Suburban Rail Loop (Election promise)

 
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

trust me, I work for the government
The Vinelander

Shocked

Sponsored advertisement

  stooge spark Train Controller

Location: My House
All SRL discussion belongs in a fantasy thread.


This project will definitely be going ahead...trust me, I work for the government.

Mike.
The Vinelander
Well the Ballarat line upgrade makes alot more sense now.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
The hub and spoke rail system ain't going to cut it for our city even more. SRL transforms our city, makes orbital trips easier and allows passengers to interchange with other lines without taking a 40 min trip to the city.
ptvcommuter
Blah blah smeg.  Another one who's swallowed the kool-aid.

We already have things that avoid the city, with capacity and flexibility more suited to the decentralised, low density sprawl of the outer city - they're called buses.

Are the majority incapable of any form of scrutiny?  Do they take comparisons with other systems at face value, ignoring the realities of density and scale, because associations with more worldly cities stroke the ego and make them feel less insignificant?  Are they happy to see the savings of a generation wasted when what we have now is barely functioning?

The half billion wasted studying this garbage, filing cabinets and consultants' pockets, should be fixing the current problems.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

The hub and spoke rail system ain't going to cut it for our city even more. SRL transforms our city, makes orbital trips easier and allows passengers to interchange with other lines without taking a 40 min trip to the city.
Do they take comparisons with other systems at face value, ignoring the realities of density and scale, because associations with more worldly cities stroke the ego and make them feel less insignificant?  Are they happy to see the savings of a generation wasted when what we have now is barely functioning?
ZH836301

I get that you're not going to be convinced of the merits of this project in particular, but failing to acknowledge that transport infrastructure can shape a city's form rather than always be shaped by it is regressive thinking that no longer has much support in planning circles. The whole point of the Suburban Rail Loop is that it provides a concrete way that the suburban employment centres identified in Plan Melbourne can actually be grown in a sustainable manner. The "realities of density and scale" are that we simply can't afford to continue to grow Melbourne in its current monocentric form.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Rail lines won't magically make centres pop up - if they did, then the radial lines would have already done it.

If the SRL was on a scale at all similar to the overseas examples, it would be something around the diameter of:

Williamstown > Footscray > Flemington > Clifton Hill > Sandringham

The whole reason those international versions work are because they surround dense, non-centralised urban regions a fraction of our city's size that are crisscrossed with metro lines, not huge arcs through swathes of low density suburbia - if you want to increase density, do it in the inner city where it can actually be catered for.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Rail lines won't magically make centres pop up - if they did, then the radial lines would have already done it. If the SRL was on a scale at all similar to the overseas examples, it would be something around the diameter of: Williamstown > Footscray > Flemington > Clifton Hill > Sandringham The whole reason those international versions work are because they surround dense, non-centralised urban regions a fraction of our city's size that are crisscrossed with metro lines, not huge arcs through swathes of low density suburbia - if you want to increase density, do it in the inner city where it can actually be catered for.
ZH836301


The whole point of SRL is to connect every line, (well they should extend it to Sandringham) as well as bringing poeple to educational, employment and retail clusters.

An inner city orbital line could be something we construct in the future. Currently we have Metro 1 which is under construction, Metro 2 which we all know about, we can call this SRL Metro 3 and the Inner City Orbital can be Metro 4. Compared to other cities, Melbourne is so big as a city and it will not cross huge arcs of low density suburbia. It also gives a chance to develop land such as Heatherton into large housing and suburbia.

The SRL with a few modifications, such as extension to Sandringham possibly via Beaumaris and being routed via Campbellfield and Epping/Thomastown instead of Reservior/Fawkner will make the project even more exceptional.  It’s something our city needs to start building and preparing for now

Inner city orbital could come with tram or heavy rail. Shallow tunnels could drag the construction cost down in the future. This Metro 4 would be another 10-20 years away, just as the SRL starts to near completion and Metro 2 has both stages finished. The SRL business case actually looked at this route and while it wasn’t viable now, it may be in the future. It could run from St Kilda, Elsternwick, Caulfield, Tooronga, Camberwell, Hawthorn, Kew, Fairfield, Northcote, Coburg, Essendon, Maribyrnong and Footscray.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Rail lines won't magically make centres pop up - if they did, then the radial lines would have already done it.

If the SRL was on a scale at all similar to the overseas examples, it would be something around the diameter of:

Williamstown > Footscray > Flemington > Clifton Hill > Sandringham

The whole reason those international versions work are because they surround dense, non-centralised urban regions a fraction of our city's size that are crisscrossed with metro lines, not huge arcs through swathes of low density suburbia - if you want to increase density, do it in the inner city where it can actually be catered for.
ZH836301
Your logic here is entirely inconsistent. No one is suggesting that the overseas examples can be traced onto the Melbourne map. Melbourne's urban form is different and therefore a fundamentally different solution is needed. But what you are proposing - increasing density "in the inner city where it can actually be catered for" - is not the "dense, non-centralised urban regions" that you were arguing for two line prior. Concentrating development in the inner belt you mention will only reinforce dependence on existing radial travel routes, which is a plainly unsustainable way to grow the city.

As for whether rail lines will make centres "magically pop up", I don't think anyone is suggesting that they will. These are pre-existing employment centres which have been identified in various planning strategies for at least the last two decades. They are, in other words, ripe for development. I can only assume that you have not read the document which examines an inner ring, like yours, a middle ring, which was eventually settled on, and an outer ring. The middle ring was chosen because it has the potential to connect 4 existing activity centres and 3 universities. Your inner ring, on the other hand, connects precisely none. The inner ring, therefore, would be fundamentally flawed for the reason you identify - that it would provide no access to employment or dense housing and provide no rationale for travel.

The snide remark about whether "the radial lines would already have done it" is also a nonsensical claim, given that Melbourne's urban form has for 140 years more or less followed the rail lines set out in the 19th century, and 6 of the 7 Plan Melbourne activity centres have the railway as their raison d'etre. Rail is immensely effective at driving development - always has been - in a way that buses simply are not.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Rail lines won't magically make centres pop up - if they did, then the radial lines would have already done it.

If the SRL was on a scale at all similar to the overseas examples, it would be something around the diameter of:

Williamstown > Footscray > Flemington > Clifton Hill > Sandringham

The whole reason those international versions work are because they surround dense, non-centralised urban regions a fraction of our city's size that are crisscrossed with metro lines, not huge arcs through swathes of low density suburbia - if you want to increase density, do it in the inner city where it can actually be catered for.
Your logic here is entirely inconsistent. No one is suggesting that the overseas examples can be traced onto the Melbourne map. Melbourne's urban form is different and therefore a fundamentally different solution is needed. But what you are proposing - increasing density "in the inner city where it can actually be catered for" - is not the "dense, non-centralised urban regions" that you were arguing for two line prior. Concentrating development in the inner belt you mention will only reinforce dependence on existing radial travel routes, which is a plainly unsustainable way to grow the city.

As for whether rail lines will make centres "magically pop up", I don't think anyone is suggesting that they will. These are pre-existing employment centres which have been identified in various planning strategies for at least the last two decades. They are, in other words, ripe for development. I can only assume that you have not read the document which examines an inner ring, like yours, a middle ring, which was eventually settled on, and an outer ring. The middle ring was chosen because it has the potential to connect 4 existing activity centres and 3 universities. Your inner ring, on the other hand, connects precisely none. The inner ring, therefore, would be fundamentally flawed for the reason you identify - that it would provide no access to employment or dense housing and provide no rationale for travel.

The snide remark about whether "the radial lines would already have done it" is also a nonsensical claim, given that Melbourne's urban form has for 140 years more or less followed the rail lines set out in the 19th century, and 6 of the 7 Plan Melbourne activity centres have the railway as their raison d'etre. Rail is immensely effective at driving development - always has been - in a way that buses simply are not.
potatoinmymouth
No the unsustainable way to grow the city is to continually build in the outer fringes, which are unserviced and then the Taxpayers has to spend billions on schemes like the SRL. Really Footscray and I would imagine the Inner ring would go past Glenferrie. They are not major employment centres? To connect 4 activity centres and 3 universities is no reason to blow $50 Billion. The SRL is mostly speculative. The most pressing need is to provide extra capacity to the Central core. The CBD is where most of the new jobs are being created. Melbourne can do without the SRL. Most of the centres on the SRL are low density suburbs containing shopping strips, I simply cannot see these centres growing into major employment hubs.

Personally I would rather Melbourne Metro 2 be built first. Bus Network needs to be completely overhauled and our Tram network needs to be fully accessible. The SRL is not a priority right now.

Michael
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
The whole point of SRL is to connect every line
ptvcommuter
A jingoist goal that means nothing.

It seems some people are incapable of the most basic of scrutiny and analysis.


The SRL business case
ptvcommuter

Aka. napkin.


Your logic here is entirely inconsistent. No one is suggesting that the overseas examples can be traced onto the Melbourne map.
potatoinmymouth

That's exactly what is being suggested when someone uses "that city has one" as an argument.

Some of you people are like birds obsessing over shiny objects.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

@ZH836301

The hub and spoke rail system ain't going to cut it for our city even more. SRL transforms our city, makes orbital trips easier and allows passengers to interchange with other lines without taking a 40 min trip to the city
ptvcommuter
Sorry PTV but that is purely speculative. Spending $50 Billion on a rail loop simply to make orbital trips easier does not resonate with me, especially when if we are talking about middle suburbs this can be done at a much lower cost with Buses. I just think that Public Transport should be about improving everything. Our Bus Network needs a serious overhaul. We can have something approaching a decent Bus system Melbourne wide for a fraction of $50 Billion. Public Transport Improvements cannot and should not be focused solely on heavy rail. This $50 Billion we are talking about!

Michael
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Those that dismiss SRL, this is the biggest project in Victoria and Australia, it will transform our city for the better. Improving orbital connectivity, connecting our major employment, retail, education and airport in one big project, what more could you want.

We are the largest growing state in the country, we will be the largest city before we know it. We need to infrastructure to cope with the demand, SRL is part of it.

50 Billion, we don’t know how much it will cost, there has been no cost to project. Stop making assumptions saying it will hinder other projects. This is what happens when you neglect infrastructure during the Kennet, Brumby, Baileu and Napthine eras. The conservative mindset of being content with what we have right now will put our state backwards. Decades of negligence have meant that our government needs to play catch up while also planning doe the future. SRL will do that.

Busses cannot cater for our population, people do not want to take busses to get to every destination in place of a train. A train is faster, more reliable, transports more people and is better for the environment. They simply cannot cope.

SRL will not suck up all the funds like a vacuum cleaner, other projects will be completed around that. Whether we need a new tax, I don’t care, this mass infrastructure spree is for the better. Anybody even if you are a closed minded person, you must understand and the majority of people do, that we need Airport Rail, SRL, Regional Rail Revival, New Trains, because it’s a huge benefit for our state


Hub and Spoke won’t cut it for the city that Melbourne is becoming. If we want to move into the future, cater for our growing population and improve liveability in Victoria, than a huge game changer like the Subruban Rail Loop is one of the answers
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Those that dismiss SRL, this is the biggest project in Victoria and Australia, it will transform our city for the better. Improving orbital connectivity, connecting our major employment, retail, education and airport in one big project, what more could you want.

We are the largest growing state in the country, we will be the largest city before we know it. We need to infrastructure to cope with the demand, SRL is part of it.

50 Billion, we don’t know how much it will cost, there has been no cost to project. Stop making assumptions saying it will hinder other projects. This is what happens when you neglect infrastructure during the Kennet, Brumby, Baileu and Napthine eras. The conservative mindset of being content with what we have right now will put our state backwards. Decades of negligence have meant that our government needs to play catch up while also planning doe the future. SRL will do that.

Busses cannot cater for our population, people do not want to take busses to get to every destination in place of a train. A train is faster, more reliable, transports more people and is better for the environment. They simply cannot cope.

SRL will not suck up all the funds like a vacuum cleaner, other projects will be completed around that. Whether we need a new tax, I don’t care, this mass infrastructure spree is for the better. Anybody even if you are a closed minded person, you must understand and the majority of people do, that we need Airport Rail, SRL, Regional Rail Revival, New Trains, because it’s a huge benefit for our state


Hub and Spoke won’t cut it for the city that Melbourne is becoming. If we want to move into the future, cater for our growing population and improve liveability in Victoria, than a huge game changer like the Subruban Rail Loop is one of the answers
ptvcommuter
That is just a massive word salad PTV. Hub and spoke is meaningless. In case you are wondering, I have nothing against Airport Rail, Regional Rail Revival or New Trains. I want them to happen and I want Metro 2 to happen. So if you want to cherry pick go right ahead. What I am against is a purely speculative SRL which we do not need.  $50 Billion is the conservative estimate the Government has put forward.

No one is saying that Buses should be used for every destination, but I am yet to be convinced that a SRL meandering through low density suburbs is the answer. I am firmly in the belief that the bus system can connect rail lines. The Bus system as a whole needs overhauling. People do not catch them in Melbourne because the frequency is appalling and that should be put right before spending billions on an SRL. Whatever your love affair with trains are the Public Transport Improvements should include every single mode, not just heavy rail.

Michael
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

@mejhammers1

Low density suburbs along the Route, only low density surbub it crosses is Heatherton and that can be redeveloped into a housing and employment hub. Doncatser, Box Hill, Monash all low density suburbs- give me a break. Hub and Spoke won’t cut it anymore for Melbourne

Busses need to be improved, we need to make them more direct and upgrade frequency on some of the routes we have urgently. But in the place of a train, no.

I don’t dislike the Doncaster Busway but I would rather heavy rail. You have the potential to carry over 60,000 people with heavy rail which is more than you ever will with a bus.

For example a bus between Monash and Broadmeadows would take hours. SRL will make this journey in 25 Minutes, Cheltenham to Airport in 45 Minutes. The bus Network is a joke and could do with 100 Million to order new articulated busses and repair the mess. But to substitute it for SRL is ridiculous
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Those that dismiss SRL, this is the biggest project in Victoria and Australia
ptvcommuter
So?  It's hardly the project with the largest benefit.

Stop making assumptions saying it will hinder other projects.
ptvcommuter
Wow, so you do think money grows on trees?

$50 billion doesn't just materialise out of nowhere - it means $50 billion gone from the infrastructure budget.


Busses cannot cater for our population, people do not want to take busses to get to every destination in place of a train. A train is faster, more reliable, transports more people and is better for the environment. They simply cannot cope.
ptvcommuter

Buses can't cope?  So which routes on the proposed SRL alignment are running artics at couple minute frequencies?


Hub and Spoke won’t cut it for the city that Melbourne is becoming. If we want to move into the future, cater for our growing population and improve liveability in Victoria, than a huge game changer like the Subruban Rail Loop is one of the answers
ptvcommuter

So which existing radial routes are saturated running 30tph services and incapable of absorbing higher densities?


You have the potential to carry over 60,000 people with heavy rail which is more than you ever will with a bus.
ptvcommuter

Qantas has taken on your wisdom and will now be running 74s to Mildura.


Whether we need a new tax, I don’t care
ptvcommuter

The punters will love that.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
@mejhammers1

Low density suburbs along the Route, only low density surbub it crosses is Heatherton and that can be redeveloped into a housing and employment hub. Doncatser, Box Hill, Monash all low density suburbs- give me a break. Hub and Spoke won’t cut it anymore for Melbourne
ptvcommuter
Umm I thought much of the route was through low-density suburbs?
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
@mejhammers1

Low density suburbs along the Route, only low density surbub it crosses is Heatherton and that can be redeveloped into a housing and employment hub. Doncatser, Box Hill, Monash all low density suburbs- give me a break. Hub and Spoke won’t cut it anymore for Melbourne
Umm I thought much of the route was through low-density suburbs?
railblogger
The tunnels will go under a lot of low-density stuff, yep, but the stations - even now and taking into account their existing development pipelines - aren't the same as a typical suburban area.

Cheltenham = Depends if the line will connect at Cheltenham or Southland, but regardless ~35 development projects in the pipeline.  Plus Southland, need we say more.
Clayton = Few projects, probably more about the mega-hub plus providing access to Monash Medical.  Small-ish scope for some redevelopment.  Remember 4 storey buildings can hold a lot of people, we don't need skyscrapers everywhere.
Monash University = an NEIC, already a massive patronage source.  Station position will be key here, to see how useful it will be to the wider NEIC/existing employment areas.
Glen Waverley (or Mount Waverley) = small amount of dev pipeline work, not a lot of scope for changes to that, a relatively minor station in the grand scheme of things, but necessary if they're aiming for maximum connectivity.
Deakin/Burwood = doesn't need an explanation.  The area immediately to the east along the Burwood highway is already zoned for higher-density development (Commerical and Residential Growth zones).
Box Hill = enormous pipeline (mind you, that enormous pipeline was built even without the SRL on the horizon) and if Whitehorse are anything to go by, a sign of bigger things to come, the most obvious connection to Ringwood lines.
Doncaster = the SC and a very healthy dev pipeline in a council area that has a pedigree of wanting more and more new development, plenty of scope for redevelopment of existing areas as well.
Heidelberg = The Austin, small-ish existing dev pipeline however a solid existing planning regime to support major change already in place.
Bundoora/La Trobe = An NEIC and already has an ambitious master plan from 2014, no doubt this will be updated, regardless here it is.  Small existing development pipeline, but this is one area where it wouldn't be outside of the realms of possibility that major rezoning outside the university campus happens.
Reservoir = small existing pipeline, but like all the northern station locations, planning changes can and most likely will occur.
Fawkner = if this ends up being the Upfield line's station, it will be the one with the least scope for development intensification.  Alas, you can't have them all.
Broadmeadows = very large scope for change with planning work already underway.  A history of higher-density development (public buildings) has all the bare-bones needed for major change.  Plus - if MARL is built to Broadmeadows (City-Sunshine-Airport-Broadmeadows) like the SRL staging map shows (page 26), from the start of MARL, which the gov says will kick off construction in 2022, the entire Craigieburn line - and the inner-north west - will find the MARL "useful".  Dev could get supercharged in Broadmeadows faster than we might all think (only if MARL terminates at Broadmeadows from day 1, not the airport).
The 'shine = an NEIC, and in the same boat as Broadmeadows.
Stations along the RFR to Werribee = multiple higher-density suburbs are already proposed.

So despite the tunnels heading under suburban areas, most of the proposed station locations are either well on their way through changes, have large patronage generators already or have had or undertaking planning changes already to guide change.

Also, wouldn't be surprised if the nicely rounded and easy-to-remember $50 billion pricetag includes upgrading existing lines with new power/signalling like it's been proposed through the Network development plan (Frankston, Ringwood, Mernda and Craigieburn lines are clear priorities to get a similar Pakenham/Cranbourne and eventually Sunbury post MM1 treatment over time).

$0.02.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

[b]@mejhammers1[/b]

Low density suburbs along the Route, only low density surbub it crosses is Heatherton and that can be redeveloped into a housing and employment hub. Doncatser, Box Hill, Monash all low density suburbs- give me a break. Hub and Spoke won’t cut it anymore for Melbourne
Umm I thought much of the route was through low-density suburbs?
The tunnels will go under a lot of low-density stuff, yep, but the stations - even now and taking into account their existing development pipelines - aren't the same as a typical suburban area.

Cheltenham = Depends if the line will connect at Cheltenham or Southland, but regardless ~35 development projects in the pipeline.  Plus Southland, need we say more.
Clayton = Few projects, probably more about the mega-hub plus providing access to Monash Medical.  Small-ish scope for some redevelopment.  Remember 4 storey buildings can hold a lot of people, we don't need skyscrapers everywhere.
Monash University = an NEIC, already a massive patronage source.  Station position will be key here, to see how useful it will be to the wider NEIC/existing employment areas.
Glen Waverley (or Mount Waverley) = small amount of dev pipeline work, not a lot of scope for changes to that, a relatively minor station in the grand scheme of things, but necessary if they're aiming for maximum connectivity.
Deakin/Burwood = doesn't need an explanation.  The area immediately to the east along the Burwood highway is already zoned for higher-density development (Commerical and Residential Growth zones).
Box Hill = enormous pipeline (mind you, that enormous pipeline was built even without the SRL on the horizon) and if Whitehorse are anything to go by, a sign of bigger things to come, the most obvious connection to Ringwood lines.
Doncaster = the SC and a very healthy dev pipeline in a council area that has a pedigree of wanting more and more new development, plenty of scope for redevelopment of existing areas as well.
Heidelberg = The Austin, small-ish existing dev pipeline however a solid existing planning regime to support major change already in place.
Bundoora/La Trobe = An NEIC and already has an ambitious master plan from 2014, no doubt this will be updated, regardless here it is.  Small existing development pipeline, but this is one area where it wouldn't be outside of the realms of possibility that major rezoning outside the university campus happens.
Reservoir = small existing pipeline, but like all the northern station locations, planning changes can and most likely will occur.
Fawkner = if this ends up being the Upfield line's station, it will be the one with the least scope for development intensification.  Alas, you can't have them all.
Broadmeadows = very large scope for change with planning work already underway.  A history of higher-density development (public buildings) has all the bare-bones needed for major change.  Plus - if MARL is built to Broadmeadows (City-Sunshine-Airport-Broadmeadows) like the SRL staging map shows (page 26), from the start of MARL, which the gov says will kick off construction in 2022, the entire Craigieburn line - and the inner-north west - will find the MARL "useful".  Dev could get supercharged in Broadmeadows faster than we might all think (only if MARL terminates at Broadmeadows from day 1, not the airport).
The 'shine = an NEIC, and in the same boat as Broadmeadows.
Stations along the RFR to Werribee = multiple higher-density suburbs are already proposed.

So despite the tunnels heading under suburban areas, most of the proposed station locations are either well on their way through changes, have large patronage generators already or have had or undertaking planning changes already to guide change.

Also, wouldn't be surprised if the nicely rounded and easy-to-remember $50 billion pricetag includes upgrading existing lines with new power/signalling like it's been proposed through the Network development plan (Frankston, Ringwood, Mernda and Craigieburn lines are clear priorities to get a similar Pakenham/Cranbourne and eventually Sunbury post MM1 treatment over time).

$0.02.
tayser
Terrific post. Anyone who really believes Sunshine, Broady, Box Hill and Monash are unserviced outer fringes has clearly not been there for the last 10 years.

@mejhammers1, I'll happily agree that MM2 is a bigger priority than the full SRL, but I absolutely reckon the south-east section is on a par with MM2 in terms of the immediate potential benefits.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

@mejhammers1

Low density suburbs along the Route, only low density surbub it crosses is Heatherton and that can be redeveloped into a housing and employment hub. Doncatser, Box Hill, Monash all low density suburbs- give me a break. Hub and Spoke won’t cut it anymore for Melbourne
Umm I thought much of the route was through low-density suburbs?
The tunnels will go under a lot of low-density stuff, yep, but the stations - even now and taking into account their existing development pipelines - aren't the same as a typical suburban area.

Cheltenham = Depends if the line will connect at Cheltenham or Southland, but regardless ~35 development projects in the pipeline.  Plus Southland, need we say more.
Clayton = Few projects, probably more about the mega-hub plus providing access to Monash Medical.  Small-ish scope for some redevelopment.  Remember 4 storey buildings can hold a lot of people, we don't need skyscrapers everywhere.
Monash University = an NEIC, already a massive patronage source.  Station position will be key here, to see how useful it will be to the wider NEIC/existing employment areas.
Glen Waverley (or Mount Waverley) = small amount of dev pipeline work, not a lot of scope for changes to that, a relatively minor station in the grand scheme of things, but necessary if they're aiming for maximum connectivity.
Deakin/Burwood = doesn't need an explanation.  The area immediately to the east along the Burwood highway is already zoned for higher-density development (Commerical and Residential Growth zones).
Box Hill = enormous pipeline (mind you, that enormous pipeline was built even without the SRL on the horizon) and if Whitehorse are anything to go by, a sign of bigger things to come, the most obvious connection to Ringwood lines.
Doncaster = the SC and a very healthy dev pipeline in a council area that has a pedigree of wanting more and more new development, plenty of scope for redevelopment of existing areas as well.
Heidelberg = The Austin, small-ish existing dev pipeline however a solid existing planning regime to support major change already in place.
Bundoora/La Trobe = An NEIC and already has an ambitious master plan from 2014, no doubt this will be updated, regardless here it is.  Small existing development pipeline, but this is one area where it wouldn't be outside of the realms of possibility that major rezoning outside the university campus happens.
Reservoir = small existing pipeline, but like all the northern station locations, planning changes can and most likely will occur.
Fawkner = if this ends up being the Upfield line's station, it will be the one with the least scope for development intensification.  Alas, you can't have them all.
Broadmeadows = very large scope for change with planning work already underway.  A history of higher-density development (public buildings) has all the bare-bones needed for major change.  Plus - if MARL is built to Broadmeadows (City-Sunshine-Airport-Broadmeadows) like the SRL staging map shows (page 26), from the start of MARL, which the gov says will kick off construction in 2022, the entire Craigieburn line - and the inner-north west - will find the MARL "useful".  Dev could get supercharged in Broadmeadows faster than we might all think (only if MARL terminates at Broadmeadows from day 1, not the airport).
The 'shine = an NEIC, and in the same boat as Broadmeadows.
Stations along the RFR to Werribee = multiple higher-density suburbs are already proposed.

So despite the tunnels heading under suburban areas, most of the proposed station locations are either well on their way through changes, have large patronage generators already or have had or undertaking planning changes already to guide change.

Also, wouldn't be surprised if the nicely rounded and easy-to-remember $50 billion pricetag includes upgrading existing lines with new power/signalling like it's been proposed through the Network development plan (Frankston, Ringwood, Mernda and Craigieburn lines are clear priorities to get a similar Pakenham/Cranbourne and eventually Sunbury post MM1 treatment over time).

$0.02.
tayser

And bearing in mind that's just what's on the menu now.  In the next 10-20 years there'll be a ton more high density development in surburban hubs, and constructing the SRL will spur on more of it.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
@mejhammers1

Low density suburbs along the Route, only low density surbub it crosses is Heatherton and that can be redeveloped into a housing and employment hub. Doncatser, Box Hill, Monash all low density suburbs- give me a break. Hub and Spoke won’t cut it anymore for Melbourne
Umm I thought much of the route was through low-density suburbs?
The tunnels will go under a lot of low-density stuff, yep, but the stations - even now and taking into account their existing development pipelines - aren't the same as a typical suburban area.

Cheltenham = Depends if the line will connect at Cheltenham or Southland, but regardless ~35 development projects in the pipeline.  Plus Southland, need we say more.
Clayton = Few projects, probably more about the mega-hub plus providing access to Monash Medical.  Small-ish scope for some redevelopment.  Remember 4 storey buildings can hold a lot of people, we don't need skyscrapers everywhere.
Monash University = an NEIC, already a massive patronage source.  Station position will be key here, to see how useful it will be to the wider NEIC/existing employment areas.
Glen Waverley (or Mount Waverley) = small amount of dev pipeline work, not a lot of scope for changes to that, a relatively minor station in the grand scheme of things, but necessary if they're aiming for maximum connectivity.
Deakin/Burwood = doesn't need an explanation.  The area immediately to the east along the Burwood highway is already zoned for higher-density development (Commerical and Residential Growth zones).
Box Hill = enormous pipeline (mind you, that enormous pipeline was built even without the SRL on the horizon) and if Whitehorse are anything to go by, a sign of bigger things to come, the most obvious connection to Ringwood lines.
Doncaster = the SC and a very healthy dev pipeline in a council area that has a pedigree of wanting more and more new development, plenty of scope for redevelopment of existing areas as well.
Heidelberg = The Austin, small-ish existing dev pipeline however a solid existing planning regime to support major change already in place.
Bundoora/La Trobe = An NEIC and already has an ambitious master plan from 2014, no doubt this will be updated, regardless here it is.  Small existing development pipeline, but this is one area where it wouldn't be outside of the realms of possibility that major rezoning outside the university campus happens.
Reservoir = small existing pipeline, but like all the northern station locations, planning changes can and most likely will occur.
Fawkner = if this ends up being the Upfield line's station, it will be the one with the least scope for development intensification.  Alas, you can't have them all.
Broadmeadows = very large scope for change with planning work already underway.  A history of higher-density development (public buildings) has all the bare-bones needed for major change.  Plus - if MARL is built to Broadmeadows (City-Sunshine-Airport-Broadmeadows) like the SRL staging map shows (page 26), from the start of MARL, which the gov says will kick off construction in 2022, the entire Craigieburn line - and the inner-north west - will find the MARL "useful".  Dev could get supercharged in Broadmeadows faster than we might all think (only if MARL terminates at Broadmeadows from day 1, not the airport).
The 'shine = an NEIC, and in the same boat as Broadmeadows.
Stations along the RFR to Werribee = multiple higher-density suburbs are already proposed.

So despite the tunnels heading under suburban areas, most of the proposed station locations are either well on their way through changes, have large patronage generators already or have had or undertaking planning changes already to guide change.

Also, wouldn't be surprised if the nicely rounded and easy-to-remember $50 billion pricetag includes upgrading existing lines with new power/signalling like it's been proposed through the Network development plan (Frankston, Ringwood, Mernda and Craigieburn lines are clear priorities to get a similar Pakenham/Cranbourne and eventually Sunbury post MM1 treatment over time).

$0.02.
tayser
Don't know about you but I'm pretty certain those aren't going to be the only stations...
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

We'll see, but you're probably right.  I would hazard a guess they won't announce any further stations for a while though, as they would want to be able to claim the loop is planned to run as fast as possible.
  Lockie91 Train Controller

Stations won’t be announced until the business case is completed and released.

At the moment the ALP and Development Victoria have drawn a line through Melbourne based on Plan Melbourne Documents (activity centres) and which seats needed a boost at the last election.

It’s now over to the transport planners at TfV to make it a reality. They will smash transport data such as boardings, current and forecast patronage, population growth, fleet, running time against Development Victoria plan for urban renewal.

Stations will be cut and added based on where the numbers fall. Glen Waverley and Fawkner are two of those odd choices which stand out. Both have very limited development potential and are not activity centres.

The bean counters will ultimately decide and it’s a document will are not likely to see until 2020.

The government already has its hands full with MM1, WGT, HCMTS, NEL and all the budget goodies that are yet to be announced. SRL will be the show pony of the the 2022 election.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

At the moment the ALP and Development Victoria have drawn a line through Melbourne based on Plan Melbourne Documents (activity centres) and which seats needed a boost at the last election. It’s now over to the transport planners at TfV to make it a reality. They will smash transport data such as boardings, current and forecast patronage, population growth, fleet, running time against Development Victoria plan for urban renewal.
Lockie91

This is very, very close to exactly how planning should be done. We just want more transparency about the process.

Start with the urban planners.

Here’s what we want the city/state to look like. (Polycentricity)

Here’s what we need to make that happen. (Connectivity between centres)

Now, how do we do that in the most efficient way? Over to the transport (or water, or electricity, or health) experts. (Which stations should we include?)

The goal can’t be to depoliticise this process entirely - we live in a democracy after all, and parties should be presenting competing legitimate visions of their future state. But it should be open from the very beginning and left to the experts at every level of detail.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller


Stations will be cut and added based on where the numbers fall. Glen Waverley and Fawkner are two of those odd choices which stand out. Both have very limited development potential and are not activity centres.
Lockie91

Agree with everything in your post, just have one comment:

Glen Waverley and Fawkner are there for the sake of connectivity between their lines and the loop, they won't be cut.  Half of the whole purpose of the project is to connect the radial lines.  

Whether or not central Glen Waverley develops much further, it has a pretty big catchment population (including a big student population) which would generate traffic to Monash, Deakin and the airport.  

"Fawkner" may not actually be Fawkner anyway - it may be more like Gowrie.  Regarding development potential, Fawkner obviously won't realistically change much given the location of the cemetery.  Gowrie is currently a light industrial nothingsville, but given another 30 years, the urban redevelopment happening in places like Preston/Coburg/Reservoir could be happening there also.
  John E Station Master


Stations will be cut and added based on where the numbers fall. Glen Waverley and Fawkner are two of those odd choices which stand out. Both have very limited development potential and are not activity centres.

Agree with everything in your post, just have one comment:

Glen Waverley and Fawkner are there for the sake of connectivity between their lines and the loop, they won't be cut.  Half of the whole purpose of the project is to connect the radial lines.  

Whether or not central Glen Waverley develops much further, it has a pretty big catchment population (including a big student population) which would generate traffic to Monash, Deakin and the airport.  

"Fawkner" may not actually be Fawkner anyway - it may be more like Gowrie.  Regarding development potential, Fawkner obviously won't realistically change much given the location of the cemetery.  Gowrie is currently a light industrial nothingsville, but given another 30 years, the urban redevelopment happening in places like Preston/Coburg/Reservoir could be happening there also.
Adogs
A key consideration of SRL project is that the new SRL stations is that passengers need to have a quick and easy connection to the existing radial line stations and other transport connections e.g Buses. For Glen Waverley there is very little space available anywhere near the station - the designers will need to get creative to build a new underground station with so many obstacles in close proximity (Tall building at end of station, some stabling for Glen Waverley line). This will be an issue at most SRL stations.

The other issue with Glen Waverley and "Fawkner" is both stations are at the end or close to the end of the line so the catchment of passengers transferring from the radial service is likely to be much lower.

Another key consideration for the SRL project should be value capture as a direct means to help recover some of the construction costs. Sadly i don't think too much thought has been put into this yet.
For the Upfield Line station (Gowrie or even a new station at Campbellfield) the value capture potential should be much higher because the area is undeveloped compared to other sites and right now the land will be much cheaper. The patronage of this station would also be helped if a future electrified Wallan service is diverted through Upfield.
  justarider Assistant Commissioner

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.

Stations will be cut and added based on where the numbers fall. Glen Waverley and Fawkner are two of those odd choices which stand out. Both have very limited development potential and are not activity centres.

Agree with everything in your post, just have one comment:

Glen Waverley and Fawkner are there for the sake of connectivity between their lines and the loop, they won't be cut.  Half of the whole purpose of the project is to connect the radial lines.  

Whether or not central Glen Waverley develops much further, it has a pretty big catchment population (including a big student population) which would generate traffic to Monash, Deakin and the airport.  

"Fawkner" may not actually be Fawkner anyway - it may be more like Gowrie.  Regarding development potential, Fawkner obviously won't realistically change much given the location of the cemetery.  Gowrie is currently a light industrial nothingsville, but given another 30 years, the urban redevelopment happening in places like Preston/Coburg/Reservoir could be happening there also.
--Adogs

A key consideration of SRL project is that the new SRL stations is that passengers need to have a quick and easy connection to the existing radial line stations and other transport connections e.g Buses. For Glen Waverley there is very little space available anywhere near the station - the designers will need to get creative to build a new underground station with so many obstacles in close proximity (Tall building at end of station, some stabling for Glen Waverley line). This will be an issue at most SRL stations.

The other issue with Glen Waverley and "Fawkner" is both stations are at the end or close to the end of the line so the catchment of passengers transferring from the radial service is likely to be much lower.

Another key consideration for the SRL project should be value capture as a direct means to help recover some of the construction costs. Sadly i don't think too much thought has been put into this yet.
For the Upfield Line station (Gowrie or even a new station at Campbellfield) the value capture potential should be much higher because the area is undeveloped compared to other sites and right now the land will be much cheaper. The patronage of this station would also be helped if a future electrified Wallan service is diverted through Upfield.
John E
@John_E ever visited Glen Waverley station ??

Of course there is little room left, it's being taken up by all those buses.
Eleven - 11- different routes visit here making the station one of the busiest hub in Melbourne.
The station may be the end of the line, but it already is a huge capture point from GW out to the hills in all directions.
SRL will make it an even more attractive destination.

The point of building tunnels is that you don't need much room at the surface.
It can all be done underneath. The equipment, personnel, components, spoil travel many km down the tunnel to a suitable entry portal.

All the SRL station needs is space for the escalators and lift to appear on the surface, which is already reserved in the new station entrance building at Kingsway. The foundations were built with "underneath" in mind.

Gowrie is a lot easier to imagine. It's pretty much a greenfield, so any method could work.
Again, Gowrie is a bus destination. Sure pretty small ( 4 bus routes) but plenty of scope to increase as required.

PS: certainly not Fawkner Cemetry. The mind boggles at the thought of bus stops inside the cemetery, and never ever a PTV car park.

cheers
John

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: