The People Plan – The Greens’ answer to public transport
Today the Greens just released a public transport plan. I imagine that posts will come through from the others but I took this opportunity to evaluate this plan.
What anyone needs to be wary of in a political plan is that there will be some of the ribbon-cutting effect – covered in Riccardo’s excellent Training Track series.
I will go through all of the Train and Tram suggestions – comment are welcome – I am interested to see what other people’s views are on this.
Trains
Footscray to NM sextuplication
The only reason I would do this is for a set for the V/Lines to go down – not really necessary with the Bunbury St Tunnel, but I seem to remember that there is not enough room on the reservation for six tracks (if anyone is sure comment please)
Upfield redirected to Parkville and MC
A good idea. Has been discussed by Riccardo and Phin when EWLNA was coming out.
Doncaster – Parkville
A good way to link up Doncaster to the system as there is no more CBD room elsewhere.
South Yarra – Southern Cross
Segregating the Sandringham line is useful, and someone has put some thought as they recommend using the space under SC to terminate, but then again they also recommend a tunnel under the Yarra River – not the best idea
Rowville
Needed. No further comment
Doncaster
Another needed line to a suburb that struggles with public transport.
Airport via Essendon
I fully support a airport link, and this is certainly an option, but I wouldn’t call this the “most direct option” or the best option either. Phin has posted in detail about his rerouting of Upfield across Craigieburn to the airport, and I would support that route over this.
Epping to Mernda and Epping North
Nice to see that someone has the initiative to do these in the near future.
Sunshine – Broadmeadows via Albion – Jacana
I would rather keep this route to diesel only, as it is the only current non-spark path to the north of Victoria
Tarneit and Point Cook
I wonder if sueglossy works for the Greens? I don’t mind Tarneit, but I don’t think it is of the top priority. The Greens add as a sidenote Point Cook, but don’t mention the spur line needed, which could be a shuttle from Laverton if capacity wasn’t there (which it isn’t at current)
Mornington, Cranbourne E, Pakenham Lakes, Calder Park and Caroline Springs
All of these I would support sparking, but wouldn’t Sunbury and Ravenhall be better termini? Mornington I feel would be better as a shuttle, but a ‘connects with every 2nd train’, not a Stony Point.
Upfield – Craigieburn
Can’t be done. This section is controlled by ARTC, whose track is unsparkable as they want to investigate stacking on their tracks.
Belgrave, Lilydale, Hurstbridge, Altona duplication
I’m fine with Belgrave, Lilydale and Altona being duplicated, but I see no point in duplicating past Eltham.
Triplicate Ringwood – Box Hill
Triplication isn’t necessarily a good idea, even though Ringwood has the sidings for the peak directional trains that have nowhere to go. I would rather the money that would be spent on this go to quadding all the way to Box Hill, as then a good two tier service can be run.
Trams
Docklands – Fishy Bend – Port Melbourne
Certainly the Fisherman’s Bend area needs a tram and can easily get one by rerouting a Flinders St tram, but this is a seriously indirect route and the later part serves an area already well served by trams.
112 via Park St to Domain
This piece of work is certainly necessary, but I wouldn’t go with the Greens’ implied funneling into the Uni routes.
Southbank – Moorabbin via Kings Way and Nepean Hwy
I would keep Kings Way clear for cars, as there aren’t any places of patronage there that aren’t served by the St Kilda Rd routes, but doing the Nepean Hwy down to Moorabbin is a good idea.
Richmond – Southbank via Swan St, Alexandra Av and City Rd
This is a route that the Greens claim better serves the Southbank area, but Southbank is already served well by Flinders St, Uni trams (especially the 1) and the 55, 112, 96 and 109. Putting trams back on Swan St is something I would never do.
North Melbourne – North Richmond via Victoria Pde
Requires little work and would be a good investment.
North Melbourne – Brunswick via old Upfield line and 55
Fills in the gaps created by Upfield being rerouted to the Uni, and would be a useful shuttle, but I would stop it at Jewell.
Footscray – Docklands – SX
This is a missing link in our system, but I can’t see it having heavy patronage, as Footscray – SX is better served by trains, Docklands – SX is walking distance, so the only patronage is Footscray to Docklands passengers.
Caulfield – Heidelberg via Burke Rd
Discussed by phin, but Ivanhoe is a more suitable terminus as far as I am concerned.
Heidelberg – Essendon mainly via Bell St
Ambivalent. Could work, but I am not sure
Doncaster – Deakin Burwood via Tram Rd and Box Hill
I would prefer extending the Balwyn tram to Doncaster and then Box Hill to this.
Moonee Ponds – Clifton Hill via mainly Brunswick Rd
Again, it might work, although running it on Park St instead of Brunswick Rd seems a bit worthless
Carlton – Kew
Not sure that it is worth converting
Caulfield – Clayton
My preferred route for Chadstone’s tram line is via the East Malvern tram.
75 to Ferntree Gully via Knox
I would probably only extend this to Knox.
Maribyrnong – Sunshine
I don’t really see the point in connecting Highpoint to Sunshine as Footscray is closer and once the 82 is rerouted to something like Phin’s plan, I can’t see why Sunshine would offer a better route.
Maribyrnong – East Keilor
I would do this.
Tram to Rail extensions
96 to Elsternwick – No – Illogical extension as far as I can see
6 to Ashburton – Yes
3 to East Malvern – Yes and to Chadstone
8 to Hartwell – Yes but poss. only to Tooronga
86 to South Morang – Yes but maybe too long a route?
112 to Reservoir – Yes
19 to Fawkner – Yes
55 to Glenroy – No – leave as is
What a long first post! As I said above, comments are more than welcome.
Calembeena
Space through Footscray (the station itself) is incredibly tight. But if you shove them through Bunbury St it might work. How to deal with the freights is of course another question.
Tarneit (sorry to have to say) is going up fairly fast and needs something. Not a rail line though, just a very efficient bus network.
Trams – they’ve stolen lots of my ideas!
Route 8 to Hartwell won’t work. The hill down to the railway line and freeway is too steep, and up again on the other side is narrow as well. I looked very hard at it because getting a bus service to that section of Toorak Road is difficult (ie it gives either a fairly useless route or one that duplicates other routes).
The section from Upfield to Somerton is not the ARTC’s. For a train to get from that line to the BG suburban lines it must cross the SG track at grade, hence the issues with putting overhead there.
Many of those tram extensions have little to no logic in them. I see the point of extending present routes which terminate in poor locations, but the idea of completely new street tramway routes in middle/outer suburbs is silly, especially in places where there is not even a proper bus service.
I have just finished arguing about a tram from Doncaster to Box Hill at this link
Oops, that link should be this, not the one provided above.
With regards to the proposed Moonee Ponds-Clifton Hill tram, it seems to terminate in the middle of nowhere.
Wouldn’t it be rather handy if it terminated on the Craigieburn/proposed airport train line?
Thanks, MJJA, Somebody and Robert.
One of the things a political party probably most needs for their PT policies is a gunzel (not derogatory this time) to go through and say whether a project “could work” as there are some things only a gunzel would care about.
Sorry about that. I probably picked up the factoid about Upfield – Craigieburn on RailPage (not further explanation needed.)
As far as I can see, the reason why the Moonee Ponds – CH tram looks like it stops in the middle of nowhere is because the lines signify additions and existing infrastructure to the network, the idea being that the tram WILL terminate at Moonee Ponds station.
Calembeena
[...] which aims to give a detailed analysis of transport issues from all sorts of points of view such as planning and logistics. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on the website and would encourage anyone [...]
Excellent post and analysis Calembeena
It’s good to see the Greens have come out and positively stated their belief that network extensions are worth investing in, but disappointing as you say that its all ribbon cutting and much less discussion of service improvements and minor hardware improvements like streetscape layouts, improving pedshed access, interchanges and so on.
Agree with SITWWW comments that you can’t really justify a tram where the existing bus service is mediocre at best. You can probably justify it where the trams terminates in the middle of nowhere (keep in mind Mees background in Very Public SOlution – that some of these middle of nowhere terminuses were the edge of the urban area when they were built and it didn’t seem so unusual back then).
I won’t rehash earlier posts but a 48 to Doncaster, 3 to Chadstone and a tidied up Airport West terminus all seem fairly reasonable, and I would extend 70 down Elgar Rd to Deakin Burwood.
But work on the bus services in these areas first.
I’m going to do a post on ‘legacy rail’ shortly and look at whether the Upfield-Somerton rail line has any real use or is it a distraction. Several options, none of them real winners, present themselves.
One is as a Vline access corridor. This takes country trains onto this lightly used line but then restricts the option to improve Upfield services, and means that while the Vline services do not get in the way of Broadmeadows line services, they will equally suffer from never having there speed improved as it is a slow line.
Another is as a suburban extension, potentially taking the burden of Roxborough Park and Cragieburn commuter services away from the Broadmeadows line. Assuming the single-track blockage is also fixed, you are still left with a very expensive project for little real benefit. I see no evidence that the Cragieburn-Broadmeadows corridor is not coping, or that there is demand for travel from Upfield to Cragieburn (that couldn’t be handled by a bus).
Both these projects assume a flyover or dive built under the Standard Gauge, restoration of the track and in the second option, duplication and electrification.
Phin’s option at least ignored the presence of the Somerton line and proposed a different terminal use of the Upfield line, one that might also work with better Upfield-City services, and could also tie in to the Broadmeadows line by having an interchange with it on the way to the Airport.
Conclusion (and I would like to write more on this): avoid the distraction of legacy rail corridors. Some of them are just plain not useful any more.
Upfield-Somerton particularly suffers relevance depravation not just from the main Essendon Route, but also from the Albion route, which is likely to have a future.
Though Rowville suffers from a dearth of public transport wouldn’t light rail be better along that route? 99% of the patronage would be as a shuttle one stop to Monash Clayton then into very low density industry along Wellington Rd and suburbia past there – is it the lack of any light rail to connect to it?
Thanks Riccardo and Michael.
Riccardo, the Upfield – Airport line is IMHO the best use for that line although it is a shame that there is no express service there (not that it’s needed, look at Heathrow: good service even at the terminus of a stops-all-stations line).
I quite like the idea of segregating V/Lines, interstates and freight wherever possible – thanks to future planning a long time ago, these routes do exist (but could be more efficient by being duplicated DG under Metrol control rather than ARTC – then we can put as many regionals down as we want) consisting of Bunbury St, Albion-Jacana, and Brooklyn.
Michael, I think that you would be surprised at how much patronage Rowville would get – not just from the City of Knox but also areas like Mulgrave whose existing train users mainly park in the paddock at Huntingdale.
Calembeena
Hi All,
Looks like a nice little site you’ve got here guys – and Hi to Phin – I presume it’s the Phin of Melb Uni extraction….
Anyway, while the Green’s People Plan and site is a good one-
It’s relatively easy to draw up your wish list of transport. It’s prioritising it in a constrained budget and declining economy with other political pressures that gets difficult.
But I do agree that the Ribbon-cutting problem tends to get in the way.
I quite liked the “train clearways” plan I think they had going in Sydney(?). None in and of themselves glamorous/ribbon cutting, but as an overall “project” could be made out as a big-ticket item (despite really being many incremental upgrades).
A lot of work could be done under these PR wrappings, I think.
Yes the clearway program in Sydney, while a capital program, is not very sexy which suggests that some thought has gone into it.
Of course the program has its detractors, including on Railpage, I have been supportive of the program in principle while not looking at the specifics of any particular element of the program.
For example, the turnback at Homebush would never convince someone to change their vote or applaud the local pollie. Courageous in the Sir Humphrey sense, and dreamt up within the bureaucracy rather than the party room.
My as-yet-incomplete manifesto for the Dandenong-Pakenham line would have a whole lot of similar, very small upgrades rather than dig a big whole, as Eddington and many posters on other sites might be inclined to do.
The small upgrades could be as simple as upgrading turnouts to 80km/h, relaying some sidings, or changing platform faces. The single largest element for my manifesto would be a quad tracking from Westall (up of the old platform) to the Springvale level crossing, a project which has since been announced in the Budget. Obviously young Lynne K, for all my bagging of her, has been reading my blog!
That was dig a big hole, not big whole
Michael D, thanks for your post and welcome. Yes the Greens need to frame their promise in a way that goes beyond concrete and steel, and talks about services people would use.
I would be far more impressed if any political party promised in terms of say “Melbourne to anywhere in Rowville, every 5 minutes, 18 hours a day, only 45 minutes journey time” – the choice of technology and so on being secondary.
that raises an interesting point.
A bit off-topic, but it’s my post.
Riccardo, would you use metro stock for Rowville even though the journey time is closer to 45 minutes rather than 30 mins?
Calembeena
I noticed Phin’s proposal is for a service from Camberwell to Rowville which might be closer to 30 minutes.
However, to be realistic we are talking about many people going through to the Melbourne CBD so I suppose the answer would be “we’ll see”.
Hanging onto a strap on 2 separate vehicles doesn’t make the journey any more comfortable than if it had been one vehicle, but there are other considerations.
The first is that that the Camberwell-Rowville vehicle (which the CBD commuter can board, if I recall Phin’s plan correctly, at Camberwell, East Malvern or Huntingdale) is confined to this route and will probably never be bursting at the doors with people. So you may have some latitude to put more seats in that you would otherwise not do.
And assuming the vehicle had longitudinal seats, and it started at Rowville, Wellington Rd and Monash Uni before hitting the Dandenong line, you could then imagine that the Rowville people get the choice of longitudinal seating for that part of the journey.
This train will empty out several times on its journey. A lot of passengers would get off at Monash Uni. Another batch would get off at Huntingdale for the Dandenong-City line. Yet another group would get off at Chadstone. Finally a batch would get off at East Malvern before the terminus crowd decamps at Camberwell. (and it makes you realise what a good idea Phin’s line is! Very balanced.)
All these times that people get off then leaves free seats for standees.
If the line was built only as a commuter line, then you would fit it out commuter style, like Vline does (except 3+2 not 2+2).
By the way, what is the story that vline is doing 2+2 because people are getting fatter. Is that just urban myth?
[...] The People Plan – The Greens’ answer to public transport [...]
The Westall project is only a third track not a fourth track as well.
http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/DOI/DOIElect.nsf/$UNIDS+for+Web+Display/B9A5DC8B7F1BC73FCA2574560017DDEE/$FILE/Westall%20Diagram.pdf
That’s correct Tom, and one reason why it may not be very helpful in supporting the sort of service the Dandenong line (and the whole network) NEEDS, not just what they are prepared to offer.
If they are to avoid the gradient effect and offer a full time turn-up-and-go service (and achieve much higher ridership numbers than at present) they will need to be able to have trains pass at Westall-Springvale 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, in both directions simultaneously.
My proposal does incorporate three track dual direction passing, based on what I have seen in Germany where they do dynamic passes using a central third track that is shared by both directions. I would install this arrangement between Yarraman-Dandenong (Jones Rd) and General Motors (Progress St) which I think is nearly 5km long. A train needs to pass another train, according to my timetable, somewhere in this section in both directions.
Doing it dynamically means you could tolerate a small amount of lateness, as I would install several highspeed crossovers on this section so that the actual overtaking movement could be done anywhere along it while both trains are moving, and the overtaking movement in one direction could be done at the same time as the overtaking movement in the other direction, but at variable points along the section according to actual running.
Now why would I not do that between Westall and Springvale? Apart from the section being shorter, there is frankly no need to economise on track. There are already 5 roads immediately east of Westall Car shed and I would designate 4 of them of running, and extend this trackage west under the Westall Rd bridge to Westall platforms.
This would give you a somewhat dynamic arrangement where ideally the up train would catch up and run parallel in the section to Westall, both trains would arrive at Westall up island platform at the same time, passengers wanting the other train (eg pax from Noble Park wanting an express, or those from Dandenong wanting to alight at Hughesdale) would then cross the platform, and when that was complete, the express would start first, and the stopper would give it 2 minutes head start.
The cost of this arrangement would include track relay and renewal on the siding roads, signalling for mainline operation, a couple of high speed turnouts at key points, and both platforms at Westall given outer platform faces.
This would be a full time operation, not just peak hour and peak direction as planned by the Victorian Government.