The truth behind South Morang
Ever since the Victorian Transport Plan last December flagged that the South Morang rail extension would finally be built, there has been speculation as to why the cost was so high. At $650 million for a 3.5 kilometre extension, many pondered if it would include gold-plated rails and platforms.
When the 2009 state budget actually committed funding to it, the price had dropped slightly to $562 million, but this was due to the initial figure including running costs, apparently for several decades. Even counting the duplication from Keon Park to Epping at the same cost as the extension, it was still five times higher than the per-kilometre cost of the Craigieburn project completed just two years ago.
A feature article in The Age in June highlighted the issue, with local activists delighted at the commitment but mystified over the price, the opposition claiming taxpayers are being dudded, and public transport advocates (such as myself) fearing that the high price will discourage governments from future rail extensions. The Department of Transport offered the explanation that the project was a “more holistic approach to scoping the expansion of the Epping line”, but apparently didn’t clarify this in any great detail.
We (the PTUA) subsequently met with the Department, and finally discovered the real truth behind the term “holistic”. It turns out the scope of work is much bigger than just the South Morang extension plus duplication from Keon Park.
The way it was described, it includes:
- Keon Park to Epping
- duplication, obviously including track and overhead
- two or three pedestrian grade-separations
- station upgrades, and an additional platform at Thomastown
- upgrades to 4 level crossings to latest standard
- resignalling, including removal of bidirectional signalling on the existing single track (it conflicts with the proposed location of the second track), and re-signalling most of the rest of the line, almost down to Clifton Hill
- stabling at Epping, with driver facilities to enable future changeovers to move away from Flinders St
- extra substations
- Epping to South Morang
- dual track, overhead. We were told the old alignment can’t be used without modification, as there are grade separations and other issues with it
- signalling
- Dalton Road grade separation. Due to proximity of Epping train maintenance facilities (which can’t be moved), relocation of local roads (which can’t be disconnected from Dalton Rd) and the nearest creek (which the track must get over), this is said to be a reasonably complicated component, on a similar scale to Springvale Road grade separation
- 3 bridges over creeks
- bike/ped path along rail route, and included in bridges
- grade separation of Pindari Avenue and Civic Drive
- a new substation
- communications systems including radio towers
- South Morang station, including bike, bus, car parking, and provision for further extension to Mernda
- Hurstbridge line
- signalling upgrades on parts of line, to help harmonise frequencies to work better with the Epping/South Morang line
- stabling at Eltham, including driver facilities, and which will require the moving of some existing trackwork
The scope of works goes some way to explaining the cost. Perhaps it doesn’t bring it down to the level of Perth’s Mandurah line, but at the very least it brings it back down to somewhere near Planet Earth.
It seems to makes some sense to include in the project scope upgrades that will help the rest of the Clifton Hill group run better. If things turn out to plan, in 2013 (just in time for the 2014 state election) the benefits should be felt not just to residents in South Morang, but also elsewhere along the Epping and Hurstbridge lines.
What is a real mystery is why the Department doesn’t publicise the true scope of the project. While the information is apparently no secret, as a number of groups have been briefed on the project breakdown, neither has it been made public.
Surely flagging the real scope of the project, with all the resultant benefits, would be better for the government than hiding the details away and having major newspapers writing feature articles highlighting the apparent cost overruns and implying incompetent project management.
I suspect one possible reason that the whole scope of the project is not being announced, is just in case it doesn’t work out – that way if it goes wrong, nobody can prove it has.
lol, typo’d my username. Sorry about that.
Daniel, thanks for clearing that up for us and I hope PTUA will start focusing on the positives of South Morang not hte ‘negative’ that it costs so much.
As you say it makes sense to upgrade other parts of the Clifton Hill group all at once to get maximum benefits from this project. I’ve posted elsewhere that rather than ‘tacking on elements’ to projects to make them seem prohibitively expensive the reverse is actually true and DOT/VicRoads/other beurocrats actually ‘tack on’ as many additional elements to projects as can be justified whil keeping the project a winner.
If South Morang extension wasn’t funded would any of these other benefits have ever been funded, or at least have been funded this ’soon’??
I’m not sure what the PTUA’s thoughts are on Grade Separations but I think the governments policy of no new Level Crossings is good policy and increasing the scope of a project like South Morang by say $100 million for the 3 grade separations incorporated into the process is good for both the rail component and ‘value adds’ a car component to hte project. Those grade separations provide the following benefits:
- safety to both car and train users (even if its always the cars fault accidents still happen on level crossings and still injure train drivers/passengers.
- traffic flow – not all journeys occur on trains and the proverbial trip to the local shop is important and should be provided for.
- bus operations – if cars are stuck at level crossings so are buses.
- emergency vehicle access – if cars are stuck at level crossings so are ambulances and firetrucks
- train operation improvement – unimpeded train flows no need to slow over level crossigns, no limits to train operations to allow enough through time for cars etc. (eg. Dandenong Third Track project used at full rail capacity would have meant in peak hour level crossings would have been down for 40 minutes in the hour – completely unnacceptable from a road perspective and leading to need for grade separations).
all in all – thanks for the post and I hope you read the post titled ‘Incrementalism, and the lack fo success of an “Australian Road Lobby”‘ Some good commentary in there about lobby groups and in my opinion the contribution that can be made if positive messages are given. (Jim Betts even made a contribution to the post)
Perhaps marketing it as a “Clifton Hill Rail Group Upgrade” might have been a more appropriate term esp. considering they did a study into the whole group a few years back. Would appeal to more than one state electorate.
Or perhaps they thought it wouldn’t get funded under that guise so marketed it as the political hot-pot issue (South Morang) with some extras thrown in?
Thanks for the explanation Daniel.
This is the same premise behind the New Metro Rail when it is mentioned in the news over here in Perth. The costs are always attibuted to the Mandurah line, and especially the cost blowouts. It is rarely, if ever, mentioned that the $1.6 billion New Metro Rail was not just the Mandurah line, but also the Clarkson extension, the Thornlie spur, associated road works including the Hester Road overpass in Quinns, and so on.
The price is always called excessive for just the Mandurah line over here, but i think for the extras, we are easily talking sub $1 billion for a 70+ km double track rail line through a city and underneath the CBD…… not a bad price in anyones books…..
It would be nice if the whole scope of the works was announced widely, but I am sure the media is the same over there as here – throw stones, and if the actual truth accidentally comes out during the stoning, turn around and stone something else.
Good point Bulbous.
At least it was branded “New Metro Rail” in most of the literature I saw. But I can see the problem happening.
My favorite bit of this project was the constant harping by the Worst newspaper and the Libs but the constant 90% or more approval ratings the project got. They stopped doing public surveys after a while because the ratings didn’t change. Didn’t stop the Worst though.
Anyway enough of my partisanship.
I wonder if more adventurous branding in Melbourne might have been the “North-Eastern Melbourne Rail Upgrade” or similar.
Of course here the waters were muddied by the truth-stretching that went on over the Ballarat/Bendigo/Geelong/Traralgon rail track and signal renewal project which went by another more grandiose name.
Bulbous, even when you attribute the $1.6 billion to the Mandurah Line, it still comes out tops in my honest opinion – to spend only $22 million for every kilometre of line that you got, and to get all the extra goodies as well is a pretty good deal.
I have always seen the project as Clifton Hill Rail Project:
Stage 1 – Clifton Hill loop reversal
Stage 2 – Clifton Hill – Westgarth duplication
Stage 3 – Keon Park – Epping duplication
Stage 4 – Epping – South Morang extension
Stage 5 – *better not make public, just say South Morang isn’t the end*
So Chris, why the ‘better not make public’? Why does railway planning always have to be conducted in secrecy?
Isn’t that what this post is about – not being straight with the public.
If you told me it was closing Eltham to Hurstbridge I’d be quite relaxed about it so don’t worry that our little eyes might be harmed by what you tell us.
John-ston, that certainly is true, and that price is quite amazing when you look at similar works happening round the country and round the world. The big over-runs were also attributable to the unions and their illegal strike actions, but as my company is still going through a suit with the unions, I will not say any more about it.
Riccardo, I agree that the planning secrecy is strange when rail works come up, but when road works are announced, the additional (flow-on) works afterwards are spruiked for quite some time beforehand. This allows plenty of time for the public to be informed about it, pros and cons to be thrashed out (whether that changes the job scope or not is questionable), and the preliminary works to be done in time for the start of the additional works. When it comes to a rail job, the scope is announced, but the preworks (public consultation, detail planning, etc) take another few years to get done. By the time the original work is now done, the requirements may have changed, and the works completed may or may not suit the new scope of work.
In case that rambling didn’t make sense, make the planning process open and clear up front, well in advance, and allow for future works to influence the designs of current works. Such a case would be the half-arsed design of the Craigieburn extension, with the stabling sidings and station issues being hashed out after the fact. Measure twice, build once – going back to fix issues will always cost more than doing them right the first time.
Now I truly am lost in my own words, back to the regular programme…..
Cheers,
Matt
Craigieburn is a bad example in this case; the original plan was to have all three platforms and 24 sidings in use all at once, but it was canned and reduced due to treasury issues.
Wasn’t the “as-built” for Craigieburn deemed to be instantly inappropriate as soon as it opened, thus requiring additional stabling/station works to be built anyway? Reducing a plan simply due to money, but in the end blowing that money on a reduced scope due to bad planning in the first place, really is a good example in the end, is it not?
It depends on what you define as “in the first place”.
For me, the first plan with all three platforms and the entire yard in one hit was wonderful and should have been built (although I have never seen original sketches, I have some references).
If you define it as what was built at first, that’s clear wastage, both time and money.
I’ll disagree, but not strongly
A rough and ready electric service to Cragieburn, improving somewhat on the previous VLine service but not as good as the Broady one, could be provided fairly cheaply.
There are of course some arguments about getting a discount from the contractors for being all on site – which probably has some merit.
I think what is obvious in this case is that they are doing it SO SOON after the original work, it is almost as if they are trying to hide it from the budget by not scoping it into the original work.
But to argue that the Cragieburn people didn’t get a better service is just not right.
You could even have run the electrics hourly – and continued stopping Vline, and you would have made some difference. You could have run the electrics hourly on a single track with no formal terminus.
An empty electric provides seats for 600 people and I can’t believe C and RP are providing that at the moment in demand.
Now I’m not arguing for a hourly service – 20 minutes is good for what is going to be a commuter service for the foreseeable future.
And of course I favour extremeity sidings but to argue they are part of the project is duff – sidings would have all been at Broadmeadows if that remained the edge of the system.
And while I can see the benefit of more stations they need to keep them 3-5 km apart, and use buses to fill in the gaps.
As it is, Cragieburn people are only slightly better off with a more frequent service than Vline, but crappier trains and no express to city running. The more stations they add, the worse it is.
Why would you actually need to keep 24 units there anyway? I’ve heard the figure of 5 units needed for the off-peak service before. Assume the peak service is 4x better than off-peak (it isn’t), and all trips run to the far terminus (they don’t) and you’d only need 20, and that’s forgetting there’s three other yards on the line.
Was a secret plan hatched to upgrade this line to full-time TUAG, 18/7 all the way to the end?
you’d need 24 units there to store them for other parts of the network overnight.
Melbourne has funding for 38 new trains in the next 3 years and will be buying more after that. now I’m not sure what teh total storage capacity is across the network but something tells me the government isn’t that stupid to build ridiculous amounts of spare train storage capacity for no reason.
As an example of the to ‘tack on’ or not to ‘tack on’ question an obvious one in Melbourne is the fact that Toorak Road, Tooronga Road, Burke Road and High Street were not grade separated when the South Eastern Arterial became a Freeway.
link to image of Burke Road (freeway intersection was at grade until about 1993-1997 – note rail crossing at bottom of picture still at grade)
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=-37.852844,145.053413&spn=0.003211,0.004812&t=h&z=18
If in 1993 those 4 level crossings had been included in the scope of works it might have cost say $150 million. Today it would probably cost $1 billion. It looks like a bargain to have done them at the time BUT if properly invested that $150 million would be worth that same $1 billion now anyway (if not more). so its more even than you’d think.
now by ‘properly invested’ that could eb a financial investment OR an investment in alternative infrastructure. You could therefore argue the $150 million was spent on the Hallam Bypass (completed 2003), or various other arterial road projects (Geelong Freeway upgrade early ’00s) etc. all of those woudl have had a higher benefit to costs ratio meaning they were higher up VicRoads priority lists than the various grade separations.
And if they’re there to store them for “other parts of the network”, then it doesn’t give much benefit for Craigieburn people does it, bit like the yard at Epping stores more than that line (with a not so intensive service) needs itself!
Well except railfans that is.
(The obvious suggestion would be to store them in the places they’re needed rather than concentrating it at one location for no good reason)
Riccardo, just a minor point, but there is still limited express running, including one inbound service in the morning peak which runs express from Broadmeadows. Though the other limited express trains are not comparable to V/Line services.
Somebody, we currently have stabling for 24 units (12 trains) there and we stable 14. 10 units are required for interpeak service. Stabling is rumoured to be substantially increased in the near future, as well as more stabling at other locations, to cater for the 38 trains (76 units) coming online from this December onwards.
As I was saying, it’s not that we don’t need the sidings, but that sidings which are needed across the system are sheeted home to a particular geographic area – which then makes that improvement look that much less cost-effective.
Again, something I don’t suspect we see with road projects.
I doubt Peninsula link, if it required some distant piece of infrastructure link a wider entrance ramp at the junction of the Monash and Eastlink (on account of higher traffic forecasts) would have that included in its budget. They would be marketed separately (all the better to make it look like the government was doing more!)
I suspect what we are talking about is the vicious cycle – stupid media, stupid politicians with stupid soundbites, craven bureaucrats, stupid population. If any one part lifted its game, it would still be brought down by the others.
All,
Craigieburn is going up to 24 sidings, each capable of holding 2×6 trains. 4 of those sidings will be for maintenance purposes including a wheel grinder, and the current No.1 siding will apparently be used for washing trains.
The main benefit of keeping masses of trains in a single location is economies of scale in staff facilities, because that’s the only major cost that will change. For example Epping will be supplying nearly all the trains needed for the entire Clifton Hill Loop – plus some from Hurstbridge and Eltham.
Back to Craigieburn, what other yards? Broadmeadows is pathetically small and Essendon has been removed for a very long time. Macaulay is mainly for maintenance plus the Upfield line, and North Melbourne sidings is for the Footscray lines. Melbourne Yard is being abolished soon, to make way for the RRL.
Oh, and Somebody: This is not a “smartpax fantasy”, this will actually happen.
48 6-car trains!?
Here’s what’s not an economy of scale – running all those trains near-empty/empty to Sydenham, Sandringham, Frankston or where-ever they are needed & back. What a waste of money that could be used on better things!
Didn’t Sydney eliminate the Punchbowl depot for that reason – useless when the ‘new’ starting points were Liverpool and Campbelltown, not Bankstown as it was in the 1920s.
There is Newport Shops.
Yes Somebody, 48×6 trains. But remember, up to 10×6 of those will be unserviceable, leaving us with 38×6.
Of those, perhaps it actually is more economical to run early-morning empty runs, at the cost of say 1/4 of a Driver’s full shift, than it would be to install and maintain multiple stabling facilities spotted all over the network.
I don’t have the numbers but I think that’s plausible.
There is no plan at this stage to stable anywhere near 48 trains at Craigieburn. In addition to this, Macaulay is not used mainly for Upfield, neither is North Melbourne mainly used for Footscray.
I thought this website was for serious discussion about theories and fact, not for speculation or make believe.
(key word left off original post bolded…. can a mod delete my last post?)
Thanks Damo. Yes, if people can stick to what is known, would be good.
Sorry I’m late to the party, I’ve been in the USA which seems to be completely bereft of wifi hotspots for some odd reason.
I tend to agree with the theory that public transport project costs are inflated in order to scare off future projects – but with a modification, which is that they’re inflated to ward off the objections of anyone who cares to add up the cost of road projects vs PT projects in the budget and ask awkward questions about roads getting three times the investment. Of course I personally understand that it’s not about roads vs PT, it’s about the philosophy behind the transport budget in general, but I have an idea that the Ministers get more grief from people who don’t know that.
It could also be due to the fact that engineers with expertise in PT are mainly retired from the DoT and work as contractors, at a vastly inflated rate. I could name several people of my acquiaintance who are in this position – and hey, after being stuffed around by VR/MMTB for ages and then left in the cold by the SRA/PTC/DoI, who can blame them? Another case of past mistakes having ramifications well past their use-by date.
Also, and you’ll forgive me for bringing one of my hobby horses out again, political decisions about DDA compliance and level crossings are a problem. I agree that major roads like Dalton Road need grade sepping, but the blanket restriction on any new level crossings (even pedestrian crossings) is to my mind irrational. Of course permanently blocking off the roads that cross the reservation will not be accepted by the locals – however vocal they may be about broken promises to have their trains back, if it is whispered around that Pindari Avenue will be cut in half, local support for the project will evaporate completely.
However – there is another side to the story. Let’s assume this scope creep didn’t happen. To take a perfectly fictional example, let’s assume there was a project to grade separate a level crossing. Long term plans called for three tracks through the area, so space was left for triplication if and when the project came to fruition. However, there was no immediate need for triplication as the current two tracks were handling the stopping and express services quite well. So no extra money was spend laying the third track. The project came in early and under budget, and everyone was happy.
Or to take another example. A freeway was built along a creek course, which happened to go near a railway line at a few places. Obviously where it went past a major road a bridge would be needed. There was an option to extend the bridge further and grade separate the level crossing as part of the freeway bridge project – which would have had the additional benefit of removing a tram square, with its 24×7 manned signal box and various electrical complications. This option was not taken up, the freeway project stayed as a simple freeway project, the shops on the other side of the level crossing didn’t have to exchange their view of the street for a view of a bridge pylon, and the train passengers could happily watch freeway traffic flash by them as they crossed the tram square at 15km/h.
Maybe there’s more to it than we thought? There is undoubtedly an economy of scale to be achieved by combining projects. And there is quite probably some benefit to be gained in public perception by combining a necessary but unsexy project (eg grade separating a rail junction) with something that could be done at any time but costs money (eg boosting bus frequencies and coordinating the timetable with the train).
The problem comes when the project gets so big that it dominates the entire sector. The South Morang project (or Clifton Hill Group Modernisation Project) is no doubt going to be the major effort that Lynne Kosky draws public attention to in order to show that she’s doing the right thing. Look at me, I’m spending half a billion dollars making this group run the way it should. That’s great. There’s no question that it should be done. But it’s the smallest of the four groups, and they all need major upgrades – to say nothing of the tram system, bus services, V/Line and the inner city.
In a sense, all government spending is robbing Peter to pay Paul to a limited extent. Scope creep in transport projects is just an extreme example of it.
In an environment where transport is given a high priority in government thinking, I would have no problem at all with a Clifton Hill group upgrade project costing $500m+, because I could be sure the rest of the system would get its turn. At the moment, I’m not really sure where transport does sit in the priority list. I’m certain it is higher today than it was five years ago. The purchase of 38 Xtraps when a Federal tax law change brought a state budget windfall proves that. But I’m not sure it’s quite where it should be – the funding of the Frankston Bypass (against local opposition) proves that.
BTW – thanks Daniel for posting. And congrats for getting a straight answer out of the DoT when nobody else could.
Michael – I could join the chorus of those condemning the Frankston bypass – and I’m not sure it should be a huge priority for government. That said, it is only just another piece of a freeway network that is a long way behind overseas peers.
And some of our dribbling friends talk as if there were any credible proposals for a rail extension down that way – when there aren’t.
And you don’t have to look overseas. The Peel region of WA has got the railway to Mandurah, a separate railway (potentially higher speed) under consideration to Bunbury and a freeway being built as well – and a destination population of no more than 300000 for all of these.
Kenneth Davidson and others have demonstrated that state government indebtnesses has fallen across the decades and would be 3 times higher if we had the general level that Bolte had (again, no screaming leftie!)
just to clarify. ’scope creep’ or bundling of related projects does happen on road projects too.
I’ve used an example in another topic (or possibly another forum) that the Pound Road/South Gippsland Highway intersection upgrade (roundabout to signals and improved adjioning freeway interchange) has $2 million in its $40 million budget to upgrade the Abbotts Road/South Gippsland Highway interchnage. The sell being that if you upgrade Pound Road, Abbotts Road is the next congested intersection that will need to be fixed so lets do it early.
Similarly the South Road extension project was about a $30 millino project – of which only $15 millino was the main contract works of extending South Road from Warrigal to Old Dandenong Road. The other money went on upgrading Old Dandenong Road downstream (sealed shoulders and intersection works) and traffic calming measures on alternative routes (White Street) to encourage people onto the extension.
These projects aren’t bundled togethor to make the projects seem more expensive. They are bundled togethor to make sure the complimentary but necessary works are also completed.
Most basic example for South Morang is building the extension without Duplicating Keon Park – Epping. The next steps are upgraded signalling across the group to allow the higher train frequencies proposed. You get funding for these ‘unsexy,’ ‘non political’ projects by linking them to the ribbon cutting project. By making it clear to the ones holding the purse strings that you can’t get the benefits of A without doing B.
I think the ’scope creep’ question when discussing adding MAJOR works to the original scope is akin to asking how long is a piece of string? eg. doing all the grade seperations along the Monash Freeway might have doubled the scope of the original project. or bundling Rooks Road and Mitcham Road into the current Springvale Road level crossing project might make a $140 million project cost $400 million. You could also (as Council wants) add grad sepping Springvale Road/Whithorse Road intersection for another $300 million… The $400 million might have a better benefit cost ratio but its harder to find $400 million than $140 million in a tight state budget.
Alternatively it might NOT have a better B/C ratio and you’re then dragging down the B/C of the really important proejct (Springvale Road) to try and tack on the other project.
re: Frankston Bypass. if anyone wants to tell me how they would spend that money on Public Transport to deliver the comparable benefits to the community in that area as the Bypass then I’ll accept the project shouldn’t be built. but as it is Mooroduc Highway (and Frankston Freeway) are saturated with people wanting to travel from south of Frankston to North of Frankston. Generally North of Frankston doesn’t mean along the Frankston train line it means to Dandenogn, Clayton, Ringwood, Glen Waverley.
SO you either:
a) cancel any more residential developmento n the peninsula to retain existing levels of traffic.
b) you forget about them and say they bought there they new it was sh!t its there problem.
c) spend a lot on PT infrastructure. say bus lanes on Moorooduc and Nepean Highways, Bus lanes on Dandenong Frankston Road and Eastlink, electrification to Baxter double the number of services Baxter to Stony Point. AND this doesn’t give the people of the peninsula the level of mobility they want/need.
d) build the bypass and accept that the Peninsula is a ‘car city’ and that the bypass will deliver benefits to roads in and around Frankston and try and use that to leverage Public Transport and liveability in and around Frankston itself.
Peter Parker did a post on the bus from Rosebud to the city which apparently was a roaring failure.
In an ideal world there’s plenty of population down there, suited to PT. And most in a single ribbon along the coast, which would make providing a corridor easy.
At the end of the day, unless public transport from Frankston to the City can be improved, you can forget about anywhere further south.
There are still some peak hour trains from Frnakston running all stations. Despite the considerable expense messers Crabb and Roper put us under to install a third track from Caulfield to Moorabbin.
All stations to Frankston, and over an hour, that’s not going to get them out of their cars from Rosebud and have them willingly parking and riding. And the 1.75 hour bus ride along the coast is even worse.
BTW I don’t subscribe to the idea that there are any areas where the PEOPLE are resistant to public transport. I’ve heard them all suggested – from Western Australia to Auckland to the Hills District. If you can get Mandurah or Nerang people onto a train, you can get anyone.
When people get good services, they will use them. I’m not saying “built it and they will come” but I am saying that there’s no reason to discriminate against any geographic area based on the idea that the people are particularly hostile to public transport.
Riccardo I agree with you. the people aren’t resistant to public transport. I’m saying that providing Public Transport that is convenient enough for them to make the switch is so prohibitively expensive that it isn’t worthwhile.
It is expensive in recurrent costs as well as potential infrastrcuture costs. building a 10km bus lane to speed up the services might cost $20 million. Running busses at 15 minute frequency up and down the peninsula might cost $20 million per year forever.
The last two pages of the below link show that in 2006 4% of Mornington Peninsula workers worked in Melbourne and 6% of Frankston workers worked in Melbourne. I found another link that had 10% of Frankston Workers in Dandenong LGA area.
http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/DOI/DOIElect.nsf/$UNIDS+for+Web+Display/E3A72D73189B9410CA2573E9001E3F2E/$FILE/TDIA-Introduction-Chapter1.pdf
SO my point is that even if you improve the train service to Melbourne as the starting point of the alternative spending you are providing for a relatively small sector of the travel market. The real need is through Frankston north to Dandenong, or Carrum, or Keysborough/Moorabin (but well east of Moorabin station), Clayton .
and even then these work sources are much more diffuse then Melbourne CBD. the Dandenong South Industrial area bordered by South Gippsland Freeway, Eastlink, Abbots Road and Dandenong Bypass is about 6kmx6km. You’d need to run a 2-3 services from Frankston Station to service this area all less convenient than private car travel. and all likely to be accessed at Frankston by either bus or train that iwll be less convenient than private car travel as well.
Even though the cost is high, everyone needs to realise that better infrastructure means that our city can continue to grow, people may arguee it costs to much or money coud have been spent better elseware. But I arguee that any form of public transport upgrades will befefit all Australians either directly or indirectly
Pretty obvious they put all the costs together into one terrifying price to neuter further rail projects