Melbourne needs two new rail tunnels by 2035, council says

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ResearchRMIT/status/987126224295211008

• Tweet

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Melbourne needs two new rail tunnels by 2035, council says

Melbourne needs two more underground rail tunnels by 2035 to cope with exploding population growth, the City Council has proposed.

It also says trams need road and traffic light priority throughout the city – as in Zurich – to cope with the demand.

Melbourne City Council has put forward its vision to expand the city's public transport network, as it prepares for an extra 116,000 people taking trains into the city in the morning peak by 2031 – almost double the present number.

There is room for improvement, the council's discussion paper concedes. Trains are overcrowded, trams are impossibly slow and tram stops are poorly designed and cramped.

Nicolas Frances Gilley, the council's transport portfolio chairman, said it was time to think seriously about radically expanding Melbourne's metro system.

"We know that as soon as the Melbourne Metro Tunnel is finished, it will relieve pressure on the City Loop, but it will be full to capacity by the time it comes on," he said.

"What we need to be doing right now is identify where are the new rail corridors. We need to start thinking about these new routes."

The council's fully fledged transport strategy will be released later this year.

What the council really wants is another two underground rail tunnels to be built by 2035.

By 2030, Melbourne Metro 2 – a tunnel linking Newport to Clifton Hill via Fishermans Bend – could be built, the document said.

This should be treated as a major priority, according to a research paper by Melbourne University's John Stone and RMIT's Ian Woodcock, which was commissioned by the council.

The new tunnel would quadruple passenger capacity for the Werribee line corridor, improve east-west accessibility and deliver benefits to those in the south-west and north-east, the experts found.

If planning on this project were to start this year, the line could be operational by 2028 or earlier, they said.

Melbourne Metro 3 – a second airport rail line linking to Southern Cross, via Arden Macaulay and Maribyrnong – could be built by 2035, the council paper said.

The eastern end of the this line could extend to north-east Richmond and beyond to Kew, Doncaster and Ringwood, filling a gap in the heavy rail network.

By 2028, there will be as many trips to Tullamarine Airport as there are to Heathrow Airport today, the paper says. Three rail lines currently service Heathrow.

Mr Frances Gilley has also called for Melbourne's tram network to be "supercharged", by giving trams dedicated road space and priority at traffic lights.

"We want to get people in from the suburbs ... there are trams there, but people don't want to get on them, they get into cars instead, because the trams are slow and packed," said Mr Frances Gilley.

The council is looking to Zurich, where trams spend only 6 per cent of their time at traffic lights. Melbourne's trams spend 17 per cent of their time at lights.

Tram stops in the city might need to be redesigned so that pedestrians didn't have to cross busy intersections to reach a stop in the middle of the road,  said Mr Frances Gilley.

The council suggested that in the future, technology could enable vehicles to be alerted when trams were approaching and clear the tracks.

The document said buses should also be given more priority on roads, and electric buses should be rolled out, with charging capabilities at stops along the route.

• Tweet

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Second cross-city tunnel trumps Suburban Rail Loop: experts

A powerful coalition of transport groups, councils and planning academics is urging the Andrews government to prioritise a long-promised rail tunnel connecting Melbourne’s north and west suburbs over its ambitious Suburban Rail Loop.

Among them is the RACV, which wants the government to throw its support behind building the Melbourne Metro 2 project.



But the government said it was pressing on with the Suburban Rail Loop, after it took the plan to last year's election.

The Metro 2 underground line was long-expected to be the follow-up to the Metro Tunnel, a new rail link to open in 2025.

The Metro 2 project, to cost between $12 billion and $20 billion, would create a new underground line between Newport and Clifton Hill.

It would see trains running to the fledgling suburb of Fishermans Bend, where 80,000 residents and 80,000 workers are expected by 2050.

First floated in 2012, Metro 2 was confirmed in a government masterplan for Fishermans Bend last year.

But three months before last year’s state election, Premier Daniel Andrews revealed the more ambitious $50 billion “Suburban Rail Loop”.

A hit with voters, the project was conceived in secret within an agency called Development Victoria. The state’s transport bureaucracy knew nothing of the plan until moments before Mr Andrews posted about it on Facebook.

A range of influential transport and planning groups say while that project has merit, it is at risk of knocking out the more important Metro 2 project.

The RACV’s Peter Kartsidimas said Metro 2 should be a high priority because it would provide much-needed relief on the Mernda and Werribee rail lines.

“No single project will solve the enormous pressure population growth will put on Melbourne,” he said, but the second metro project would provide far more trains where they were badly needed.

Influential transport think tank the Rail Futures Institute also backed Metro 2. “The Suburban Rail Loop has a hefty price tag and it would be unfortunate if it were to crowd out a whole range of other good projects,” secretary Bill Russell said.

Transport Infrastructure Minister Jacinta Allan was asked why the Suburban Rail Loop was the government's focus when so many transport experts said it would add less benefit than the cheaper Metro 2.

A spokeswoman for Ms Allan said: "We’re getting on with the massive pipeline of election commitments we promised Victorians to get them where they need to go safer and sooner.”

The councils to benefit most from Metro 2's construction, Melbourne, Port Phillip and Hobsons Bay, all said it should top the government’s transport agenda.

Lord Mayor Sally Capp said Metro 2 was badly needed, because the cross-city rail link would connect "universities and municipalities, running from the growth suburbs of Werribee in the west to Mernda in the North, via the central city and Fishermens Bend".

Port Phillip mayor Dick Gross said Metro 2 was crucial to Fishermans Bend's success. “If they don’t get it in quickly they’re really undermining [it]."

He said the Metro 2 project shouldn't be pushed aside in favour of the Suburban Rail Loop because while parts of it were crucial – "like Monash and Box Hill" – other parts weren't.

Hobsons Bay mayor Jonathon Marsden said Metro 2 was crucial to providing an alternative to “choke points” in Melbourne’s inner-west around Yarraville and Footscray.

The government’s Infrastructure Victoria in 2016 said planning should be underway for Metro 2 because extra train services would soon be needed.

Melbourne University transport lecturer John Stone said the Suburban Rail Loop's “enthusiastic reception” showed Melburnians wanted better public transport.

He said, while the real choice was between continuing to build toll roads and improving public transport, that it was “frightening” the $50 billion Suburban Rail Loop was conceived without the transport bureaucracy. “It’s no way to run transport planning.”

RMIT urban policy professor Jago Dodson said the Metro 2 project was urgently needed because Fishermans Bend risked having no heavy rail connection.

The Public Transport Users Association's Daniel Bowen said Metro 2 was more worthwhile because it allowed more trains to run to Werribee and Mernda, relieving train overcrowding in rapidly growing areas.

The Committee for Melbourne’s Clive Dwyer said Victoria needed a carefully considered transport plan, “rather than a series of one-off infrastructure announcements”, to drive certainty around planning and population settlement.

• Tweet

[SurfRail]

• Tweet

[#Metro]

^Wow, Victoria is going for a massive debt party!

Everyone is invited.

$50 billion here, $20 billion there, you shake the cash all about.

You do the hokey cokey and you turn about

That's what massive debt is all about...

• Tweet

[ozbob]

Melbourne and Sydney are going big now.  If we don't start soon in brisBANE going to be left right behind ...

• Tweet

[aldonius]

Interest rates have never been lower; hard to make the argument that there's ever been a better time to borrow.

• Tweet

[#Metro]

Interest rates have never been lower; hard to make the argument that there's ever been a better time to borrow.

It still doesn't justify construction if the benefits don't outweigh costs, or even if they do, a better project exists that could be funded instead.

What are the BCR and NPVs for the suburban loop,

How does this stack up against alternative modes?

Did they do a proper mode choice analysis?

• Tweet

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/rwillingham/status/1178836258841251840

• Tweet

[SurfRail]

You know, I'm less and less convinced that economic analyses of these kinds of projects are worth anything anymore - particularly when they are competing against a virtually unlimited mandate to spend big on roads, including (by the same metrics) very unproductive roads.

• Tweet

[#Metro]

"Experts are the voters."

Well, if that is the approach, why have a public service to analyse and advise at all?

It is bad form to dispense with rigour for expediency, especially when numbers like $20 and $50 billion are being thrown around.

They didn't do mode choice analysis for either Melbourne Airport rail or this orbital.

Perhaps that is the attitude - taxpayer money is just a number and limitless.

What's next? Free beer and petrol for everyone if you vote for party X?

This sort of approach is bad for the public service and bad for taxpayers.

• Tweet

[Stillwater]

These days Governments can borrow money for infrastructure at rates approaching 1.5 per cent -- and they can lock that in for 10 years or so.  I wonder what were the interest rate calculations used to determine BCRs for major projects at the time the Business Cases were done four or five years ago?  Would a recalculation of the numbers make big public transport infrastructure a better economic proposition to bitumen and concrete roads?  And, can we affirm that the economic and environmental cost of carbon emissions from vehicles using the roads over their economic life are included in the BCR calculations?  That might alter some of the relative dynamics when we consider one project against another.

• Tweet

[Gazza]

But Metro 2 wasn't even taken to an election!

• Tweet

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> EDITORIAL We need Metro 2 and outer rail loop. Both projects should go ahead

After generations of only incremental developments to Melbourne’s public transport network, finally this city is getting what it needs. Dangerous rail crossings are being removed, vital rail extensions and central underground link systems are being built, and even more is planned for suburban areas. This is clever and sophisticated planning, and not before time.

On the table are two more proposals for railway ring loops or link systems. The one that Premier Daniel Andrews revealed before last year’s election was visionary, logical and feasible: a huge outer rail ring route from Cheltenham, through Monash University in Clayton, Box Hill, Fawkner, Sunshine and Werribee.

The second, dubbed Melbourne Metro 2, is an underground rail route through inner-northern suburbs, linking Clifton Hill with a new station at Fitzroy, the vast future station at Parkville, then proceeding via Flagstaff, Fishermans Bend and under the Yarra River to Newport. This inner-northern route is just as important as the outer loop. It should be given the green light to proceed through proper planning, costing and construction.

Melbourne needs both of these projects. It can afford both and, properly executed, it is entirely possible to begin building both.

The Metro 2 route is a coherent adjunct to the overall network. It would provide a vital, diagonal cross-city link from the south-western suburbs to the north-east of this sprawling city. The importance of its connection through the Parkville medical and university precinct cannot be underestimated.

The outer rail ring would provide commonsense lateral movements in suburban areas, easing congestion and cutting travel times tens of thousands of commuters who do not work in the city but regularly travel north-south or east-west. The caution is that developments of this order need to be staged to avoid undue pressure on either the labour market or the availability (and, therefore, the cost) of construction machinery and equipment. Staging is also important to minimise disruption to the city’s daily movements and amenity.

Mr Andrews has not ruled out proceeding with Metro 2, but he has intimated that the inner-north route is not of primary importance at this stage. He has cited reasonable concerns about resources and cost pressures. But unless the current Parkville project is configured now, while it is under construction, to cater for a future inner-northern loop connection, there will be significant, additional, but entirely preventable, costs and disruption. So far, construction of the current underground Metro project has caused relatively minor disruptions – a remarkable feat, considering the size of this project.

The outer rail loop is tentatively estimated to cost $50 billion. The Metro 2 would cost $20 billion. These estimates might seem substantial, but the option of doing nothing is problematic. Mr Andrews should move with the momentum. Now is the time to plan, schedule, commit and, eventually, build both of these important tracts of rail infrastructure.

Greater Melbourne is expected to add 1 million residents in the next eight years and at least a further million in the following 15 years. At the same time, the population of the City of Melbourne is expected to more than double by 2042. Interest rates are at record lows. The state has a AAA-credit rating from international rating agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s.

Melbourne should proceed with both projects, though the government must be rigorous in doing so, for costs can rise sharply if not properly managed.

• Tweet

[#Metro]

$70 billion.

Large projects like these tend to increase in cost over time, usually by factors of 1.5 - 2.

So we are looking more at $100 billion realistically.

'And it can afford both'. A questionable statement.

No alternatives or feasibility analysis given. And I take it that the rail loop didn't pass though the transport department either? Red flag.

Cost Underestimation in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?
By Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm, and Søren Buhl
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6604.pdf

• Tweet

[timh]

$70 billion.

Large projects like these tend to increase in cost over time, usually by factors of 1.5 - 2.

So we are looking more at $100 billion realistically.

'And it can afford both'. A questionable statement.

No alternatives or feasibility analysis given. And I take it that the rail loop didn't pass though the transport department either? Red flag.

Cost Underestimation in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?
By Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm, and Søren Buhl
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6604.pdf

$100bn is a ludicrously high number for a transport project for one city. That's almost as much as the current projections for the cost of HSR for Brisbane-Syd-Mel, and that's a ridiculous pie in the sky project.

If a lot of that money would be federal (which is suspect it would be), a lot of it would be better spent spread among projects for other cities (like Brisbane perhaps??)

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

• Tweet

[Gazza]

These estimates seem way too high and I can never understand.

How is MM2 Costing over triple that of CRR?

• Tweet