<html><body>
Since the last state election, Premier Daniel Andrews has been on a mission. While the previous state government managed to get itself stuck in a perpetual state of inertia very early on, the current Premier has been determined to be a man of action.

East West Link contracts torn up? Tick. Level Crossing removals out to to tender? Tick. Melbourne Metro funding bought forward? Another tick. But then he pulled a rabbit out of the hat that left even the most ardent of soothsayers flat footed: the <a href="http://consult.transurban.com/western-distributor-join-the-conversation">Western Distributor</a>. Essentially just a watered down version of the old Westlink proposal, is this the congestion messiah we have been waiting for?

The timing is extraordinary. Just weeks after coming to an agreement with the East West Link consortium to abandon an expensive road thought unnecessary, the Premier replaced it with a project to build an expensive road we don't need. It is a brave move. Crazy brave, as there are some startling comparisons to its defunct predecessor: no business case exists and it wasn't taken to an election, so technically there is no mandate.

The fact both major political parties have flipped from their previous positions (for the sake of political expediency) highlights one very unfortunate fact: the Western Distributor is a boondoggle.

There, I said it. Cue outrage from commuters stuck on the Westgate Bridge every day. Cue derision from motor interest groups like the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV), who have have been spewing forth their "We need a second river crossing to solve congestion on the Westgate" rhetoric with impunity for years, ignoring the inconvenient fact it will be neither the second crossing (we have six already), nor will it solve congestion.

Despite all this, Daniel Andrews has taken a punt on Western Distributor. Why?

Assessing East West Link, the project failed for a myriad of reasons, including trying to solve a problem that didn't exist. Only 5% of cars went from CityLink to the Eastern Freeway, hence there existed no real public appetite to build it. Add its exorbitant cost at $11 billion (the state would bear the brunt of, as well as all of the risk if it didn't perform financially) and it was no surprise to see East West Link disappear.

However, Daniel Andrews thinks he has mitigated those issues with the Western Distributor, and technically he has… in theory.

<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/057458-6c26a75a-fd19-11e4-abd8-e4ec9e966762.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The political posturing continues. Image courtesy The Australian"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="327" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/057458-6c26a75a-fd19-11e4-abd8-e4ec9e966762.jpg?itok=InmNol5l" title="The political posturing continues. Image courtesy The Australian" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The political posturing continues. Image courtesy The Australian</figcaption></figure>As mentioned before, there certainly is an appetite for it: if I had a dollar for every time someone told me "We need a second river crossing", I would be a very rich man. The reality is we already have six in the vicinity of the city: the Westgate itself, Footscray Road, Dynon Road, Smithfield Road, Fisher Parade and Maribyrnong/Raleigh Road.

There are two well known political idioms at work here: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story", and the Tony Abbott special "If you say something often enough, it makes it true". The RACV have done a great job of tricking commuters in believing the second river crossing myth. Given we have six river crossings already, is a seventh one going to make a difference? It won't, hence why the RACV drumming on the notion we only have one.

The other argument Daniel Andrews has mitigated is the cost. That's the real jewel in the crown of the Western Distributor, it's free! The cost of this new piece of infrastructure will be covered by three sources:

<ol>
<li>Tolls on the distributor itself.</li>
	<li>A further concession on the tolls Transurban collects from CityLink.</li>
	<li>Federal Government funding originally set aside for East West Link.</li>
</ol>
None of these factors are problematic given it results in no cost to the state government. Furthermore, Transurban have allegedly agreed to take over the cost of building the original <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Gate_Distributor">West Gate Distributor</a> project too. As it has already been budgeted for by the state, this actually results in a $500 million net saving for the government. That's two new mega projects and money back.

All of this good news won't hide the very damning truth: it won't solve congestion on the Westgate!

The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand">widely accepted</a> science of Induced Traffic will ensure the distributor becomes yet another car park within five years, not to mention the extra traffic it will pump into the city at the end of Footscray Road, just like the East West Link would have done to Hoddle Street as predicted by the Linking Melbourne Authority's own modeling. Whether it results in no cost to the state government or not is essentially irrelevant.

It just serves to reinforce the myth that we can solve congestion by building more urban freeways. This just ingrains the car dependence culture, which inevitably results in more funding being pumped into freeways in the future. It is a vicious cycle.

We have all heard the argument we need 'balanced funding for road and rail', this is nothing more than a political mantra. Balance is such a nice word which implies everyone gets what they need, however funding between roads and public transport has been anything but balanced in the last 20 years, it has been heavily skewed towards roads.

Pumping the same amount of money into mega road projects and into public transport does not produce the same outcomes. While the Western Distributor will inevitably reach capacity within five years, we will still be reaping the benefits of the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel in half a century and beyond, albeit at twice the price.

Sadly wrapped up in this debate - but now pushed out of mind - is the issue the original West Gate Distributor was meant to tackle: taking trucks off local roads. It was never meant to ease commuter congestion on the Westgate Bridge, rather it was about taking trucks off roads in the West, such as Yarraville's Francis Street.

It would have made the inner west safer and less polluted for residents, whilst aalso facilitating faster and more efficient trucking routes to the port. This very focused objective would have resulted in a relatively small price tag by today's infrastructure standards: $500 million. While this problem is still being addressed, the argument has been hijacked by cars, and thus its price increased tenfold. An unfortunate outcome all around.

<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/freight_routes.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Existing and proposed freight routes for the West Gate Distributor. Image courtesy Maribyrnong Truck Action Group"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="512" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/freight_routes.jpg?itok=5B5owKZq" title="Existing and proposed freight routes for the West Gate Distributor. Image courtesy Maribyrnong Truck Action Group" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Existing and proposed freight routes for the West Gate Distributor. Image courtesy Maribyrnong Truck Action Group</figcaption></figure>I fear for the long term planning of this state. The more common prospect of one-term governments has scared them into throwing all long term planning out the window, pushing short-term projects where political expediency is the only driving factor. It's a sad state of affairs when projects are delivered to satisfy public perception, despite knowing they won't go close to solving the problems, and in turn perpetuating long held myths.

It takes a great amount of political courage to make the tough decisions: not building any more urban freeways, tackling traffic head-on via congestion charging, borrowing money to fund major public transport upgrades, and forcing people to change decades long travel habits. But it seems political courage continues to be in short supply, at least where public transport is concerned.

Mr Andrews, you're better than this. You should be applauded for removing level crossings, a project decades overdue. You should be applauded for getting on with the Melbourne Metro, a project which, to quote Robert Doyle's words, will save Melbourne from a "100 year catastrophe".

But the Western Distributor is a case of "two steps forward, three steps back". You have got this far by being a public transport champion; it is those guns you need to stick to, to ensure Victoria's future is the main game here, not the 2018 election.

For further insight on the topic, see the Public Transport Users Association's take on <a href="http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion/">the myth that freeways relieve traffic congestion</a>.

Lead image courtesy Transurban.
</body></html>

TheHeadOnTheDoor

Distributing a myth: will a second river crossing solve congestion?

<html><body>
Despite politics in general being on the nose of late, public transport is one policy area where the public remains engaged. Tell them Tony Abbott has offended yet another unsuspecting minority group and no one cares; but if the 8.12am Flinders Street train is five minutes late, all hell breaks loose.

While great that most people are passionate about public transport, it does result in some interesting proposals: High Speed Rail to Sydney (costing more than the GDP of a small African nation), a Simpsons style monorail to the airport, the mythical train to Doncaster (which may as well be pulled by Thomas the Tank Engine). Then we have the <a href="http://www.peninsularaillink.net">Peninsula Rail Link</a>: a train line to Rye.

On many levels it makes sense. After all, the Mornington Peninsula has gone alarmingly backwards over the years when it comes to rail infrastructure. Once boasting lines to Mornington, Red Hill and Stony Point, it now has none, with the latter <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/boom-gate-failures-force-indefinite-shutdown-of-stony-point-rail-line-20150401-1mcu0y">closing indefinitely last week</a> due to signaling problems. The bus service can be hit and miss: I once decided to use it to travel to Rye, and it's two hours and 30 minutes of my life that I'll never get back (it's about one hour, 15 minutes by car).

With Frankston and Dandenong earmarked as future major employment hubs, and Hastings proposed to become Melbourne's major port, a significant public transport upgrade is inevitably going to be on the cards. Enter the Peninsula Rail Link, the brainchild of dedicated public transport advocate Robert Whitehill. Starting as a spur line at Baxter, it winds its way mostly along the Mornington Peninsula Freeway, terminating at Jetty Road, Rye.

<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/ryerailmap.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Peninsula Rail Link route. Image source peninsularaillink.net"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="475" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/ryerailmap.jpg?itok=9h7ouhs_" title="Peninsula Rail Link route. Image source peninsularaillink.net" width="290"></a>

<figcaption>Peninsula Rail Link route. Image source: <a href="http://peninsularaillink.net/Project/RyeLine">peninsularaillink.net</a></figcaption></figure>And herein lies the first problem: the freeway currently terminates at Boneo Road. The idea of extending it has been around since the 1969 Transport Plan, however there has never really been any impetus to build it. Nor is there likely to be in the future: having the freeway stop at Boneo Road is bad enough, but at least it's a dual carriageway.

Terminating at Melbourne Road would be an unmitigated disaster. Not only is it currently single lane which would require an expensive duplication, this would require an extensive removal of trees to achieve it. In any case, a freeway extension would add considerable cost to this rail proposal. Of course VicRoads could just give up this reservation for the rail line…

<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/morning_peninsula_freeway_extension.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Proposed Mornington Peninsula extension"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="199" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/morning_peninsula_freeway_extension.jpg?itok=UhFpVCdQ" title="Proposed Mornington Peninsula extension" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Proposed Mornington Peninsula extension</figcaption></figure>Regardless of where it terminates, it won't be in the town centre. While this can be mitigated by buses, if other end-of-the-line stations in Melbourne are anything to go by (South Morang, Cranbourne, Pakenham), a high percentage of commuters will still drive, bringing all the car parking headaches this entails. And I always get nervous about stations situated away from other amenities (retail, etc.), meaning its usage will be limited outside of peak hour. In Rye's case, this would be a lost opportunity in trying to capture the beach going crowd in the summer.

The route from Frankston also draws many parallels to Doncaster Rail. While having a rail line down the middle of a freeway solves the problem of potentially having to create another route through brownfield areas, it unfortunately exposes it to the fact that not many people live on the Peninsula Freeway. Not having any walkup ridership is a huge disincentive, especially in an area which is fairly low density to start with. The exceptions here are Dromana and McRae. While the freeway goes right through these townships, they then suffer the opposite problem: there is no room for any parking to serve these stations at all. This is fine in inner Melbourne, but will never cut it in low density areas such as these.

Overall, this proposal is far from the craziest idea I've heard for the Peninsula; that accolade goes to the mooted bridge over the Rip, costed at $15 billion back in the 1990s. And the fact that we spent $759 million on Peninsula Link, a freeway with debatable merit, also puts it into perspective. In fact Whitehill should be applauded for showing the type of left-field thinking required by the transport debate to ensure it goes past the 'train to the city' mentality.

With the advent of projects such as <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbourne-metro-project-a-short-history">Melbourne Metro</a> (1 and 2), the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/should-the-mernda-rail-extension-project-result-in-more-intensive-land-uses">Mernda extension</a>, Melton electrification and the ongoing <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/buying/is-doncaster-rail-is-good">Doncaster</a> and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/the-ballieu-napthine-governments-rowville-rail-study-ignored-the-elephant-in-the-room">Rowville</a> debates, I just can't see the Peninsula Rail Link being a priority any time soon. Of course if the Frankston/Dandenong/Hastings job hubs become a reality, this could change quickly. It could even serve as a logical extension of a proposed Frankston-Dandenong rail link. However, the aforementioned issues with it would still need to be solved.
</body></html>

Is a rail line to Rye really feasible?

<html><body>
When I was younger, especially a student at the University of Melbourne, free very much was the magic word.

Buy one Whopper get one free at Hungry Jacks, a free yoghurt at Museum Station, or a free beer at the University knitting club recruitment drive. If it was free, it rocked. I mean, I even emptied an entire Gatorade vending machine once, when it was accidentally spitting out its sugary goodness devoid of charge, much to the disdain of my then basketball coach. A six month supply of sporting enhancement never tasted so good!

However we all grow up, and most come to appreciate value over cost. That's not to say that we're still not seduced by free every once in a while (hands up who doesn't have a set of steak knives at home that they have never used?), and unfortunately that includes governments. Especially ones in an election year.

Trailing in the polls, Dennis Napthine went on a budget spending spree and included two 'gems': scrapping Zone 2 and free tram travel in the CBD.

<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/freetramzonemap_800x540.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Melbourne Free Tram Zone Map"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="392" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/freetramzonemap_800x540.jpg?itok=V94szgHy" title="Melbourne Free Tram Zone Map" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Melbourne Free Tram Zone Map</figcaption></figure>The Free Tram Zone, which came into effect on January 1 this year, is shown above. Like some bright sparks on Twitter noted, if it doesn't immediately make you sing 'we all live in a green submarine', nothing will! Its circumference is basically the route of the City Circle, with a few added areas like Queen Victoria Market and an expanded Docklands.

Looking at it more deeply, it really is hard to ascertain who this will actually benefit. Most work day commuters would be coming from outside this zone, meaning they will still have to pay. It has been argued that tourists will benefit, allowing them to avoid the 'confusion' of having to use a Myki. However even the least adventurous of tourists would travel beyond these boundaries, with the key hotspots of the sporting precinct, Fitzroy and St Kilda all sitting outside the free zone. Given they would much more likely be unsure of the boundary than locals, they are also left exposed to fines for not having a valid ticket. Welcome to Melbourne: here, have a $80 on the spot fine!

<img alt="" height="149" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/pictures/article-images/free_tram_zone_sign.jpg" width="338">

And that brings us to the most problematic demographic: people who actually live inside this zone.

One of the main attractions of CBD living is meant to be that you can throw away the car keys and walk to work. Walking, aside from having obvious health benefits, is also the ultimate form of public transport. No cost, with no capacity or frequency issues to worry about. However as tram travel is also now free, it is just an added incentive for these people to get lazy and jump on a tram instead. So aside from the social cost of a less active population, all we end up with is more crowded trams.

In other words, the only mode shift this brilliant plan has brought us is from walking to public transport. It won't bring us a single extra cent in revenue (but will cost us $100 million, combined with the Zone 2 change), and we won't take a single car off the road doing it. In fact we run the risk of the opposite; if trams become too overcrowded and slow, commuters may be tempted to get back in their cars and drive to work. A retrogressive policy if ever I've seen one.

The plan to 'scrap' zone 2 also makes little sense. Despite Napthine’s bleating about equity, it is anything but equitable. Having users pay the same fare from Pakenham to the city (56km) as from say Brunswick to the city (10km) is counter intuitive and grossly unfair; commuters from the outer suburbs incur a much greater running and maintenance cost on the system than those from the inner suburbs.

Having everyone pay the same fare is tantamount to halving the cost of petrol in the suburbs, so that people driving from Dandenong to the city pay the same petrol bill as those driving from Caulfield! This of course would be outrageous; as it would be if the government artificially deflated the cost of housing in the inner suburbs to make that the same across all of Melbourne. Having a flat fare will also further encourage suburban sprawl; a huge problem already exacerbated by Matthew Guy’s reckless decision to extend Melbourne’s already bulging urban boundary.

Frustratingly, the perceived political gain is limited anyway. As discussed in <a href="/blogs/melburnists-braindump/2014/08/22/striking-a-real-balance-in-transport-policy">Alastair's blog</a>, cost is usually not a driver when it comes to people deciding to use public transport. According to research conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, guess where 'cost' ranked in the top 10 reasons for not using public transport? It didn't! How many times will we hear people say "public transport is still crap, but that's OK cause it's cheap now"? Said no one ever!

The fact is, people will accept this 'discounted' price as the norm after a very short amount of time, and go back to complaining about the deficiencies of the system like the price drop never happened. Worse still, this will most likely just jack up the price of a Zone 1 ticket, just like what happened when Zone 3 was scrapped in 2007, making any savings even more trivial and temporary.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<caption>Top 10 reasons for not using public transport on usual trip to work or full-time study: proportion (%) of persons who did not use public transport (Australian Bureau of Statistics: 4602.0.55.002 - Environmental Issues: Waste Management, Transport and Motor Vehicle Usage, March 2012)</caption>
	<thead><tr>
<th>Reason</th>
			<th>NSW</th>
			<th>Vic.</th>
			<th>QLD</th>
			<th>SA</th>
			<th>WA</th>
			<th>Tas.</th>
			<th>NT</th>
			<th>ACT</th>
			<th>Aust.</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>No service available at all</td>
			<td>28.4</td>
			<td>28.2</td>
			<td>35.3</td>
			<td>30.3</td>
			<td>31.8</td>
			<td>37.5</td>
			<td>33.8</td>
			<td>7.5</td>
			<td>30.2</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Convenience/comfort/privacy in private vehicle</td>
			<td>27.5</td>
			<td>26.8</td>
			<td>20.0</td>
			<td>27.0</td>
			<td>27.0</td>
			<td>16.9</td>
			<td>17.2</td>
			<td>45.9</td>
			<td>25.7</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>No service available at right/convenient time</td>
			<td>21.2</td>
			<td>22.9</td>
			<td>26.9</td>
			<td>19.4</td>
			<td>23.6</td>
			<td>25.7</td>
			<td>31.4</td>
			<td>22.0</td>
			<td>23.2</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Travel time too long</td>
			<td>16.9</td>
			<td>18.6</td>
			<td>13.3</td>
			<td>16.1</td>
			<td>14.3</td>
			<td>6.8</td>
			<td>8.2</td>
			<td>30.5</td>
			<td>16.2</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Own vehicle needed before/during/after hours</td>
			<td>11.1</td>
			<td>8.3</td>
			<td>9.7</td>
			<td>11.1</td>
			<td>9.8</td>
			<td>7.6</td>
			<td>9.6</td>
			<td>19.7</td>
			<td>10.0</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Carry equipment/tools/passengers</td>
			<td>9.8</td>
			<td>7.8</td>
			<td>6.1</td>
			<td>6.5</td>
			<td>8.3</td>
			<td>3.6</td>
			<td>6.6</td>
			<td>10.7</td>
			<td>8.0</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Public transport services too far from home</td>
			<td>6.4</td>
			<td>5.2</td>
			<td>5.7</td>
			<td>5.4</td>
			<td>4.4</td>
			<td>3.4</td>
			<td>5.6</td>
			<td>2.9</td>
			<td>5.5</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Company or employer's vehicle needed during work/study hours</td>
			<td>3.2</td>
			<td>4.2</td>
			<td>4.3</td>
			<td>4.4</td>
			<td>5.7</td>
			<td>4.3</td>
			<td>4.7</td>
			<td>2.3</td>
			<td>4.1</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Too close to work/study to use public transport</td>
			<td>3.6</td>
			<td>3.3</td>
			<td>2.3</td>
			<td>3.6</td>
			<td>2.8</td>
			<td>6.3</td>
			<td>3.1</td>
			<td>1.7</td>
			<td>3.2</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Other</td>
			<td>2.5</td>
			<td>3.9</td>
			<td>3.3</td>
			<td>3.0</td>
			<td>3.7</td>
			<td>2.2</td>
			<td>3.3</td>
			<td>2.6</td>
			<td>3.2</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Unfortunately for Victorians, Labor chose to back this policy for fear that Napthine would whack them over the head with it; another case of good politics, bad policy. They could have easily got on the front foot here and put the $100 million a year these two policy dogs are costing us towards something else: new trams, Southland station (it could have gold plated toilets at that price), Melton electrification, tea cosies advertising the dangers of eating breakfast cereals past their used by date. Hell, anything would have been a better investment.

Either way, we are stuck with it now. If they thought it was politically tricky not backing this policy, try undoing it if it goes really wrong and overcrowding becomes unmanageable. The aforementioned limited gain of making it free/cheaper is unfortunately not true in reverse; people will sook like a hipster baby not allowed to have a salted caramel lollypop if we take their god given right to free trams away from them.

So next time you have to wait three trams before getting on because of freeloaders, have a think if you are really better off. And next time you walk past a broken vending machine spitting out free Gatorades, make sure you are carrying a big bag!
</body></html>

Less is not more: Why free trams are not our friend

<html><body>
Ah, the Greens. Like your well meaning Nanna who still gives you a Freddo Frog every time you see her, they mean well but... they just don't get it.

While their commitment to better public transport can't be faltered, it seems they have the economic sense of Greece. It's this complete lack of financial responsibility that led them to come up with this gem last week: <a href="http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/140710%20trams%20connections%20backgrounder_FINAL.pdf">Connecting Melbourne's Trams</a>.

To be fair, much of this plan isn't the most crazy idea bandied about in Melbourne's transport planning sphere. That prize is reserved for the Public Transport Users Association's 1991 plan to build a heavy rail spur line to Princes Park, to cater for those millions of fans that used to turn up to watch Fitzroy play the Brisbane Bears and thus couldn't fit on the tram that stopped right outside the ground.

Now there's no denying our tram network needs some love, it is something <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/car-wars-time-for-trams-to-strike-back">I have spoken about before</a>. However with money for transport projects becoming thinner on the ground, we need to be very selective on where we spend that money. While the Metro Tunnel should be our first priority without a shadow of a doubt, its $9 billion price tag means we must think long and hard as to where the rest of the transport budget is spent. This means setting out a pipeline of projects, ensuring the cost is spread out over time, as well as providing a steady stream of jobs to build them.

In typical Greens fashion, they have thrown common sense out the window and decided it is a better idea to try and fix all our transport woes in one foul swoop; at least the ones involving trams. And so their tram plan was born; containing a collection of 15 different extensions at a cost of $840 million, a price tag that would make that much maligned spendthrift, the drunken sailor, weep tears of pain.

And unfortunately for this bag of mixed sweets, it contains more boiled lollies than it does chocolates.

$840 million may not sound humongous in light of today's infrastructure costs, however it does when it is being spent on lots of little projects that have an overall questionable benefit. Let's analyse some the best and worst suggestions. Inspired by my first viewing of the spaghetti western classic just last week, I have divided them into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

<h2>The Good</h2>

<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/route_48_large.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="290" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/route_48_large.jpg?itok=2eFLd6G4" width="290"></a>

<h3>1 - North Balwyn to Doncaster Hill</h3>

This actually makes sense which is why I can't understand why the Greens are backing it. For decades now they have been bleating about how a Doncaster heavy rail connection is the most important project in Melbourne, and now they are actually advocating a reasonable alternative. Or more likely, they are very unreasonably advocating we build both. Either way, this could be a winner. As building a Doncaster heavy rail link <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/buying/is-doncaster-rail-is-good">has many issues</a>.

This could solve the problem of having a rail link to Doncaster, without the multi billion dollar price tag heavy rail would come with. One down side is the current 39 minute journey time from North Balwyn to the CBD. However with a project 96 style upgrade to light rail, the journey time could be significantly reduced.

<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/route_57.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="290" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/route_57.jpg?itok=cEUiPmTj" width="290"></a>

<h3>2 - Highpoint to East Keilor</h3>

Given that Avondale Heights/East Keilor are currently not served by heavy or light rail, this would add some value. With no room for a heavy rail line, a grade separated light rail route down Milleara Road would service quite a large residential area much quicker than buses would in the peak. Another tick.

<h2>The Bad</h2>

<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/route_82.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="290" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/route_82.jpg?itok=W2cGUFiH" width="290"></a>

<h3>1 - Footscray to Docklands and City</h3>

Right thoughts, right words, wrong action. I don't understand why you would run a tram down Footscray Road, not only is there no residents to service, it would also wreak havoc with the trucks going to the Port of Melbourne creating a recipe for disaster.

Beyond Footscray Rd, the tram would then need to turn right at the major truck intersection at the Docklands Highway, run down busy Whitehall Street, before having to turn at another major intersection at Dynon Road. Given the Port of Melbourne own land on both sides of Footscray Road, it would more than likely be vetoed as part of any long term lease deal anyway.

Surely it would make more sense to go from its current terminus in Docklands, run north through the soon to be new residential precinct E Gate, then along Dynon Road where it could eventually service the Dynon urban renewal precinct, sandwiched between the rail line and Dynon Road itself. No trucks impeded, while servicing two high density residential areas, how could the Greens have got something so basic so wrong?

<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/route_3.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="290" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/route_3.jpg?itok=QN7a7h6o" width="290"></a>

<h3>2 - East Malvern to Chadstone</h3>

There's no doubt that a lack of a rail connection to Chadstone Shopping Centre is one of the great Melbourne planning oversights, however I don't know whether a tram link is the best answer. A tram line down heavily congested Warrigul Road would be a disaster, and there are already options for a heavy rail link from either Alamein or East Malvern that would be better equipped to deal with the numbers that frequent the shopping centre. The <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/chadstone-station-and-tunnel-on-2b-shopping-list-20121110-29556">East Malvern option</a> would even partially pay for itself by selling off land above the Glen Waverly Line.

<h2>The Ugly</h2>

<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/route_86.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="290" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/route_86.jpg?itok=OiHGo-9A" width="290"></a>

<h3>1 - Bundoora RMIT to South Morang</h3>

Dear oh dear. The justification for this is that it will ease pressure on the much overcrowded South Morang Line. However with a journey time of over an hour already from Bundoora to the CBD, how much mode shift would we actually see if people could catch the tram instead of the train?

Childless couples could get on at South Morang and have three children ready to start school by the time the tram arrived at Bourke Street! This works out to be nothing but an extension to join the dots.

<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/route_8.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="288" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/route_8.jpg?itok=I20ZMO3Q" width="288"></a> <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/route_new_n_melb-rmond.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="288" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/route_new_n_melb-rmond.jpg?itok=YM3YN5jW" width="288"></a>

<h3>2 - Toorak to Camberwell Rd &amp; North Melbourne to Richmond</h3>

I don't quite understand what the point of these are. This is the transport version of architect Jahn Gehl's 'Bird Sh*t Architecture' theory.

It is like someone went up in a chopper over Melbourne and said to themselves 'Wouldn't it be nice if those trams lines linked up and completed a pretty pattern?" Routes 8 &amp; 75 already run to the CBD, while the 3.96 km gap is already serviced by route 72. The 1.2km gap in North Melbourne would save about 5 mins by not having to go via Peel and La Trobe Streets.

<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/route_19.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="290" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/route_19.jpg?itok=uydCUI6d" width="290"></a>

<h3>3 - Coburg to Gowrie Station</h3>

This extension merely hugs an existing low patronage heavy rail line. What is the point of this? It is fast becoming a case of quantity of ideas over quality...

<h2>Summary</h2>

Overall, the Greens proposal does contain a few good ideas. However they seem to have fallen into the trap of trying to flesh it out with too many bad or pointless ideas just to make it look comprehensive. Worse still the cost is just a random number.

With no business case, or even an estimated BCR to back it up, it is hard to justify any of the 15 proposals. There's also no explanation of how they arrived at an average cost of $15 million per km (<a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2014/07/17/can-the-greens-tram-plan-be-taken-seriously/" target="_blank">see Alan Davies blog post on Crikey for a good summary on this point</a>).

Trams are great for short to medium urban journeys as their hop on/hop off nature makes them ideal for trips in high density areas, and/or as connector/feeder services to heavy rail. Conversely, due to the increased number of stops, using them as a high patronage, long distance commuter service to the CBD fast becomes a case of diminishing returns. A concept that seems to have been completely ignored with the idea to extend to places like South Morang and Knox.

The Greens would be much better served to concentrate on getting up a few of the really good ideas, rather than a large series of average ones. But of course, they won't. Welcome to the planet that is the Greens, where populism outranks economic reality - every time!
</body></html>

Wham Tram Thank You Ma'am - Have the Greens jumped the shark again?

<html><body>
The great thing about Twitter is common people get to interact with people they normally wouldn't get to. Celebrities, politicians, journalists are all fair game. Where as you'd get arrested if you went round to The Lodge and started yelling at Tony Abbott through the intercom at his front gate, you can go nuts within 140 characters on his managed Twitter account. With a bit of luck, his assistant Peta Credlin may even tweet an inane response about how they've stopped the boats. Ah, free speech at its best.

Of course not everyone is too busy embarrassing themselves on the world stage to tweet for themselves. Matthew Guy is one of those people who lets the world know his own thoughts, and recently I was privileged enough to share some Twitter action with him (all eight words of it!):

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/MatthewGuyMP">@MatthewGuyMP</a> are you seriously gonna expand melb's UGB again? At this rate melb will reach adelaide by the time I die! Sprawl is killing us
— Martin Mankowski (@HobosRunning) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/HobosRunning/statuses/476968551819923457">June 12, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/HobosRunning">@HobosRunning</a> No, we have made it clear we won't.
— Matthew Guy MP (@MatthewGuyMP) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/MatthewGuyMP/statuses/476973267408781312">June 12, 2014</a>
</blockquote>

"Thank god for that!", I thought. In 2012, he expanded Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by 5,858 hectares, a mere two years after Justin Madden had expanded it by 43,000 hectares. Worse still, he promised to review it every year! Fast forward two more years and it seems common sense had prevailed. With Minister Guy finally putting a permanent freeze on the UGB, Melbourne's obsession with the suburbs will finally be coming to a close, right? Wrong!

As part of Mr. Guy's crusade to reform planning zones, he decided to let councils decide what level of development they would like to see in their municipalities. Lo and behold the inner-city councils of Boroondara, Bayside and Stonnington promptly resigned large chunks of their fiefdoms to two stories. Hands up who didn't see that happening? It would be like letting motorists set the maximum speed limit and watching everyone clean each other up on the freeway at 300 km/h.

Letting NIMBY-driven councils dictate planning is always going to end in tears; local newspapers in particular love a good council bashing story, leaving them to pander to a whinging NIMBY minority rather than implement a much needed long term vision. So much so, that in a <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/rich-suburbs-have-highrise-development-locked-out-in-new-zonings-20140616-3a8mb">recent article</a> in The Age, Mary Drost - convener of the anti-development group Planning Backlash - proclaims to be a proud NIMBY! That's like saying you are proud to be a racist; you're essentially saying you are happy to be ignorant and selfish. Urban.com.au was right to suggest that article should have been called something else (see below):

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en">
Like this comment "This headline should read "selfish baby boomers condemn subsequent generations to housing misery" <a href="http://t.co/sTwHC5iCX9">http://t.co/sTwHC5iCX9</a>
— Urban.com.au (@UrbanMelbourne) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/UrbanMelbourne/statuses/478693957824565248">June 17, 2014</a>
</blockquote>

Of course we have been here before; do we dare mention the failed Camberwell Station development? The perfect place for much needed density due to its enviable transport links, it was shot down by a group of NIMBYs led up by former resident and Hollywood celebrity Geoffrey Rush.

Melbourne is a rapidly growing city, with the state government's own figures forecasting a population of 7.8 million by 2051. Now that we have supposedly contained the UGB (and rightfully so) and blackballed a large chunk of the middle-band suburbs from medium and high density development, where the hell is everyone going to live?

With selfish NIMBYs now refusing to share their close-to-the-CBD, amenity-rich suburbs with anyone else, we'll have no choice but to abandon the boundary and push even more people into the outer suburbs. Further and further the boundary will creep, condemning people to a life of longer and longer car dependent trips to everything including work, entertainment and shopping. We'll have whole generations of kids who think that Melbourne's CBD is nothing but a mythical utopia, a faraway land requiring a Lord of the Rings type quest to reach it by foot or congested freeway.

You can just imagine them walking through the middle-band suburbs, weary from their journey from another world, as they look on jealously at Gollum-style creatures wrapping their protective arms around their single story properties snarling "My precious!!!". The selfishness of these NIMBYs is quite disturbing; I struggle to comprehend the complete lack of regard or empathy for where future generations are going to live just because they are nice and cozy in their renovated Victorian cottage.

So where does this leave Matthew Guy? On the one hand he is a champion of density, one who has overseen massive change in Melbourne's skyline and therefore inner-city housing supply. He has correctly pushed for the creation of Fishermans Bend as a inner-city residential growth area, allowing 80,000 people the chance to live in an area where car dependence will be a thing of the past. And he was right to take planning control away from nominated activity hubs such as Footscray, making sure that high density development happens in appropriate areas along transport corridors.

Yet on the other hand he has endorsed a questionable policy that will prevent many other suitable candidates like Camberwell, Hawthorn, Kew and Sandringham gaining a similar outcome, leaving the conundrum of where to house Melbourne's growing population unresolved. Dare I suggest a real Jekyll and Hyde minister if there ever was one, making great Aussie singer/songwriter Paul Kelly seem prophetic when he sang "What makes such a sweet Guy turn so mean?"

Mr. Guy: which is the legacy you wish to leave? A legacy highlighted by quelling the scourge that is suburban sprawl, or one of appeasing a few selfish NIMBYs... time will tell.
</body></html>

What makes such a sweet Guy turn so mean?

<html><body>
Hindsight is always 20/20. It is easy to sit here today and debate the many urban planning mistakes made in Melbourne over the decades, but the fact is there have been many.
Building a "spider" train network, just about the whole 1969 transport plan (thanks to its heavy emphasis on freeways), and the rapid pace and reach of suburban sprawl are just a few we can name. It has not all been doom and gloom - keeping our tram network when the rest of the world were tearing theirs up was a stroke of genius that has saved us from probable inner-city transport chaos.
Most of these problems took decades to recognise let alone address, whilst many are just being looked at now.
One such problem is the total lack of heavy rail links to our four biggest regional shopping centres: Chadstone, Highpoint, Knox City and Southland. Highpoint at least has a tram link, although the route to the city is painfully indirect and plagued by shared traffic problems. Discussions of extending the tram to Knox City have been in the pipeline for years, the length of the route required making it impractical.
Similarly, talk of extending the Alamein line underneath Chadstone Shopping Centre continues to pop up on a regular basis, only to disappear again just as quickly, when the realities of the required complexity and cost sink in. Worse still, sub-regional shopping centres such as Werribee Plaza, Northland, Doncaster and Airport West all suffer the same fate. How did we get it so wrong? It is an unforgivable lack of foresight.
<img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="327" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/southlandrail.jpg?itok=b5G2eW0t" width="580">
However just like the parents that have three kids in jail for trying to ram-raid the local ATM, and one at Melbourne University studying medicine, it is time to focus on the kid that's not a lost cause; in this case, Southland.
While also built without a rail station, it does sit smack bang on the Frankston Line, right in between Highett and Cheltenham stations. First opened in 1968 as a Myer plus a few other stores, it didn't really become a major shopping centre until major expansions in 1987 and 1990. Yet plans to build a station didn't bear any real fruit until 2010, when both major political parties promised to build it when transport became an election issue.
Labor said they would build it for around $45 million, its somewhat high price tag justified by the list of bells and whistles: elevators/escalators, toilets, a waiting room and shelter covering most of the platform all features befitting of a premium station, and then some.
And then came a gob smacking, jaw dropping moment usually reserved for stuff like the announcement of a new Star Wars film: the Liberals said they would build it, with all the inclusions, for the bargain basement price of $13 million! And just like when your slightly dim-witted uncle rings to excitedly tell you that he has won $50,000,000,000 as long as he pays some Nigerian prince a $5,000 'release fee', the old adage "If it sounds too good to be true, then ..." proved to apply here too.
Ted Ballieu of course won the election and duly realised he couldn't build it for that figure, even if he used a prison chain gang to do so. Never one to admit he was wrong, Ballieu, and his successor Denis Napthine, hit upon on the idea of trying to extort the money from Southland's owners instead.
Now don't get me wrong, given they are the primary beneficiaries from infrastructure that will bring more customers to their centre, it is perfectly valid to ask them to pay for some of it. However doing that before you budget to build it would have been a more reasonable approach. Given the Liberals already promised to build it with their own cash, Southland's owners quite unsurprisingly told the government to go jump off the nearest railway bridge. All this after Napthine assured us the delay in building the station was due to 'negotiating a better deal'.
Note to self: never get him to bargain for anything on my behalf. He'd probably walk into a $2 shop with a half-price voucher and end up paying $10 for a pack of chewing gum!
Partly due to the owners reluctance to contribute to the cost, and partly due to the Government's pre-election spending spree, Napthine was forced into an embarrassing backflip last week by announcing that the station would finally be built - without all the promised features - at a cost of $8 million above originally quoted, and at least two years after the original completion date of the end of the government's first term. The bare bones version will now contain the platform, some seats, facilities for PSOs and not much else. An appalling result and grossly inadequate for what is needed.
<img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="326" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/southland_proposal.jpg?itok=7QB3wMvH" width="580"> Source: The Age
The station will service a major regional shopping centre and an estimated 4,400 passengers a day, making it the fourth busiest on the Frankston line. If we want to see true mode share shift and get shoppers out of their cars, the appropriate facilities are a must. Shoppers are not going to carry big bags of shopping down many stairs, and then stand in the rain whilst said purchases get soaking wet.
Disabled people who frequent the centre's services will struggle to access the platform, as will a demographic who make up a large percentage of the day foot traffic: mums with prams. Nor are any of these people going to run back to the shopping centre to use the toilets, if they forgot to go before they left after a long day shopping and running errands. A bit of common sense goes a long way.
Labor have yet to comment, though we can only hope their original proposal is still their position. Failure by either party to build anything other than the full monty is only going to result in an expensive retrofit/upgrade in the future. Governments may have committed many planning sins in the past, and despite much better results recently, we continue to build the odd blooper. Let's not make Southland Station one of them.
</body></html>

Gone South: Is Southland Station a dud deal?

<html><body>
When it comes to transport election promises, we can always expect the usual suspects: more trains, new trains, extended lines and extra levels on the dumb ways to die app. And whilst the headlines have been dominated by the Melbourne Metro and an airport link, and more recently, cheaper fares, this impending Victorian election has thrown up a new poster child - the grade separation (or to the non-gunzels out there, level crossing removals).
Both sides of politics have fallen over themselves to make promises containing the new buzzword, bandying it about with gay abandon like it was created by Miley Cyrus whilst twerking on yet another clichéd music video awards night show.
So this begs the question - are they worth the hype? Do they really make that much difference?
There are over 1,800 level crossings in Victoria, with about 200 of those in Melbourne. Sydney has 5. That's not a typo - you can honestly count them on one hand. New South Wales decided to get rid of theirs in the 50s and 60s; we decided to build the Gas and Fuel towers and the Total Car Park. Score!
Several accidents, derailments and sadly, deaths later, we are finally seeing the light and following suit, albeit half a century too late. Given the rapidly inflating cost of building infrastructure, let alone retrofitting it, its an expensive mistake indeed.
This is not a new idea in Victoria. Back in 2008, the state government ranked every level crossing in the state, based on how dangerous they are, as well as traffic levels. Of the Top 10 in that priority list, 7 remain unchanged. This includes the notorious pair of Furlong Rd and Main Road, the site of several deaths over the years.
On the flipside, Louise Asher managed to get cash for the constituents of her safe Liberal seat to upgrade New St in Hampton, despite it being a lowly 223 on the list! So what was the point of this list if the real priority is just going to be determined by pork barreling and marginal seat sweeteners?
Grade separations are expensive - most coming in at over $100 million. Aside from the high cost of infrastructure, this is largely dictated by the method now most commonly used to do them. In the past this was achieved by building overpasses and underpasses. Not only are they visually ungainly, they often result in the removal of many houses/shops due to the length required of the structure.
Therefore the majority of today's urban level crossing removals are achieved by lowering a short section of the track below the level of the road. Not only is this expensive in itself, level crossings are often located adjacent to a station, thus requiring a total rebuild of said station to boot.
<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/mitchamlevelcrossing.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="326" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mitchamlevelcrossing.jpg?itok=GhI_ccQA" width="580"></a>
This expense has obviously made governments reluctant to cough up the cash. However with public transport coming more and more to the fore this upcoming election, and with our train system plagued by speed and capacity problems, our politicians are finally coming to the party.
Aside from providing something tangible to sell to voters, grade separations offer 3 main benefits:
<ol>
<li>
		They save lives. Whilst on the surface they are essentially a transport issue, the fact that they will prevent deaths far outweighs any other benefits. Unfortunately, no amount of education, no amount of warnings, will prevent people from occasionally getting careless, or quite recklessly rolling the dice. The flow on effects are enormous; aside from the death of the victims, their families, witnesses to the accident and train drivers all can suffer enormous emotional damage. This alone should be enough justification to make it a priority.</li>
	<li>
		They make our train/tram/bus network more efficient. Trams and especially trains need to slow down considerably whilst travelling through level crossings. And heaven forbid if there is an accident - the whole line is closed for hours, if not days, whilst repairs are undertaken. Thanks to the current tightly coupled state of our train lines, network wide chaos usually ensures. Buses suffer terribly too. Already slaves to the surrounding traffic level, travel times are further blown out whilst they patiently wait for the red and white sticks of gloom to rise, thus metaphorically parting the red sea and leading to the promised land of the intended bus interchange terminus.</li>
	<li>
		They potentially reduce traffic congestion. Notice this sits last in the list of benefits, and more importantly, note the use of the word 'potentially'. Make no mistake, the net benefit from the previous point far outweighs any benefit to motorists in terms of the sheer number of people involved. Any benefit motorists gain should be treated as a bonus, and a temporary one at that. Just like the building of a new freeway, or the upgrade of an existing road, induced traffic will ensure that the traffic levels will soon return to their original levels.</li>
</ol>
<a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/traintruck-smash-causes-transport-chaos-in-melbourne8217s-southeast/story-fni0fit3-1226707223905" target="_blank">This Herald Sun article</a> (dated August 30th 2013) illustrates and reports quite succinctly on what happens when things go wrong at level crossings.
Whilst the Greens mention level crossings under "improved safety and fuel efficiency" in their <a href="http://vic.greens.org.au/sites/vic.greens.org.au/files/policydownloads/Transport%20and%20Freight%20Policy%20as%20at%202013-12-07.pdf" target="_blank">transport policy document</a>, we're yet to see anything like the policy announcements that both the Coalition and ALP have rolled recently. But one thing is quite clear regardless of the specific party positions: there's been a great deal of policy sharpening in this area, and that's a good thing.
The mind boggles at the level of improvement such a number of removals could provide. “Imagine a Melbourne without level crossings” sounds like an overly optimistic line from the John Lennon classic 'Imagine', but it is actually a reality we can achieve in the current political generation.
</body></html>

Separation Anxiety - Why don't we remove more level crossings?

<html><body>
The latest incarnation of Footscray station is starting to take shape as the Regional Rail Link upgrade works steam along towards an early 2015 completion date. It looks amazing - proof that rail infrastructure can look stylish as well as be functional. Traditionally dark and dingy and a hangout for gangs and junkies, it's now a modern, stylish beacon that the residents of Footscray can be proud of.

This is technically the second upgrade in the last four years.

In 2009 the shops on the station side of Irving St were removed, and a new bridge erected, the bulk of which remains today. Almost as soon as the upgrade was complete, the Regional Rail Link was announced requiring two extra platforms to be added to the existing four. As a consequence, the bridge was lengthened, whilst all the stairs leading to the platforms were removed and replaced with a combination of escalators, ramps and new stairs.

The leaking bridge tunnel roof was patched up, and a new concourse and ticket office has been built at the Irving St entrance. The new platform 1 building's colour scheme and form looks bold and modern whilst remaining respectful of the original buildings on platforms 2/3 and 4/5. A major bus interchange will run the length of Irving St, whilst an already upgraded tram terminus is located across the road on the corner of Leeds St.

Complimenting the new station development is the construction of Footscray's first real skyscraper. An office tower built on the adjoining McNab Avenue precinct, it will house the government departments of State Trustees and City West Water bringing many welcome jobs to Footscray.

Two future residential towers are also planned for the precinct with some cafes/basic retail adding some street level activation. The State Trustees tower is close to completion and makes for a stunning backdrop giving commuters approaching the area an impression of a fast rejuvenating Footscray.

Whilst the removal of the shops was controversial, it added some much needed light and open feel to the area. However one trader has survived - the ubiquitous and world famous Olympic Doughnuts. South East Asia may have fried crickets, New York may have cronuts, but Footscray has jam doughnuts to die for, an institution in the West for over 30 years.

So when it faced the prospect of eviction during the station works, the Regional Rail Link project team moved swiftly to accommodate them, thus saving themselves from the prospect of a riot on their hands. Given the roaring trade the little doughnut van does every day, it was a smart move indeed.

So when the station upgrade is complete, and Regional Rail Link trains start flowing through, I highly recommend you come down and check it out. Projects like this can transform the face of a suburb, and go a long way to changing the negative perceptions it may have.

Come to admire the station design, but stay for the doughnuts!

Martin Mankowski is a local resident and Urban.com.au's honourary Footscray correspondent.

Photos captured by Mark Baljak.
</body></html>

Footscray Station update - Where's the doughnuts?

<html><body>
When the Wall came down, thousands cheered as the bulldozers moved in. Millions more tuned in on their televisions to watch this once in a lifetime event. The Wall had divided the city in two for years, leaving it to develop almost completely different cultures.

People would stop and try to peer through the cracks, trying to remember what a unified city was like. Finally, that time was coming to an end. The population would finally remember how the other half lived; long lost relatives would be reunited with much emotion.

It was the pressure of these long awaited scenarios that made the leader sweat profusely as he stepped forward towards the podium to make an announcement that everyone was so desperately wanting to hear.

"The Melbourne Metro is complete! The Great Wall of Swanston St can come down!"

Mass hysteria ensures, as the crowd cheer as loudly as they've never cheered before. Crying true tears of joy, they have their street back.

<img alt="" height="332" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/berlin-wall-coming-down.jpeg?itok=EgmTqJAw" width="405">

Denis Napthine's comparison of the Metro tunnel's planned Swanston St works to the Berlin Wall are nothing short of absurd, and ranks amongst the worst excuses to not upgrade public transport this state has seen. Hardly surprising, given he has only ever given tacit support of the project, through clenched teeth like a kid telling his mum how much he loves Brussels sprouts.

The Premier even tried telling us that Tony Abbott had softened his stance on funding the Metro, only to be immediately rebuffed and told he had no such intentions of funding any urban rail project, anywhere. "Roads are a sign of progress" Abbott reiterated, a view talked about in great detail in his conservative manifesto, Battlelines.

The 1950s rang, they want their infrastructure policy back.

Of course, this most backwards of philosophies has helped Napthine push his favourite barrow, the East West Link. Thinking that people would jump for joy at the announcement of another freeway, he wrongly assumed that the Melbourne Metro project would have disappeared into the background never to be spoken of again, just like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunction_Polis">Multifunction Polis</a> and the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/grollo-tower-one-mans-vision-unrealised">Grollo Tower</a> before it.

But, shock horror, it turns out Abbott isn't the messiah, and his philosophy is completely outdated. Those pesky voters want a functional public transport system after all! With internal polling showing the current Spring Street Government in real trouble in November, an ever increasingly desperate Napthine resorted to relentlessly beating the Metro with a stick, in the hope that if he could scare enough people away from it.

It sounds like a plot from a bad stalker movie.

And so here we are: Swanston St will be the new Berlin Wall. The Metro was first mooted back in 2005, with the previous Labor Federal government setting aside funding for it in last year's May budget. So despite years of research and planning, Denis Napthine has suddenly come to the realisation that the route is all wrong, and that we need to start all over again. Six months out from an election, no less! Phew, lucky we have Denis to save us from impending disaster.

So is there method to this madness? Let's analyse the three options:

<h2>The Russell St Option</h2>

Basically the same as the original route, except rather go from Melbourne Central, under Swanston St to Flinders St Station and then under the Yarra to Domain, it runs under Russell St instead, with new stations on the corner of Russell and Latrobe, and Russell and Flinders.

This would still require mass disruption along Russell St, but admittedly it doesn't have the same foot or tram traffic of Swanston St. While this would be a positive, there is one major drawback. The Metro is meant to achieve three major outcomes: greater frequency of trains, greater reliability through decoupling of lines, and greater connectivity between lines.

A Russell Street route would inevitably require passengers to walk a whole city block to catch a connecting train. Not only is this a huge inconvenience (especially for the disabled and elderly) it would pose a further challenge in having to build an underground walkway to connect them.

In a day and age where we are bending over backwards to make using public transport easier, this is a definite no-no.

<h2>The Fishermans Bend Option</h2>

This is the option thrown up by Napthine as the preferred alternative - moving it west. Given the Premier has released little information about the actual path I assume the route would utilise existing track to Southern Cross, then run under the river with stops at Fishermans Bend and Port Melbourne before joining the original route at Domain.

Given the government had previously failed to promise to build a station in Fishermans Bend until after most of the housing was built, this would be a step forward. However the main benefit of this option is meant to be a much reduced cost owing to avoiding the CBD, which logic would dictate the opposite would be true given the potentially longer tunneling required. The tunnel would still need to go under the Yarra, at quite a considerable depth.

Secondly, as no part of this route runs directly under the path of a road, it would almost certainly mean that none of it could be built cut and cover. So how exactly would this route be cheaper? That's not even taking into account the cost of all the planning which would have to start again from scratch.

To top it off, it doesn't even run through the part of the city which would likely attract the most passengers. A conceivable by-product of the project would be to help alleviate tram overcrowding along St Kilda Rd/Swantston St, not add to it!

<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/Metro-Port-Melb-route.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="369" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Metro-Port-Melb-route.jpg?itok=P-m2Cs1h" width="580"></a>

<h2>The Swanston St Option</h2>

And that brings us back to the original plan. First officially announced in 2008 as a result of the Eddington report, the tunnel was originally meant to run from Footscray to South Yarra, before being respectfully pruned to a South Kensington to Domain route. Its proposed stations were strategically placed:

<ol>
<li>Arden - The site of future urban renewal.</li>
	<li>Parkville - Situated right at the junction of the hospital precinct and Melbourne University, this would conceivably become one of the busiest stations in the network.</li>
	<li>CBD North/CBD South. Critical interchange points with the two busiest stations in Melbourne, allowing passengers to change onto every other line. Note to the station naming gods - please let common sense prevail and make these stations additional platforms of Melbourne Central and Flinders St, rather than calling them something else so that no one makes the connection that they are actually on top of each other!</li>
	<li>Domain - Major tram interchange and gateway to the St Kilda Rd business and residential precinct.</li>
</ol>
<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/Melb-Metro-route.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="390" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Melb-Metro-route.jpg?itok=uANOy5yT" width="580"></a>

And this is only the first part of the PTV heavy rail plan. The second proposed tunnel, running Clifton Hill-Parkville-Flagstaff-Southern Cross-Fishermans Bend, will add some much needed extra capacity to the South Morang Line, a line which currently terminates in one of the largest growth areas in Australia.

In turn, this would free up capacity on the Clifton Hill-Flinders St section, allowing the possible future addition of a line to Doncaster. At the other end of the line, the whole of Fishermans Bend could be serviced, rather than just the northern precincts as proposed by Napthine, which misses the section with the highest planned density: Wirraway.

The route has undergone much rigorous analysing. First proposed in an independent report, it's backed by PTV, Infrastructure Australia and many transport experts and advocates. Almost all of the planning has been done, with IA labeling it 'Ready to proceed'. Napthine is well aware of this, and up until now has been one of those supporters, at least in theory.

Yet, despite 3 years of government, it has taken him until now to realise the route is all wrong, and needs to be thrown out with the garbage. Rather spending his energy on sourcing some funding, he has shown it petty regard, foolishly implementing deliberate time wasting strategies like a new name (Metro Rail Capacity Project) and proposing alternative routes that are painfully inferior. All in a naive attempt to garner support for the real apple of his eye - The East West Tunnel.

Reality check Mr Napthine - you can't make people buy a Ford by teaching them to hate Holden!

Much has been made of ripping up Swanston St, but does it even need to be built cut and cover? More importantly, can it be? Given Melbourne Central station was built cut and cover itself, wont the metro have to go underneath it anyway? The same at the Flinders St end - won't it have to go fairly deep to tunnel under the Yarra? This argument seems to be yet another red herring in a long list of excuses not to build it.

Political agendas aside, Victoria will be poorer for not building the Melbourne Metro in its current form. Public transport patronage has increased dramatically over the last 15 years, and we face decades of crush capacity if we don't address it correctly now. We only get one chance at this - it's not like we can rip up a tunnel if we get it wrong.

To loosely quote Pink Floyd, every delay, every loony alternative, every excuse, is just another brick in the political wall.
</body></html>

Go West - Should We Move The Melbourne Metro Tunnel?

<html><body>
Summer. The very word conjures up a sense of joy. A sense of well being. A sense of being alive again. Beaches, beer festivals, and picnics at the park. Enjoyment at last after the long hard slog of winter is nothing but a distant memory. Of course its not all good - it also means bushfires, 40 degree days, and no football (at least the real thing, not the Mickey Mouse pre season competition that's just started) for a few months yet.
And just when you thought that Nanna's pair of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle socks were the worst present you got this Christmas, the incumbent State government came up with this doozy - The summer public transport timetable.
Don't get me wrong, summer timetables can be warranted for most things; your local library may be closed over the Christmas/New year break, Joe from the Fish &amp; Chips shop round the corner may decide to take the family to Bonnie Doon for a few weeks forcing you to eat healthy for a while or more likely, live off Aunty Sue's Christmas pasta bake leftovers for a bit. The point is, none of these things are really going to massively disrupt your every day life activities.
So reducing a few train services in peak hour for a few days over Christmas, whilst the lack of people in the CBD resembles a nuclear Holocaust, shouldn't really be an issue. Except - some bright spark decided it would be a good idea to cancel every second peak hour service - FOR A WHOLE MONTH!
This wouldn't necessarily bother many people between Christmas and New Year. After the family arguments on Christmas and Boxing Day, most people spend the next few days watching Mitchell Johnson break people's arms. Thanks to the PTUA's campaign, we now have 24 hour transport on New Years, before everyone spends the following day recovering from one too many bottles of $8 Champagne.
Then, on the 2nd of Jan, we all crawl back to our jobs, everything as it was, like Christmas/New Years never happened. Everything, that is, except our public transport system.
<h2>
	"Dumb ways to <strike>die</strike> run Metro trains"</h2>
<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/Valentines-Day_HeroBanner_1200x439px_v24.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="212" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Valentines-Day_HeroBanner_1200x439px_v24.jpg?itok=qD3UoUMq" width="580"></a>
The State Government couldn't have picked a worse time - its like they extended PTV's 'Dumb ways to die' ads and created 'Dumb ways to run our train system'! January is traditionally our hottest month, and after a relative mild December, Melbourne sweltered through a roasting January this year. As is now par for the course, Metro responded by cancelling even more services. Even worse, the cancelled services were done in advance, meaning when temperatures didn't reach their predicted highs of 40+ degrees, services were still cancelled!
This resulted in horribly over crowded waits on the platforms, and even more horrible rides on the trains themselves. Predictably, the air conditioning struggled to keep up, causing even more services to be cancelled. To try to address this snowballing problem, Metro advised everyone to leave the city early if possible, causing a rush akin to a petrol buying panic during a shortage. Worse still, the Australian Open was on - major events usually result in extra services, not less.
It was a complete debacle which for the most could have been avoided. The sad part is it was all avoidable; this had nothing to do with 'scheduled maintenance' and everything to do with saving a few bucks
When unavoidable occurrences such as heat waves arise, or even self inflicted ones such as summer timetables, we have one ace up our sleeve that we never play - our V/Line trains.
How many people have standing idle at the station when the announcer quite rudely says that 'this train is not taking passengers'? But its going where I'm going! So why can't I get on? Allowing suburban passengers to travel on regional trains already happens in London, helping spread the load at peak times,as well as helping frequency at night.
As our regional network now utilizes an extension of the metropolitan zone system (as well as Myki), it would be a seamless transition.
<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/Vline-Network-Map-updated2-November-2012.gif" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="553" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Vline-Network-Map-updated2-November-2012.gif?itok=nVdyvGjP" width="580"></a>
The best part about this solution is that it would be free to implement. Sure some argue that peak hour V/Line services are already crowded too, but as suburban passengers would only be traveling for a short part of the journey, regional passengers would still have the vast majority, if not all, of the seating capacity.
<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/vlocity-420x0.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="420" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/vlocity-420x0.jpg?itok=9bRSKqaf" width="580"></a>
So whilst this solution would not cure ridiculous decisions like the summer timetable, it could at least alleviate the symptoms. So lets hope the next time those in charge mull over timetable decisions, they employ a little more common sense. Not taking a holiday whilst said summer timetable was running would be a good start!
</body></html>

Martin Mankowski

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News