Article: Liberal seats get crossing priority

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Liberal seats get crossing priority

Liberal seats get crossing priority
Deborah Gough
June 5, 2011

A TRANSPORT Department list of the most dangerous railway level crossings has been ignored by the Baillieu government, which has instead directed millions of dollars towards upgrading crossings in Liberal-held seats.

The departmental list ranks all level crossings in the state, from most dangerous to least dangerous, using a nationally recognised formula. But just two level crossings in the top 10 ''priority upgrade'' list have attracted government funding: Springvale Road, Springvale, and Mitcham Road, Mitcham. Construction work on both is due to begin by 2013. In its recent budget announcements, the Baillieu government allocated funds for upgrades at nine level crossings - eight of which are in Liberal-held seats. One is ranked 223rd on the department's list.

Only the Springvale Road crossing is in Labor territory.

The upgrades will separate train lines from roads using bridges and overpasses.

The Coalition government promised during last year's election to spend $379 million on level crossings in its first term, but only $16.5 million is allocated for 2011-12. The Coalition has already had to defend itself against claims of pork-barrelling on level-crossing funding. Last month, it was revealed the crossing at New Street, Brighton, would be reopened because the local MP, the Minister for Tourism and Major Events, Louise Asher, had made it an election promise. New Street is 223rd on the dangerous crossings list.

While New Street is the lowest ranked crossing on the government's budget funding list, others are also low down the departmental list. These include:

■Scoresby Road (48) and Mountain Highway (87), Bayswater, held by Liberal MP Heidi Victoria.

■Burke Road, Glen Iris (67), held by Liberal minister Michael O'Brien.

■Mitcham Road (2) and Rooks Road (124), both in Mitcham, and Blackburn Road, Blackburn (17), held by Liberal MP Dee Ryall.

The government has listed two crossings - Main Road, St Albans (4), and Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena, (79), both in Labor-held seats, as ''priority projects'' but neither has received funding.

Academic and long-time campaigner on level crossings William Guzman slammed the new list saying the government should follow the ALCAM list because it was a fair and apolitical selection process.

''That list should be the bible and here we have numbers 48 and 87 are going to be done before number four,'' he said.

Opposition transport spokeswoman Fiona Richardson described the Coalition's list of ''priority'' crossings as a ''straight-up political rort''.

Transport Minister, Terry Mulder, defended the crossing choices. He said the government was delivering its election promises.

He defended the 124th-ranked Rooks Road crossing, saying it was the next station up from Mitcham Road and it made economic and engineering sense to fix them together.

Burke Road was one of only four level crossings that also carried tram traffic, making it heavily congested, he said.

Mr Mulder said Murrumbeena Road was added to the list after Leader Newspapers' readers voted it Melbourne's worst for congestion in an RACV online poll.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/liberal-seats-get-crossing-priority-20110604-1fmca.html#ixzz1OKg9kQsW

[#Metro]

What's new? Rolling out the pork barrel is nothing new.

[Gazza]

Does priority necessarily have to be about safety though. A level crossing is only as dangerous as the driver going through it wants it to be.

To me, the main motivation for grade sepping should be so rail gets a 100% uninterrupted right of way.

[somebody]

Does priority necessarily have to be about safety though. A level crossing is only as dangerous as the driver going through it wants it to be.

To me, the main motivation for grade sepping should be so rail gets a 100% uninterrupted right of way.

They already do don't they?  Rail has absolute priority over road at level crossings, although there is the odd one which requires someone to do something to activate the crossing.

[Gazza]

But there are situations, such as the Dandenong line (or is it the Frankston line?) where they have a limit in terms of the number of tph they can run since it reaches a point where the boom gates are down all the time basically.

To me, it is just better practice not to have level crossings.

[somebody]

But there are situations, such as the Dandenong line (or is it the Frankston line?) where they have a limit in terms of the number of tph they can run since it reaches a point where the boom gates are down all the time basically.

To me, it is just better practice not to have level crossings.

Pretty expensive in some places though.  Spending $20m on a road bridge in places with 4 trains/day is a bit of overkill.

[Gazza]

Indeed, I wouldn't advocate it in places like that either.
But certainly, if Melbourne has a long term goal to run its existing system more like a metro (we're talking better than even 10 minute frequency) then it realistically needs to be grade seppped.
As a general rule, high frequency passenger services should all be grade separated IMO.

[Golliwog]

But there are situations, such as the Dandenong line (or is it the Frankston line?) where they have a limit in terms of the number of tph they can run since it reaches a point where the boom gates are down all the time basically.

To me, it is just better practice not to have level crossings.

Pretty expensive in some places though.  Spending $20m on a road bridge in places with 4 trains/day is a bit of overkill.

That said though, I would hope that any new road/rail crossings are built grade sperated where ever possible, even if the frequency isn't expected to be high. You never know when that may change.

[somebody]

That said though, I would hope that any new road/rail crossings are built grade sperated where ever possible, even if the frequency isn't expected to be high. You never know when that may change.

I can live with most of the level crossing on the network in SEQ, except for the ones on the Caboolture line.  A number of these have little alternative and high train frequencies.

[colinw]

On the Beenleigh Line, something really needs to be done about the Coopers Plains level crossing, and probably Warrigal Road as well.

Warrigal Road is important because it impacts a high frequency BUZ route.

The lesser level crossings on the Beenleigh line are all fine as they are.

[somebody]

On the Beenleigh Line, something really needs to be done about the Coopers Plains level crossing, and probably Warrigal Road as well.

Warrigal Road is important because it impacts a high frequency BUZ route.

The lesser level crossings on the Beenleigh line are all fine as they are.

Ok, I can accept that one.  Beams Rd may still be a higher priority though.

[SurfRail]

On the Beenleigh Line, something really needs to be done about the Coopers Plains level crossing, and probably Warrigal Road as well.

Warrigal Road is important because it impacts a high frequency BUZ route.

The lesser level crossings on the Beenleigh line are all fine as they are.

With the exception of the one at Beaudesert Road, which could and should be closed immediately due to the overpass (but is apparently slated as a Cross River Rail approach works project and so won't happen until then).