Future Public Transport Ideas

<html><body>
Mark's <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/traditional-residential-developers-cash-in-on-yarras-300000sqm-commercial-boom">Friday article</a> on the commercial development pipeline for the City of Yarra is both impressive and worrying.  Impressive because 300,000 square metres of space, should it all be built and occupied, would represent around 20,000 new jobs contained within the municipality and worrying thanks to a lack of public transport priority, especially along the streets with tram routes.

Throw in the residential development pipeline - half of which is under construction and likely provide new homes for approximately 7000-8000 people - you have to wonder what the breaking point will be.

As Urban.com.au user johnproctor <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/traditional-residential-developers-cash-in-on-yarras-300000sqm-commercial-boom#comment-33643">commented on Friday</a>, the 20,000 new employees/jobs figure comes from assuming that 1 employee takes up 15 square metres of total commercial space,

<blockquote>
Pretty amazing. that's roughly 20,000 workers coming to City of Yarra if it's all realised.

Will hopefully drive counter peak tram movements in the area (that are already quite strong) and should also drive high capacity on the 246 bus route linking people from the north to bigger office precinct south (Hurstbridge/Doncaster/Mernda PT users to Cremorne) and south to north (Richmond PT users to Collingwood/Abbotsford)
</blockquote>

The increased patronage and movements on the tram network are the most worrying because Victoria Street, for instance, does not have counter-peak clearways. 

At the city end there is a good quality interchange (where the emphasis is on frequency of multiple services) at Parliament station and the Macarthur Street tram stop. 

At St. Vincent's interchange and right down to Hoddle Street there is minimal priority given to trams at cross roads - especially at Hoddle Street but the worst part of the journey is beyond North Richmond Station to Victoria Gardens.

I've timed it multiple times, in both directions and at the extreme end, it's possible the journey between Victoria Gardens and Parliament station will take 20 minutes. That's a 2 kilometre trip - jogging pace.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
By the way, this is in school holidays <a href="https://t.co/nqKe5BamlQ">https://t.co/nqKe5BamlQ</a>
— Alastair Taylor (@tayser82) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/tayser82/status/1017674123982434304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 13, 2018</a>
</blockquote>

And while I deserve a slap over the wrist for being in a car at the time of taking that image above - I was the traffic - quite often I'm not and I'm one of the people travelling on one of those trams you can see attempting to crawl down Victoria Street.  In the evening peak clearways are in operation heading out of the city but the road is choked with parked cars in the counter-peak direction.

Victoria Street is only one of the major tram routes through Yarra and as Mark's article points out, the commercial development is occurring in Cremorne, Collingwood/Fitzroy - even on Hoddle Street - but what transport policies are in place to give public transport more priority in the area?

Yarra is served by the rail network from all major directions but trams and buses fighting for space on the road network are how most people get around the municipality.

Cremorne has a distinct advantage because much of the area is within a comfortable 10-minute walk of Richmond Station or East Richmond Station - and if they opened a northern entry to South Yarra station and improved pedestrian links across the river alongside the railway lines  - South Yarra would help in serving the tech &amp; marketing favoured area's employment growth.

Collingwood is serviced by the inner stations along the Hurstbridge/South Morang-Mernda railway lines but has Hoddle Street - a very pedestrian-unfriendly barrier - between the bulk of the suburb and the stations.  Like Fitzroy, Collingwood's public transport depends heavily on the radial tram routes and the cross-town smart bus routes on Johnson Street.

Tram services on Victoria Street, Brunswick Street, Smith Street, Bridge Road, Swan Street all, to varying degrees, have the misfortunate of being located within a narrow road corridor where the 'fight' over space, depicted in the tweeted image, is daily practice.

How many new office and residential buildings does it take before we see action on public transport priority on the City of Yarra's streets?

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">City of Yarra Residential Development Pipeline Status</th>
			<th scope="col">Dwellings</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Planning Assessment</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2030</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Approved</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2664</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Registration &amp; Sales</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">887</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Under Construction</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5359</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>TOTAL</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">10,940</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Lead image credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Critical_Mass_Melbourne_-_Brunswick_St.JPG">wikipedia</a>
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Is it time to rethink on-street parking on tram routes in the City of Yarra?

<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. Urban.com.au even has its eyes on development in this very precinct: see <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/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 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="https://www.urban.com.au/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="https://www.urban.com.au/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="https://www.urban.com.au/forum/sydney-metro">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>
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="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/rowville-vic">Rowville</a> and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/doncaster-vic">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="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/epping-vic">Epping</a> to <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/chatswood-nsw">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>
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="https://www.urban.com.au/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="https://www.urban.com.au/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="https://www.urban.com.au/news/vancouvers-skytrain-network-a-model-for-melbournes-future-rail-lines">this 2013 article</a> on Vancouver's Skytrain network and technology.

Over to you.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Orbital rail lines in Melbourne: where would they go?

<html><body>
It seems that no matter which party is in government on Spring Street there's always one eye on the long-term development of central Melbourne. After an intense two days of East-West Link and Melbourne Metro news, it was the Planning Minister's turn to be in the spotlight on Friday.

The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area has been expanded to include the area situated north of the West Gate freeway between both the West Gate and Bolte bridges, bumping the total amount of land located in the area to 455 hectares, up from 250 hectares.

As the new government is about to embark on a new round of engagement activities for a revised Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Plan, it's time to go over transport initiatives that adorned previous plans and start a conversation about elevating transport to the same level as local resident group's have raised height limits, schools and community facilities as planning downfalls.

<h2>The short-lived heavy rail legacy</h2>

Back in July 2014 the Planning Minister at the time approved the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/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="/forum/ptvs-network-development-plan-for-metropolitan-rail">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="https://www.urban.com.au/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="https://www.urban.com.au/news/the-alamein-line-time-for-a-new-purpose">earlier this year</a> and came up with a $360 million per kilometre cost for the entire package (23 kilometres of new rail line and a total pricetag of $8.3billion).

If we isolate the new track from Newport to the CBD from the existing line conversions - which reducing the project's scope to be just Newport to the CBD is well within the realm of possibility, 4 kilometres of tunnel and 6 kilometres of elevated track (including a bridge) would be $3.6billion.

There are eight existing level crossings along the route from Newport to Laverton via Altona - three of which are adjacent to two stations (Westona and Altona) and there are two existing level-crossings on the Williamstown branch, one of which is adjacent to a station (North Williamstown).

Owing to its length (12.5km), on paper, Altona would be more expensive to convert than the Williamstown branch yet its the added number of grade separations as well as two existing stations that need to be rebuilt (on top of a new station and extra platforms required at Aircraft/Laverton) that would send the cost-per-kilometre sky high.

Williamstown's shorter length (3.5 km) and less grade separations (one of which could arguably just close entirely - Giffard Street) and station rebuilds required would make its cost-per-kilometre far less and thus a prime candidate for conversion if a phase approach were taken. If I were to take a guess, Altona would be somewhere between $150 and $200 million per kilometre, and Williamstown somewhere south of $150 million per kilometre.

<h3>The odds and ends</h3>

The logical conclusion is that this new rapid transit line would extend east from the CBD but I reiterate that's not the focus today. The primary focus is ensuring that the revised Fishermans Bend Strategic plan includes far more than just "possible future station locations".

Fishermans Bend is what many ancient cities did in the Georgian era: we're creating our New Town. And if the rhetoric about 'forests of towers' and 'more community-focused' doesn't disappear into the ether and these appeals to the base by the new government actually come to fruition, the revised Fisherman Bend plan will be more prescriptive than what we're used to.

Mass-transit in a new, dense, grander and enlarged central city has every right and must be in the plan that guides the development of Fishermans Bend over the coming decades.

<h2>Footnote: water transport shouldn't be overlooked either</h2>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/bris_city_cat_flotilla.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Brisbane River with a flotilla of Citycat ferries. Image: Wikipedia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="373" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/bris_city_cat_flotilla.jpg?itok=ONTcvdAX" title="The Brisbane River with a flotilla of Citycat ferries. Image: Wikipedia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Brisbane River with a flotilla of Citycat ferries. Image: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CityCat_and_City_Ferry_flotilla_returns_to_the_river_14_February_(5728364964).jpg">Wikipedia</a></figcaption></figure>It's not exactly mass-transit but as the entire arm of Fishermans Bend is opened up and depending on the strategic direction of the new employment precinct, water transport should likewise feature in any new revised strategic plan.

We can only assume the addition of the employment precinct in Fishermans Bend will mean that some of the industrial and advanced manufacturing facilities presently located in the precinct will remain while other sites - like General Motors Holden's facility - will be cleared, cleaned up and redeveloped.

The new employment precinct will be located in the City of Melbourne and I'm willing to wager the urban designers at council will no doubt want to get stuck in to the entire waterfront area. More intensive land-uses on the water's edge will naturally be conducive to new maritime transport services.

Perhaps taking a leaf out of Brisbane's book at its <a href="http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/citycat-ferry-services">Citycat services</a> should be on the cards?
</body></html>

Fishermans Bend transport: fast, frequent and automated

<html><body>
In a series of media releases, Spring Street has announced it has dumped the previous Coalition government's <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/dandenong-vic">Dandenong</a> corridor project - which was originally pitched to them by a private consortium - and have announced their own.

Much noise was made about the PPP/Napthine scheme only removing four level crossings between <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/caulfield-vic">Caulfield</a> and Dandenong as well as a smaller number of trains that were to be ordered to run services on this major route. In one of the media releases, the following table was provided as a comparison between the Napthine/PPP scheme and the Andrews Government vision.

<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/dandenong_corridor_comparison.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Comparison of project features. Source: State Government media release"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="437" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/dandenong_corridor_comparison.jpg?itok=pHQ0j5Yc" title="Comparison of project features. Source: State Government media release" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Comparison of project features. Source: State Government media release</figcaption></figure>According to one media release, expressions of interest are to be called for the grade separations within months and the Premier has preemptively apologised for the shut down of the entire corridor in the name of progress while individual project areas are worked on.

Fair enough Premier, however could we have more detail please?

Given the relative "out of the blue" nature of the project announcement with not much detail beyond the points listed in the image above, here's a wish list of changes <a href="http://www.urban.com.au">Urban.com.au</a> would like to see happen either in conjunction (priority 1), in the medium term (priority 2) and in the long term (priority 3) with the Dandenong corridor upgrade.

<h2>Priority 1</h2>

Link the infrastructure investment with more intensive land uses adjacent to the rail corridor

This is a golden opportunity to provide more affordable housing in the middle ring suburbs and Spring Street should make inclusionary zoning as mooted by the Planning Minister (or any other policy targeted at increasing the diversity of urban housing stock) apply to all areas adjacent to newly re-built stations as well as throughout any existing or new structure plan in the corridor.

The Government should work with councils to update structure plans within station vicinities, or create new ones where none exist, in order to capture the benefit of the rail investment. The larger number of trains in the Andrews' Government proposal appears to be linked to increased frequencies of service and therefore the major nodes in the corridor scope: Caulfield, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/oakleigh-vic">Oakleigh</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/clayton-vic">Clayton</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/springvale-vic">Springvale</a> and Dandenong should see more intense and inclusive development made possible through the planning scheme.

Plan Melbourne has previously designated these areas as Activity Centres with Caulfield and Dandenong as National Employment Clusters, further reinforcing their importance within the wider network.

Dandenong should be a special case building on the existing revitalising central Dandenong principles. According to the <a href="http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/131347/Fact-Sheet-Southern-Subregion-May-2014.pdf">Southern sub-region growth fact sheet</a> as part of Plan Melbourne, it is predicted that the area will see another 400,000 to 480,000 people living, for the most part, within reach of a Dandenong corridor station by 2031.

Spring Street should take a leaf out of the New South Wales Government's book and further decentralise public sector organisations and further encourage more private sector investment and employment growth in Dandenong like Macquarie Street has with <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/parramatta-nsw">Parramatta</a>.

<figure><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kc_224ozYDc" width="100%"></iframe>

<figcaption>Cranbourne-Pakenham Transformation video from the <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/cranbourne-pakenham-transformation">Premier's website</a>.</figcaption></figure><h2>Priority 2</h2>

Mass reconfiguration of the bus network to feed the upgraded rail line

A public transport network is a failure if users are still dependent on a private vehicle to access it. Public transport is a logical extension of walking and where distances are too great between the point of origin and the mass transit mode, other forms of public transport need to be either created or reconfigured to ensure there is no dependency on private vehicles.

Beyond Caulfield and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/carnegie-vic">Carnegie</a>, the only other major mode of public transport other than the rail services is the bus network. While a few of the Smart Bus services operate and act as feeder services in the area already, every station - including along the Pakenham and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developments/cranbourne-vic">Cranbourne</a> segments - should see less focus on car parking and more on bus service expansion.

Rather than focus on the bells and whistles of a Smart Bus service, bus network/feeder policy should focus on these core principles: frequency, route directness and operating hour expansion. The end-game should be to correct the sheer waste of land at stations like <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developments/berwick-vic">Berwick</a> which has hectares of parking that should be put to better use, especially in the scenario where VicTrack own the land.

<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/14032766753_f55cb66ca7_c.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Springvale Station only had two platforms built as part of the recent grade separation project"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="357" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/14032766753_f55cb66ca7_c.jpg?itok=nJhxSn93" title="Springvale Station only had two platforms built as part of the recent grade separation project" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Springvale Station only had two platforms built as part of the recent grade separation project. Source: <a href="http://www.danielbowen.com/2014/04/26/new-springvale-station/">Daniel Bowen's blog</a>.</figcaption></figure><h2>Priority 3</h2>

At the very least keep one eye on corridor expansion and tell the public about it

No mention was made of expanding the track within the existing corridor however the track and station design should take into account that the corridor will be expanded in future. The logical next step would be to quadruplicate the track between Caulfield and Dandenong thus enabling two tiers of service - stopping-all-stations and express - to operate independently over the longer term.

The future track layout around Oakleigh and Clayton stations should cater for four tracks and four platforms, all other stations should cater for four tracks with only two platforms.

The fastest services on the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/sydney-nsw">Sydney</a> Trains network between Sydney's Central station and Parramatta is 27 minutes. This is achieved through extensive and frequent express services which for the most part run on track which is rated for speeds in the vicinity of 80kph.

A direct Flinders Street service from Dandenong according to the current timetable is 41 minutes.

The City-Dandenong corridor (29km as measured from Flinders Street to South Yarra along the projected alignment of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project; <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/south-yarra-vic">South Yarra</a> to Dandenong station along the existing corridor) is 6km longer than the Sydney-Parramatta corridor (23km measured from Central station along the existing Main Western Line to Parramatta).

Given the advantage of a straighter alignment thus enabling higher speeds with express services, should track be quadruplicated - perhaps as part of a second stage of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project - it is within the realms of possibility that a similar CBD to CBD trip, time-wise, could be undertaken in Melbourne. This should have the effect of improving Dandenong's profile as a employment and growth centre for people living 'up' the line toward the city, not just for those who live beyond Dandenong and commute to the city at present.

At the very least this should be the ultimate plan: creating another fast, frequent transport spine that caters for short and longer trips right through South Eastern Melbourne in both directions, not just for the current peak-time commuters.

Lead image credit: recently grade separated Springvale Station, via <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springvale_railway_station">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

The Dandenong corridor wish list

<html><body>
Moonee Ponds is an activity centre that for the most part flies under the radar, in terms of redevelopment currently happening and what can happen in future. The biggest landholder in the region is the Moonee Valley Racing Club and yesterday <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/moonee-valley-racecourse-apartment-plans-pared-back-by-planning-minister-richard-wynne-20150325-1m7kzf">The Age reported</a> on how the Planning Minister Richard Wynne has gazetted an updated development plan for the home of the Cox Plate.

In terms of access Moonee Ponds has quite the repertoire of public transport options. Trains serve the western end of the centre, trams run up and down Mount Alexander Road/Pascoe Vale Road and Ascot Vale Road hosts the terminus for route 82, one of the very few suburb-to-suburb tram routes across Melbourne. There's also a major bus interchange next door to the main tram stops for the 59 tram in the Mount Alexander Road median.

But like all over Melbourne, the connections between modes (and routes) could be better. A lot better.

As a very regular user of all three modes in the area, top of the priority list for fixing is the bus interchange. At present, it sits in the very busy median of Mount Alexander Road, which makes access from either side of the road a real problem.

There are multiple signalised pedestrian crossings however priority is given to vehicular traffic. The wait times often frustrate pedestrians, who see the bus they want to catch (only metres away) pull away as traffic lights change, as it is often the only time buses can exit the interchange.

There are 11 separate bus routes which converge on the existing Moonee Ponds Interchange:

<ul>
<li>Southerly approach (via Ascot Vale Road) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/784_Bus404.pdf">404 Footscray to Moonee Ponds</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/1666_Bus472.pdf">472 Williamstown to Moonee Ponds</a>
</li>
	<li>Easterly Approach (via Ormond Road and Mount Alexander Road) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/5456_Bus505.pdf">505 Moonee Ponds to Melbourne University</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/5607_Bus504.pdf">504 Moonee Ponds to Clifton Hill Station</a>; (via Dean Street) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/844_Bus506.pdf">506 Moonee Ponds to Westgarth</a>; ​(via Wilson Street / Pascoe Vale Road / Kellaway Avenue) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/845_Bus508.pdf">508 Alphington Station to Moonee Ponds</a>
</li>
	<li>Northerly approach (via Mount Alexander Road) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/827_Bus475.pdf">475 Moonee Ponds to East Keilor</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/8091_Bus476.pdf">​476 Moonee Ponds to Hillside</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/829_Bus477.pdf">477 Moonee Ponds to Broadmeadows Station</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/834_Bus483.pdf">483 Sunbury Station to Moonee Ponds</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/841_Bus501.pdf">501 Moonee Ponds to Niddrie</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>A new Moonee Ponds Interchange?</h2>

What to do with a chunk of land which lays barren right in the heart of an activity centre? Turn it into a car park! That's the dirty little secret of the current Reading's site - <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/leighton-initiate-the-readings-moonee-ponds-transformation">bought last year by Leighton</a> then <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/leighton-seeks-to-offload-their-moonee-ponds-super-site">promptly put back on the market</a> in February - it's everything that an activity centre should not have: an open-air car park.

With all the development site buying and selling in the heart of Moonee Ponds and a new masterplan for the racecourse getting the nod from the Planning Minister, we're no doubt about to see an upswing in development activity in Moonee Ponds. And it's time there was an overhaul of Moonee Ponds' public transport access as well.

Much of Mount Alexander's median strip to the north of the current bus bay has had a once over with new landscaping. I think it's time the bus bay moved out and the median reverted back to open space.

But where would buses go?

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=zNF8lPbNaAaM.kCmFLjqUkGvM" width="100%"></iframe>

The map works on the basis of removing the existing bus terminus/interchange; Hall Street is extended through to the other side of Mount Alexander Road as a one-way (eastbound) bus-only road, and the tram tracks on Ascot Vale Road are duplicated and terminated adjacent to the existing route 59 tram stop.

In this scenario buses would run in a continuous anti-clockwise loop through Mount Alexander Road, Homer Street, Margaret Street and Hall Street. If a series of bus stops were placed in Homer Street, Margaret Street and Hall Street - in the latter's case particularly near the intersection of Mount Alexander Road - then passengers would be deposited and could be picked up in three key areas: Moonee Ponds Central, Moonee Ponds Station and near the existing bus bays for tram connectivity.

Extending Hall Street would likely be the largest portion of the project in terms of roadworks (and cost), however it's conceivable there would be need to widen Margaret Street - eating into the existing station car park - to allow buses to stop at the station without impacting traffic flow and both Homer and Hall Streets would require removal of speed bumps.

The added bonus of extending Hall Street, for vehicular traffic on Mount Alexander Road in particular, would be the two existing pedestrian crossings, roughly 50 metres apart, could be combined into one.

Not to mention, terminating the route 82 tram alongside route 59's stop would eliminate the three crossings pedestrians are required to make at present - if they wish to connect between either service - and similarly eliminate one of the two existing crossings pedestrians must make, if they wish to connect between the 82 tram and Moonee Ponds bus services.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ascot_Vale_and_Mount_Alexander_Road_at_Moonee_Ponds_Junction.jpg">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Is it time to reconfigure the Moonee Ponds transport interchange?

<html><body>
Melbourne loves its radial train lines. For over a century they have shunted commuters in and out of the centre of the city and even throughout the automobile age they've continued to be the best way to access the centre of the city as well as some peripheral centres based around junctions like Richmond, South Yarra and North Melbourne.

In the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/the-outer-circle-documentary-review">Outer Circle documentary</a>, released in December last year, we learned politicians from over a century ago were just as susceptible of making curious decisions as modern day politicians when it comes to large-scale transport infrastructure projects - think East-West Link.

The last remaining operating section of the Outer Circle is the Alamein line. According to a report in 2010 in the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/metro-says-williamstown-and-alemein-lines-will-be-first-to-close-if-train-system-melst-down/story-e6frf7jo-1225818598652">Herald Sun</a>, the Alamein line only carries 1.5% of all passengers across the metropolitan rail network and in a <a href="http://www.ptua.org.au/2010/09/28/alamein-line-upgrade-call/">media release from PTUA</a> around the same time, the 1.5% figure reported in the Herald Sun translates into 1.8 million boardings per year.

Alamein is a short branch serving a stable population and timetable-roulette over the past 10 years seems to have conspired to relegate the Alamein line to low (if any) growth. Thanks to election promises in 2010, the Ballieu Government commissioned multiple rail line studies early on in its term one of which was the Rowville Rail Line.

Perhaps most annoyingly, the Rowville study's scope was ring-fenced and only encapsulated the North and Wellington road corridors - essentially just creating another branch line from the Dandenong corridor.

One of the findings from the Rowville Rail study was that it required extra capacity on the Dandenong corridor for trains to operate to and from the city and thus the new line would be dependent on Dandenong corridor upgrades and the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project from South Yarra to Kensington.

Rather than create another radial train service, wouldn't it be more prudent to start thinking outside the box by connecting existing lines and start serving major employment, education and high-potential residential growth zones in worthy suburban areas?

Don't all groan at once, but I think there's a legitimate case for another study to look into the impact, costs and benefits of cross-connecting the Alamein line with the Dandenong corridor and the points listed below are meant only as a conversation starter.

Furthermore it would also be interesting to see how a connection and services running between the Alamein and Dandenong corridors might improve the case for the Rowville line given the employment, retail and educational precincts it would connect: Swinburne University, Camberwell, Holmesglen Institute, Chadstone, Oakleigh, Monash University &amp; Mulgrave.

Is it time to give the Alamein line a greater purpose?

<iframe frameborder="0" height="600" scrolling="no" src="https://mapsengine.google.com/map/embed?mid=zZQXWc1VtNDo.kKnKWQL6NjGI" width="100%"></iframe>

The map above serves only as a reference point to begin the conversation. Click the individual components for more detail or click the full screen button in the top right corner of the map to view the detail in another window.

There are many ideas for connecting this region and I'm by no means saying the above is the absolute best, I've merely selected it as it's likely to be the more expensive option (other ideas prevalent right across the web include a tunnel along the old Outer Circle corridor and connecting with East Malvern Station and Chadstone to Oakleigh).

<h2>Phase 1</h2>

The flagship link. A tunnel (red line) from Ashburton running south-east to Holmesglen with a new set of interchange platforms alongside and underneath Warrigal Road to enable connectivity with the Glen Waverley line. The tunnel would then head south-west to run under Chadstone with a new station located on site and then the tunnel would run south-east once more to connect with two new underground platforms at Oakleigh.

Changes to the existing Alamein corridor (green line) would involve grade separations at Riversdale and Prospect Hill Roads resulting in a new station in a trench and interfaced directly with Riversdale road in turn making Willison Station redundant. A new fourth platform at Camberwell to act as a service terminus and a relocated Burwood station in order to better connect the line with the #75 trams and the Toorak Road precinct.

The existing track from Alamein to Ashburton from the south would be removed and re-instated as parkland with station buildings at Alamein, Willison and the old Burwood station re-purposed for community or commercial facilities and a new dedicated high-frequency bus would run between Ashburton and Darling stations through the catchment of the existing Alamein station (grey line).

Upon opening, services would shuttle between Oakleigh and Camberwell on 10 minute or better frequencies.

<h2>Phase 2</h2>

Project area 1: between Camberwell and Burnley there would be a fourth track laid in the existing reservation (orange line) and new platforms at Auburn, Glenferrie and Hawthorn. The map also attempts to depict the associated bridge widening works required between Hawthorn and the Glen Waverley line flyovers at Burnley.

Project area 2: in essence building the recommended route as outlined in the Rowville Rail Line study (light and dark blue lines - map ends in Mulgrave, but the assumption is to build the entire line to Rowville).

Upon opening of the second phase, the Camberwell-Oakleigh shuttle would morph into a much larger rail line running from Rowville direct to Flinders Street via Chadstone and Camberwell and all trains from the existing Ringwood corridor would only stop at Camberwell, Glenferrie and Richmond.

<h2>Some statistics on journeys to work</h2>

Some food for thought: the three main municipalities directly affected by this project are Boroondarra, Stonnington and Monash and the following journeys to work data has been pulled from population and demography consultancy <a href="http://home.id.com.au/">.id's</a> public site.

In 2011 <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/boroondara/workers">Boroondarra</a> had 61,000 employed persons, 31% of which lived in the municipality. 9% of people employed in Boroondarra travel from Glen Eira - Caulfield (1,293 or 2.1%), Stonnington - Malvern (1,363, 2.2%), Monash - South West (694, 1.0%), Monash - Waverley West (1,443, 2.3%), Monash - Waverley East (775, 1.3%).

<a href="http://profile.id.com.au/stonnington/workers">Stonnington</a>, which would gain one new station and an expanded interchange station, had 45,000 employed persons in 2011 and only 23% live in the same municipality. The breakdown of people who travel from outside the municipality is as follows: Glen Eira - Caulfield (2,910 or 6.4%), Monash - South West (1,313, 2.9%), Monash - Waverley West (1,367, 3.0%), Monash - Waverley East (847, 1.9%), Boroondarra - Camberwell South (1,505, 3.3%), Boroondarra - Hawthorn (1,006, 2.2%), Whitehorse - Box Hill (755, 1.7%).

<a href="http://profile.id.com.au/monash/workers">Monash</a> in 2011 had 89,000 employed persons, 23% living in the municipality. Much of workforce who travels to Monash lives to the south and east of the municipality however just under 7% travel from adjacent municipalities located near this project. Broken down that is: Boroondarra - Camberwell North &amp; South (2,237 or 2.5%), Stonnington - Malvern (1,486, 1.7%), Glen Eira - Caulfield (2,392, 2.7%).

Train travel, like car commuters on freeways, enables people to live greater distances from their workplace - and although policy should favour distances being reduced rather than increased - I think patronage forecasts would need to have catchment areas expanded, especially as Chadstone remains a key precinct in the region and attracts shoppers from right across the metropolitan area.

<h2>Future development options and value capture</h2>

This is Urban.com.au and it just wouldn't be cricket if we didn't at least briefly look at redevelopment potential.

Beginning in Malvern East where Chadstone is located, Stonnington have liberally applied the new Residential Growth Zone to Dandenong Road and have continued to apply it along Warrigal Road from the intersection of Dandenong Road all the way up to Holmesglen Station. The Warrigal Road corridor is also interspersed with the mixed-use Commercial Zone 1 (C1Z) allowing for larger buildings.

The <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/buildings/holmes-hill-apartments-70-batesford-road-chadstone">Holmes Hill development at 70 Batesford Road</a> (C1Z), just off Warrigal Road approximately 200m from the existing Holmesglen station is a prime example of what is possible for increasing densities near the new or upgraded stations.

<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/holmes_hill_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="348" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/holmes_hill_1.jpg?itok=s2l3b_wl" title="Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au</figcaption></figure>In terms of areas where the rail corridor and service already exists, the strip along Toorak Road where Burwood station could possibly be re-zoned on the Boroondarra Planning scheme as C1Z. And despite Boroondarra's lack of Residential Growth Zone, they do have a small, but not insignificant amount of land zoned General Residential Zone - Schedule 5 (allows up to 3 levels on site) near enough to the Alamein corridor. Oakleigh is already seeing its CBD fringes being redeveloped thanks to the area zoned as C1Z with a large amount of General Residential zone adjoining it.

I've not read or come across examples on how value capture systems work in their entirety so I would be interested to hear reader's thoughts on how a value capture system could be applied on a local/regional basis to help fund any project that may come to fruition.

<h2>What about the cost?</h2>

Cost of a study: the Rowville Rail Line study cost $2 million, and quite frankly it was money well-spent and a similar amount should be allocated to look at making the Alamein line more relevant in the 21st century.

Cost of the proposal as shown above: Well that's what the study would be for! Nevertheless, here's a not-so-scientific approach at having a stab at the cost.

Taking a broader look around the country, one project that springs to mind - in terms of getting a ballpark cost figure to potentially apply to the phase 1 proposal above - is Sydney's North West Rail Link. The NWRL is a 23 kilometre line, approximately 15km of which will be underground, stretching from Epping out to Sydney's outskirts.

The total cost of the NWRL is $8.3 billion according to its <a href="http://nwrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/The-Project/Project-Overview">website</a> - underground rail, elevated rail, stations and train procurement - or better represented as a $360 million per kilometre figure.

Using the per kilometre figure from the NWRL and applying it to the 5.5km tunnel depicted in the map, that would total a smidge under $2 billion. The 5-6 kilometres of upgrade work along the existing Alamein line - primarily grade separations, upgrades to Camberwell Station and the relocation of Burwood station - would, clearly, cost a lot less on a per kilometre basis than that of the tunnels.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamein_railway_station">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

The Alamein line: time for a new purpose?

<html><body>
Following on from <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/airport-west-and-essendon-airport-auto-centricity-status-quo" target="_blank">Airport West and Essendon Airport: Auto-centricity status quo?</a>, today we're looking at a possible way to improve public transport access to the Airport West and Essendon Airport precinct.
The potential scenario as listed below centres around retrofitting an existing corridor to allow for multiple modes of public transport to use it - that is, the tram corridor which runs between Matthews Avenue and the Tullamarine Freeway through the heart of the Airport West and Essendon Airport precinct.
Currently the #59 tram terminates at Airport West shopping centre, located in the north of the precinct and there's a smattering of infrequent bus routes running along Matthews Avenue.
<iframe frameborder="0" height="350" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="https://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&amp;ll=-37.725668,144.890807&amp;spn=0.015224,0.033023&amp;t=m&amp;z=16&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.725659,144.890877&amp;panoid=koL1UnBHrAKSx5no79dCHA&amp;cbp=12,356.37,,0,-3.74&amp;source=embed&amp;output=svembed" width="100%"></iframe>
<a href="https://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&amp;ll=-37.725668,144.890807&amp;spn=0.015224,0.033023&amp;t=m&amp;z=16&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.725659,144.890877&amp;panoid=koL1UnBHrAKSx5no79dCHA&amp;cbp=12,356.37,,0,-3.74&amp;source=embed">View Larger Map</a>
At present, as shown in Google Street view above, the English St / Matthews Avenue interchange with the Tullamarine Freeway isn't the most hospitable environment for pedestrians - and note the lack of tram stop in the immediate area.
As part of the planning study which is about to kick off with the Metropolitan Planning Authority, Moonee Valley City Council and others listed as stakeholders, we are calling on the respective parties to think beyond the excellent road assets in the precinct as being solely for private vehicle use.
Melbourne's excellent road network is severely underutilised by Public Transport modes. The political hot potato - the belief that roads, and freeways, are there for the sole use of motorists - which is passed around on both sides of politics is holding Melbourne's road network back from reaching its full potential.
We need leadership. And the planning process now underway in Airport West and Essendon Airport is the perfect opportunity to right the wrongs of auto-centric development and start attacking car dependence in an area that has the dubious honor of being surrounded by freeways.
<h2>
	The focus is on buses</h2>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://mapsengine.google.com/map/embed?mid=zZQXWc1VtNDo.kbIrnFs0XGs0" width="100%"></iframe>
Prudent transport planning would suggest a tram stop should be built right near the English Street/Matthews Avenue intersection yet could also be problematic given it's also the entry and exit point for the Tullamarine Freeway.
The first order of business would be to lower the tram corridor under English Street with a new stop located underneath with access points to the north and south of English Street - just like how the new Nunawading station has street-level access points to the east and west of Springvale Road.
The second order of business would be to ensure the tram corridor has a paved surface for its entire length to allow buses to also run in the traffic-segregated corridor.
Thereafter the following bus routes could run in their own dedicated right of way mixed with existing tram services allowing the entire precinct from Airport West shopping centre in the north to Keilor Road in the south to have a rapid transport corridor to support the projected employment and mixed-use growth.
All bus routes would have a minimum 15 minute frequency throughout the day, weekends and until the last service and 10 minute frequencies, or better, in peak.
<h2>
	New primary access routes</h2>
Moonee Ponds - Tullamarine Airport
Via Mount Alexander Road, Keilor Road, Matthews Avenue tram and bus right of way, Melrose Drive.
Existing services like the combined 478/479 routes would have their frequencies dramatically expanded (there's currently only a handful a day) to ensure there is a strong, frequent and direct connection to Tullamarine Airport.
Heidelberg Station - Airport West
Via Bell Street, Tullamarine Freeway, Matthews Avenue tram and bus right of way.
Complimenting the existing 903 Smartbus this service would be direct, high frequency and connect many radial road-based and rail-based public transport routes lying to the East.
Caroline Springs - Airport West
Via Caroline Springs Boulevard, Taylors Road &amp; Keilor Plains Station, Green Gully Road, express along the Calder Freeway to the Fullarton Road exit in Airport West and Matthews Avenue tram right of way.
With the Caroline Springs terminus at the corner of Ballarat Road &amp; Caroline Springs Boulevard this route could be extended to the mooted Caroline Springs Station if built when the Melton line is electrified. This service can act as a direct and frequent connector service to the Sunbury line as well as provide a direct service to the new employment precinct in Airport West.
Footscray station - Airport West
Via Irving Street, Hopkins Street, Droop Street, Ballarat Road, Rossamond Road, Highpoint, and then run the existing route of the 406 via Cordite Avenue, Military Road, Milleara Road and then continue to Keilor Road then utilise the Matthews Avenue tram right of way
On a map this route appears to break the golden rule where deviations left, right and centre are frowned upon however given the lack of a grid road network in Melbourne's West - compared to the East - this would be the most direct route from the South and South West and like other routes on the map, it has more than one purpose.
The current 406 - which this route aims to replace - hops, skips and jumps all over Footscray and currently ends in the Milleara Shopping Centre are of Avondale Heights. With a simplified path taken through Footscray and along with further route rationalisation in the area, busses operating on this route will have quicker journey times to the south at the same time as having fast and frequent access to the new employment precinct in the North.
Melton - Airport West
Via High Street, Federation Drive, Melton Highway and Watergardens Station, express along the Calder Freeway to Fullarton road exit in Airport West and Matthews Avenue tram and bus right of way.
Arguably one of the most important routes, if implemented sooner rather than later, as Melbourne sprawls into the growth corridor that is scheduled to take place between Melton and Sydenham, new residents will have high quality and frequent Public Transport from day 1. Again, the route acts as a feeder for the Sunbury rail line in the area as well as utilises the Calder Freeway to provide rapid access into the employment precinct.
Roxburgh Park station - Essendon Fields
Via Somerton Road, Mickleham Road, Melrose Drive, Wirraway Road, English Street.
Another growth area route doubling as a station feeder and connection to the employment precinct. This like the other route to the north (see below) would connect with all other bus and tram services at Airport West shopping centre and then proceed on to Essendon Airport lands and terminate at bus stop on the eastern side of the Tullamarine Freeway.
Broadmeadows station - Essendon Fields
Via Johnstone Street, Broadmeadows Road, Mickleham Road, Melrose Drive, Wirraway Road and English Street.
Combing frequencies on this route with the Roxburgh Park station - Essendon Fields route would provide a rapid transport corridor between Airport West and Gladstone Park as well as provide solid transport access both from Broadmeadows and deeper in to the Essendon Airport/Essendon Fields site.
To finish, we'll leave you with a quote from <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentToderian" target="_blank">Brent Toderian</a>, former Chief Planner in Vancouver who recently spoke at the Planning Institute of Australia conference in Sydney.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en-gb">
	<a href="https://twitter.com/BrentToderian">@BrentToderian</a> best transportation plan is a great land use plan <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23YPC2014&amp;src=hash">#YPC2014</a> <a href="http://t.co/1kanERg3jx">pic.twitter.com/1kanERg3jx</a>
	— Kirsty Kelly (@kkplanner) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/kkplanner/statuses/444961631651377152">March 15, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Lead image credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26978304@N08/5275733532/in/photolist-93cvLY" target="_blank">Flickr</a> CC BY-SA 2.0
</body></html>

Future Public Transport Ideas

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Future Public Transport Ideas

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News