Sir Rod Eddington delivered the East West Assessment, which formed the bases of the Brumby Governments too little too late transport agenda in 2008. It was, as you said, in 2012 that PTV which was established by the then Baillieu that delivered the Network Development Plan. This was at the same time they commisioned the latest Doncaster Study. PTV released the preferred alignment for Doncaster in October 2012, two years before the final report was released in 2014.
The line was on the map before the final report was released. As it was know by PTV that additional capacity would be needed between Clifton Hill and The City Loop.
I can agree with that. Both the Doncaster and Rowville studies findings were put together into the PTV network development plan, they were all delivered together under the Ted Ballieu government. And the route of the second metro tunnel was proposed as a way to enable capacity to put the Doncaster rail line into the picture.
At the current stage, the Doncaster railway proposal that's currently being considered is the orbital route (which surprisingly was knocked out as a viable option in the Doncaster study). This puts some doubts on the viability of the second Metro tunnel.
The phrase Metro 2 was coined before 2015, PTV called it a second metro tunnel, it wasn't too hard for the hun to swap the two words around. Parkville was not pre panned back in 2015. This was done by the current Andrews government. The original 2012 PTV NDP has the line travelling via Parkville to Fishermen's bend. The Baillieu government via Mathew Guy had just rezoned all of Fisherman's bend, a future metro line was a good selling point to future developers. Werribee was not added until the refresh of the NDP when someone decided to draw a line across the Yarra.
As for provisions, they are just bored piles. Deep enough to allow future construction below the current platforms.
What I was trying to say was when the original Melbourne metro tunnel started to be revived under the Andrews government, the news started pay attention on the prospects of the second tunnel, using the term "Metro 2", the hun was the first news source to acknowledge that the Metro Tunnel project has left room for the second tunnel. This is the first time we have seen provision for that particular project.
When the PTV network plan was released in 2012, in the news most of the future proposals wasn't taken very seriously (for good reason due to government inaction) , it was only during the progress on Metro 1, the news were more accustomed to accept the second tunnel as a serious project into the future.
In the original NDP, they left a note that the tunnel would connect at a future date (probably as a future stage). The updated one, pushed it into two part project, including the missing section to Werribee.
I didn't mention it as it falls into the same category as Doncaster, just a line on a map. The majority of the corridor is reserved, land around Lalor isn't. Doncaster had a predicted catchment of 56,000 by 2050, Wollert will be even less. It far fetched, no business case or study has been commissioned to detail the costs and service provisions. It did appear in a leaked rail map in 2018 which was titled stage 6, with stage one being Metro 1 day one. Still 20 years away, if ever.
This is where I disagree, the Wollert rail branch doesn't fall in the same category as Doncaster. Doncaster rail has been an on and off project for 100 years never seeing the light of day. Whereas this corridor is relatively new and planned ahead of the development, which is surprising. It all depends on the politics of the day whether it happens sooner or later. Eventually there will be community movement on the matter when the area is fully built up. After all, Mernda rail happened much sooner than most would of predicted, due to the community movement and the politics aligning together.
I'm not saying this line will be built soon, but it's definitely within the 10-20 year time-frame. Plenty of time to decide to add capacity on the Mernda line, but the Wollert corridor catchment is growing so it can't be underestimated as a project into the future.
Now you just sound like the poor transport planners that had to sell Doncaster. You DON'T add lines that have capacity into a $20 Billion tunnel to justify it. Justification happens when those current corridors have no additional capacity to serve the population and a new route is required. We are a long long way away from that happening in Werribee, once the 24TPH are at crush load everyday then a conversation around additional capacity is needed.
It could save 10 minutes.... is not why you build a tunnel. This is the poor freeway argument that politicians like to use when they spend hundreds of millions on new freeways lanes. For just $500 million you can get to the city 3 minutes faster. It sells when you are sitting in traffic, reality is within a year or so induced demand has eaten what ever benefit was constructed.
Services every 10 minutes all day makes train travel attractive, not saving ten minutes.
I didn't say the 10 minute saving makes the secondary tunnel a viable alternative right now. I'm saying that's an additional benefit, if it ever does go ahead, obviously frequency takes priority over speed. Whenever the Werribee corridor does reach that critical 24tph, then the tunnel will viable to construct. This is correct that it will take it's time, probably 20 years time.
I was just mentioning you could bring forward the project by 10 years by allowing additional services using the tunnel until the Werribee line reaches it's capacity. While this isn't the ideal outcome, it's just something that could be considered. Honestly don't think the secondary tunnel is the way forward (right now but much later) as you read the last section saying there are better alternatives that could be considered to add capacity in a economical way ahead of the tunnel.
The only thing I do agree with, pushing Metro 2 as some kind of be all crystal ball to Melbourne's transport woes is sad. It not and never will be. Addressing long standing issues that effect everyone everyday is how you fix it. The City Loop reconfiguration is a great example of this. So is fixing Clifton Hill Junction, High Capacity Signalling and TRAINS EVERY 10 MINUTES. Once we've fixed the existing network, improved signalling technology and pushed everything we can out of it, then new ideas like Metro 2 need to be discussed and planed.
All Metro 2 was, was flashy marketing to sell Doncaster Rail and Fishermen's Bend. It wasn't needed then and isn't now. If it was, it would of been announced at the last election. SRL was chosen and is a far better project for Melbourne.
I think we are mostly on the same page here, it's just my explanation needed some work. I really do hope other projects will be considered as a priority above the metro 2 concept, since there are alternatives that can be considered that greatly improve the network at a better cost.
I do however think somewhere down the line the second tunnel could be considered, whenever fisherman's bend development, the long forgotten Wollert corridor and the growing demand on the Werribee corridor supports it. At the moment it's just not ready to be justified as of yet, when there are other priorities on the network to be considered first.
