theory, very similar to the type for which <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=429">John Nash</a> was awarded a Nobel Prize.

<h2>What does the data say?</h2>

One US <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616">study</a> has shown a strong relationship between the amount of new road length and the total amount of kilometres travelled in US cities, a finding the authors of that study termed “the fundamental law of road congestion”.

Similar findings are reported in <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856411001728">Spain</a> and in the <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00166218">United States</a>, where even major road capacity increases can actually lead to little or <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.2014.956871#.VRpXEPmUePY">no reduction</a> in network traffic densities. It has also been found to exist in <a href="http://www.ejtir.tudelft.nl/issues/2012_03/pdf/2012_03_02.pdf">Europe</a>, where neglecting induced demand has led to biases in appraising of environmental impacts as well as the economic viability of proposed road projects.

In <a href="http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/230107/Zeibots-EWS.pdf">Sydney</a>, there is similar evidence from traffic volumes crossing the harbour. The Sydney Harbour Bridge was carrying a stable traffic volume of around 180,000 vehicles per day from 1986 to 1991. The Sydney Harbour Tunnel opened in 1992, and the total volume of traffic crossing the harbour increased in 1995 to almost 250,000 vehicles per day. This 38% increase in traffic can be attributed to induced demand and not to population growth (which was around <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3105.0.65.0012014?OpenDocument">4% during this period</a>).

Empirical observations have also confirmed the existence of the <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01918335#page-1">Braess Paradox</a>. For example, in 1969 a new road was built in Stuttgart, Germany, which did not improve the traffic conditions. After closing the road again, congestion <a href="http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-95121-3">decreased</a>.

Similar observations in which road closure led to improved traffic conditions have been observed in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2013.00662.x/pdf">New York City</a>, where upon closing 42nd street (a major crosstown street in Manhattan) it was observed that traffic was significantly less congested than average.

A <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10683-013-9378-4#page-1">recent</a> experimental study confirmed that this paradox still exists by showing that expanding road capacity can result in worse traffic conditions for everybody.

The theory of induced demand is accepted by a large majority, but not by everyone.

For example, authors of a 2001 <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v33y2001i12p1579-1585">paper</a> have argued that induced demand does not exist. However, UK researchers Goodwin and Noland have <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0003684032000089872#.VRzO5TuUf-U">criticised</a> this study.

In isolation, building more roads can certainly improve traffic conditions but these effects may only be local and only in the short run. Congestion may become worse in other parts of the network and experience shows that spare road capacity is quickly filled up with new cars.

Even without the extra road users that new roads create, if the new roads are built in the wrong locations congestion may actually become worse simply because of the way people behave. Roads alone do not solve congestion in the long term; they are only one (problematic) tool in a transport management toolkit.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/39508/count.gif" width="1">

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="http://theconversation.com/do-more-roads-really-mean-less-congestion-for-commuters-39508">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Congestion_on_Eastern_Freeway,_Melbourne.JPG">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

theconversation

Do more roads really mean less congestion for commuters?

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

Urban Affairs

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Urban Affairs

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News