To great fanfare, the Victorian government has released its transport plan, the culmination of a process including the Eddington Report (see here and here) and steadily growing angst about Melbourne’s continually overcrowded trains, trams and freeways.
The report is indeed a huge collection of projects. While the massive east-west road tunnel didn’t get the go-ahead, there’s a tunnel under the Maribyrnong River, a new freeway bypassing Frankston, in the far south-eastern suburbs, a new rail line in the west, a rail extension in the north-east. In the medium term, part of Eddington’s rail tunnel, from Footscray in the inner west, to South Yarra in the inner south-east, is planned for 2012. To deal with the logjam at the western end of the Eastern Freeway, there are plans to grade-separate a number of intersection down the ultra-busy Hoddle Street, thus letting more vehicles through. And on it goes…
There are some easy nitpicks that can be made. One thing I immediately noticed from the glossy brochure was that just about every chapter page had a picture of a cyclist. This contrasts with the piffling amount of money to be spent on cycling – an extra $800,000 a year, increasing the cycling budget from $7.4 million to $8.3 million annually. Frankly, they should be able to find the money to bump that up fairly easily. The train buffs at Transport Textbook were amongst the first to notice that one of the rail projects seems grossly overcosted – $650 million for the Epping-South Morang train line extension, which involves duplicating a grand total of 5 kilometres of track, laying an additional 3 kilometres of track, and building one new station. The Age has expanded on the story, noting the gross discrepancy between the costs for Western Australia’s Mandurah train line, and the various rail projects in the transport plan. As the article says, the Victorian government has probably been spooked by repeated cost and schedule blowouts on public transport projects – the myki ticketing system and the Regional Fast Rail, and quoted figures on the “…and double it, just in case” principle.
Furthermore, there’s of course the view that no more freeways should be built in Melbourne, period.
But a more sophisticated critique is hinted at in Sean Carney’s column:
Even if you presume that the Government is operating with the most honourable intentions, and that the vast bulk of its grand plan is constructed, at best it is likely to provide about five years’ respite before a whole new set of transport problems emerge. That is to say, the same problems will reappear, but in a different place.
The Government continues to build new suburbs, subdividing semi-rural land, giving them few amenities beyond a few roads and then waits around for them to be fully populated before getting to the hand-wringing stage over their transport deficiencies, their dependence on private cars and their mall-based social culture.”
The Victorian government has just released an update to their Melbourne 2030 plan, which notes the continued expansion of Victoria’s population, and expands the urban growth boundaries – again – to provide sufficient land for continued low-density suburban expansion. To help support the increasingly gargantuan city, the plan proposes the establishment of six “central activities districts” – in effect, mini-CBDs in key suburbs which are supposed to provide many major services. Clearly, if these central activities districts are going to support CBD-like levels of activity, they’re going to experience CBD-like levels of congestion, and public transport is going to have to be heavily focussed on getting people to and from these centers, both locally, and possibly fast inter-center connections.
But does the transport plan reflect this in any major way? It doesn’t appear to. While Central Activities Districts get regular plugs in the Transport Plan, there doesn’t seem to be much refocusing of public transport on these centers. Instead, public transport will continue to largely focus on getting suburbanites to the CBD, and shuffling people around the inner suburbs.
But then, do the people of Melbourne’s outer suburbs particularly want to get out of their cars and pack into denser suburbs? Bob Birrell has long argued that they don’t. And with petrol prices dropping like a stone, they’re not going to be forced to in the immediate future.
I do prefer the Greens “plan for the people” although it was overambitious and never properly costed.
It’s funny that there appears to be that much rubber in the figures for building a train line – though I did get some insight with the regional fast rail. Lots went in legal fees as the department seriously mismanaged compulsory acquisition.
Overall I’m generally happy with the plan, sure it could be better but there’s something for everyone. I’m not convinced that there’s real pent-up demand for bike paths in melbourne. I think the improvements to the bike network (whihc have been far to focused on recreational links) have gone ahead of demand. I think Melburnians are too fat and lazy, and simply too far from where they work and shop, to change the driving habits of their lifetimes. Speaking as a regular bike commuter…
Wilful: there shouldn’t be much compulsory acquisition for the South Morang extension.
There’s a bloody great honking reserve there to put the line.
Not that the department won’t find a new way to stuff things up, of course…
Not all the projects are new. The Calder Highway upgrade is due to open in March (10 years after it was announced) so its inclusion in the new transport plan is opportunistic.
I was also struck by the dollar amounts mentioned. For example – $1 billion for 50 new trams. Do trams really cost $20 million each. Even if they are bigger than anything currently in use, this seems a lot of money. a quick google search has not yielded any data on the costs of previous tram purchases. Does anyone know how much has been paid for trams in the past?
without disputing any of the nitpicks above, and speaking as a non-Melburnian, the thing that strikes me in looking through the Melbourne 2030 plan, the transport plan, and the debate around it, is how much more advanced Melbourne is than other places in Australia (at least to my knowledge Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra). At least the Vic govt is giving some thought to limiting the expansion of outer outer suburbia and develop more sophisticated public transport, even if its current policies don’t fully reflect that.
James, compare your comment to Andrew Bolt’s. If you’re not a Melburnian you may not know what Mr Bolt is, in which case you are blessed.
As a regular car and train user in Melbourne I’m generally receptive to the plan. That said I can’t get past the massive amounts of money being spent on the Epping-South Morang extension.
I would like to add a couple of tid-bits, the government seriously needs to look at putting more carparks and bike lockers at train stations so people can bike or drive to the station. I mean station car parks are puny.
Secondly, we need to have train lines to places like Chadstone shopping centre. People bundle their activities when they travel. For instance I will go to work on the train, but if I want to go shopping or visit the post office then I might be better off tacking my car. Creating logical synergies in the system is crucial to getting cars off the road.
From a WA viewpoint… whoa. HOW much money for the South Morang extension? There’s a rail reserve and former rail line there and all. They’re building about the same length of Dingley Freeway for only $80 million. Whoever your transport minister is, sack him/her. We’ve got an old one we don’t use any more, you can have her if you like. She’ll get your Doncaster and Rowville lines sorted out too.
The fact that these transport plans are not really connected to each other, nor to any population study (“… an update to their Melbourne 2030 plan, which notes the continued expansion of Victoria’s population …” – oh, it notes the fact that its demographic projections are arse-up, does it?), should give rise to more concern than is apparent. Robert sounds like he’s spent all day summarising Victorian government press releases.
My favourite was the peanut who said that governments should stop pandering to people who live on the outer suburban fringes and who commute vast distances to and from work. Um, they’d be the same people who’ve voted in every government since about 1970 and voted them out again when they haven’t delivered. Bugger Morang South, when Cranbourne gets the same public transport coverage as Brunswick you’ll know that Melburnians are taking their own city seriously.
Here in Sydney, our excuse is that we’re pretty and vacuous and prepared to put up with appalling transport because a) we keep voting for the NSW Right, and b) darling, simply all the big cities have appalling public transport these days. What’s Melbourne’s excuse?
That Bolt article (linked at #5) is laughable even by Andrew’s low standards.
Yes, Andrew, because obviously Australia, a country that is largely desert and has few mountainous regions, and which uses up enormous amounts of water on industrial-scale irrigation and sustaining a population of tens of millions, has just as much water to throw around as ancient Rome, a much less water-intensive economy situated in a lush peninsula with multiple rivers fed by abundant snowfall. Good comparison.
His hypocrisy and inconsistency is also illustrated quite clearly. Just last month he wrote one of his cookie-cutter articles along the lines of “Sydney is awful and a dying city because… well, I’m actually not sure what distinguishes Sydney’s problems from those of any other large city, but the Daily Telegraph printed some photos of traffic or something so it must be true, whereas MELBOURNE IS THE PERFECT CITY AND HEAVEN ON EARTH”. Today’s article, meanwhile, complains about the fact that Melbourne has precisely the same infrastructure problems that Sydney does. I’m astonished that anyone continues to take him seriously.
To paraphrase Sleepless in Seattle – I want what Lynne Kosky’s on. In a normal world – isolated from Victorian government coffers – it’s cheaper to lay railway line than it is to build freeway. However although improving public transport is a motherhood statement, it ain’t going to happen unless it increases productivity.
The Victorian government doesn’t put a price on liveability.
Andrew E: Most people in the outer suburbs don’t commute vast distances to work.
And there’s very simple reasons why Brunswick can sustain better public transport than Cranbourne – there’s several times the population density, the roads are completely saturated with traffic, and there’s a massive student population.
None of these factors apply in Cranbourne.
The plan has been issued from a political bunker. Again, politics is really not delivering what people want.
From the “Message from the Ministers”:
But it does not deliver this.
Issues:
* No meaningful public consultation process. The majority of public feedback from the Eddington report has been glossed over or ignored.
* Well over half the total budget $20b of the $38b is still going to roads and freeways
* No carbon accounting or analysis of carbon outputs per tranport mode/journey
* Ongoing development of the freeway network – through very sensitive green belts (the Greensborough Templestowe connection – pure RACV/Roads lobby agenda
* A secret process – even a lot of the Department of Transport were kept in the dark and only found out about its contents when it was released.
* No long term goals set – passenger journeys by mode, carbon emissions reduction, access to public transport, km of bike paths, km of railway. If you can’t measure it you can’t manage it
* No significant budget increase for bike paths and routes, and no specific commitments, despite the fact that more bikes were sold last year than cars in Australia. $100m over 3 years would have been barely adequate; they have committed to a paltry $100m over 10 years – this will just buy some paint for lane markings
* The real net cost to the economy of roads is not measured by Treasury, yet they continue to claim that “public transport costs more” – when the reverse is the case
* No acknowledgment that more roads and freeways equate to more cars. Remember CityLink was going to “solve all Melbourne’s transport needs for the future”? No the South Eastern freeway/carpark is being widened for the second time since ($2b)
* The rail tunnel is supposed to “provide more capacity for future train lines to connect in” yet this is not supported by evidence, and none of these train lines are actually on the drawing board (e.g. Rowville, Doncaster). Connex wants the tunnel, not the people of Melbourne.
* Road tunnels through Labor/Green marginal seats have been omitted, but tunnels through safe Labor seats have not.
This is the same crap process as the government’s water strategy. Consult with industry and big business behind close doors, ignore the wisdom and needs of the public, and launch a half baked reactive plan along with an expensive (full Newspaper page) advertising.
Overall, 3/10. At least its not 95% roads as previous plans have been.
If you live in Melbourne, contact your local MP and ask him to represent your wants and needs.
Bird of Paradox: What’s MacTiernan up to these days anyway? I wouldn’t be surprised if the Perth to Melbourne exodus increases by an order of magnitude over the next few months, as Canal Colin starts to sink in.
It’s possible the cost estimates are a function of being spooked by myki and fast rail, but I take a more cynical view. The department hates the idea of the South Morang extension. Always has. They’re picking figures out of their posterior in the hope the cost will be so high the government won’t build it, and the minister is stupid enough not to ask questions.
It’s a win/win for the people at transport. Most likely the extension doesn’t get built, which is what they want. If it does, at a quarter the cost they quoted they get to claim that it is their brilliant cost savings that done it.
Andos: MacTiernan’s now the oppposition spokesman for the stuff she used to do. She should’ve been opposition leader, but that went to Eric Ripper, and the deputy position went to a guy who damn near lost to an independent in the Perth equivalent of Altona. Factional deals, ya gotta love ‘em.
How on earth has Myki cost $1.4 billion? I can’t find the info on our Smartrider, but I’m sure it didn’t cost anywhere near that. We built a dirty great big railway for not much more than that, and Smartrider only took about a year to get working (and maybe another six months to get all the bugs out).
And yes, the trickle over east will turn to a torrent as soon as the mining boom goes down and the reality of the new govt sets in. I’ve finished uni just at the wrong time to be making money in WA, so I can see myself in Melbourne before too long.
FS: why does the department hate the South Morang extension?
If I remember correctly we in WA paid cash for our new railway – that’s why it looks cheap. It was planned to borrow for it but because it was running over budget and we had truckloads of mining royalties coming in we just used the windfall to pay for the line – minus the interest payments it could be said to have been completed almost on budget. If the Victorian government hasn’t got the cash and has to borrow for its projects, they will cost a lot more.
The less said about our ex-transport minister the better ……
Rob, the department hates all extensions. They throw the budget figures out – Treasury gets narky. Not many people travel to points along the line, so the extension just means the train travels further, with fewer people per km, and therefore less economically. Because it takes longer you need more rolling stock, and more employees, and if it pushes the city end closer to capacity it lowers reliability and requires you to timetable more services. From a purely budgetary perspective, it is much better if the people drive to the end of the line, and then travel from there.
Robert, I don’t know. But they do. Basically they seem to have a conditioned opposition to all the extensions on rail lines to the outer suburbs.
I went to a talk by some senior bureaucrat praising Eddington’s multibillion dollar tunnels to the skies where he dismissed the idea of the Roweville line on the basis “you’d have to build seven bridges”. As if that would make it remotely as expensive as kilometers of tunnels, or for that matter eastlink, which involved quite a few more tunnels than that.
When South Morang came up he developed a pained expression and said something about how he supposed it would be built “eventually”. It looked like he hoped to have retired long before. Russ’s theory might be right, but I can think of others, none of them all that convincing.
FS, it isn’t entirely a theory, despite my facetiousness. I was at a budget briefing a few years ago, where it was explained that extensions generally add to “on-going” costs, in a manner that implied that this was very bad. The budget is fixed by Treasury, and they like to maintain spending from year to year. Therefore, capital works with ongoing costs lower the department’s ability to undertake capital works in future years, all things being equal. You’ll notice that none of the monetary figures quoted in the VTP actually mention changes to transport subsidies.
“Therefore, capital works with ongoing costs lower the department’s ability to undertake capital works in future years, all things being equal.”
No wonder there has been SFA infrastructure spending if that is their rationale. By that logic no capital works would ever be undertaken because they will inevitably lead to increased ongoing costs.
The exception of course being roads where the costs are never too high to justify the expenditure no matter how small the benefits may be.
I suspect a lot of road spending is hidden in the $650 million cost for the South Morang extension
My Rant