Lots of comments re: Monash seem to be missing what was said in the press conference: station location also took into account of existing sensitive buildings and services and with Monash the SRL Authority leadership mentioned the new heart hospital and the synchrotron (either side of Blackburn Road north of the Blackburn/Wellington Road intersection).  i.e it's "bad" to do extensive drilling/digging near these buildings.

Plus, as someone else mentioned, the site currently houses an older student accomodation block and given the University has been slowly filling its sites around the original campus footprint, it passes the pub test that the campus will expand northwards once they've filled everything up.

And re: bus loop - the beauty of buses is that you can easily alter routes and I suspect that's what'll happen within the campus.  

If the Rowville LRT is a) still a thing and b) takes a FTG Road -> Blackburn Road (or directly via the uni campus) -> Wellington Road route, it could also be a feeder for the station.  

eg. Blue (via FTG Rd) versus Orange (Princes HWY).

Still lots to figure out but overall the Monash station location seems to work as long as there are existing network adjustments.  Plus, the entire Monash area is desginated an NEIC and VPA will probably swing in again and do more work re: how to encourage new and redevelopment over time around the station.

Good Stuff, this goes with what Daniel Bowen has mentioned in his blog today. Monash Uni owns all the land and future uni expansion is set to take place around the new SRL Station. As it stands it may be out of the way, come 2030 when the project is complete it will be centre of the expanded Uni.

Also confirmed in his blog, Light Rail is still a thing and will go ahead now that the station location is known. This indicates that the Light Rail will connect with a future Monash SRL Station.

Stabling and Maintenance at Heatherton with 'provision' for a future station here and in Mount Waverly.

Lockie

Long time listener, first time caller!

Like others, I question Glen Waverley over Mount Waverley due to the extra distance, extra cost, and extra travelling time. Depends on what the purpose is. If Mount Waverley is deemed to be a future spot to 'upsize' everything then it would make sense to go there. I guess they know more than I do about this.

Also, the long distance between Southland and Clayton, with mention of a depot somewhere. I know that stations cost money, and in this case being underground they cost mega-dollars, however this is a mega-dollars project. Thoughts on a station 'somewhere' in car-dependant Clarinda? I don't know the area, just going from a map, so just wondering if it would be worthwhile to spend a ton of money for a station there.

Welcome aboard. Bonus points for the 3LO talkback caller intro!

Some commentary this morning on the unfortunate need to acquire properties to ensure the network can be built https://t.co/DrgHFhWt7G?amp=1

The extra distance, extra cost, and extra travelling time is very minimal in comparison to the whole project together, it's much easier to develop something like Glen Waverley, than something like Mount Waverley.

The whole point of the project was a thought bubble from Development Victoria, the whole point is to connect the economic hubs together and areas already with established development, unless you wanna rezone the whole area of Mount Waverley to high rise development then it's unlikely to happen.

Extra travel time ~3 minutes

Extra costs ~0.5-1 billion at most

Extra distance ~1-2 kilometres

But in turn you get a significantly higher benefit which you guys seem to forget, no point making it direct, if there's nothing to back-up connecting it into a sub par location that's difficult for development.

Like most here, I had automatically assumed Monash station would be under the busloop or thereabouts.  

But the more I think about it - the northern end isn't too bad an option.  Bulldoze Normanby House for the station, then encourage more housing developments through there like the one that took over the old Rusden campus etc.

It's not really that far to walk, I lived on campus at Monash for a few years back 20 years ago, and generally the walk from Halls of Res to the campus centre was only about 10-15 minutes.  Less if you were an engineering student.

If nothing else it'll be great for those who live on campus who want to get into the city on weekends - that was a freakin' saga back in the day...  walk 15mins to the Bus Loop, wait for the 630 Bus, ride to Huntingdale, wait for train...  it used to take hours to get anywhere.

(Last part meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as the students in Halls are only a small % of the expected patronage, but still it'll be great for them.  And for drunk patrons stumbling out of the Nott).

My 2 cents. (all its worth)

The last days comments about the station locations have all been premised upon those green circles being location of station boxes.

Why boxes? MM1 uses a mix of boxes or caverns, depending on suitabilty for the location.

For SRL, needs a box to launch the TBM. Probably Southland. The others not necessary.

For Box Hill, its going to be very deep. Hence just an access shaft down to the tunnel level ( and cavern) makes more sense than an impossibly deep box with no future uses other than the bit right down (100m?) the bottom.

For Monash, Normanby House as an access point / station entrance only, gives 200m or so platform etc heading south.
Add a short pedestrian tunnel/travellator and you're at campus centre. You get good access for multiple sites in the area.

For those meeting existing stations, a short pedestrian cross-over (escallator, lift) will be essential to attract the volume of customers needed to pay for it.
As long as one end of the platform matches that, a win.

Each location has a choice of which method works best.

AND we have learnt this week (MM1) the cost implications if you don't get it right at the planning stage.

cheers
John

The extra distance, extra cost, and extra travelling time is very minimal in comparison to the whole project together, it's much easier to develop something like Glen Waverley, than something like Mount Waverley.

The whole point of the project was a thought bubble from Development Victoria, the whole point is to connect the economic hubs together and areas already with established development, unless you wanna rezone the whole area of Mount Waverley to high rise development then it's unlikely to happen.

Extra travel time ~3 minutes

Extra costs ~0.5-1 billion at most

Extra distance ~1-2 kilometres

But in turn you get a significantly higher benefit which you guys seem to forget, no point making it direct, if there's nothing to back-up connecting it into a sub par location that's difficult for development.

I will disagree with your statements.

I must admit it is a guess, but I think 80% of journeys on new SRL will NOT have Glen Waverley as beginning or end of journey. 80% of journeys on new SRL will be lengthened by 3 minutes. That is actually a significant amount of time wasted. Taking a stab at numbers, 200,000 journeys per year increased by 3 minutes = 600,000 minutes = 416 days per year wasted.
Assuming the electricity isn't green, there are extra CO2 emissions as well.

You make the statement Mt Waverley is "difficult for development". That is a dubious statement as the area can be rezoned as required. If local council won't come to the party, the Victorian Govt can pass legislation to ensure the rezoning occurs.

Mt Waverley is the better option, but the Vic Govt has already decided on Glen Waverley and I don't think anyone can change their choice.

I find it interesting that in the latest newsletter for SRL they state that there have only been 573 surveys completed since consultation began in relation to the proposed station sites back in June.

This includes only 34 responses in relation to the proposed station at Clayton and only 38 responses to the proposed station at Glen Waverley.  That suggests to me that so far there doesn't seem to have been much interest in this project (although granted there have been some other fairly significant issues happening in Victoria during this time).

Ross

I must admit it is a guess, but I think 80% of journeys on new SRL will NOT have Glen Waverley as beginning or end of journey. 80% of journeys on new SRL will be lengthened by 3 minutes. That is actually a significant amount of time wasted. Taking a stab at numbers, 200,000 journeys per year increased by 3 minutes = 600,000 minutes = 416 days per year wasted.
Assuming the electricity isn't green, there are extra CO2 emissions as well.

You make the statement Mt Waverley is "difficult for development". That is a dubious statement as the area can be rezoned as required. If local council won't come to the party, the Victorian Govt can pass legislation to ensure the rezoning occurs.

Mt Waverley is the better option, but the Vic Govt has already decided on Glen Waverley and I don't think anyone can change their choice.

It's actually more likely Glen Waverley would have more journeys than Mount Waverley and it's surroundings. Why?

First of all it is the terminus of the rail line, so all the bus routes all converge at Glen Waverley, so people who live beyond Glen Waverley are likely to use the SRL at the Glen Waverley stop.

Anyone who lives on the inner portion of the Glen Waverley line are more likely to travel city-bound than to travel outbound towards the SRL.

You forget that the SRL caters more to people who live beyond Glen Waverley, not just Glen Waverley itself. By having an SRL stop at Glen Waverley it will reduce the loads at the terminus, which is a massive positive in my view.

And yes I can make the statement Mt Waverley is "difficult for development", because development isn't just the homes which you think it is.

It includes other supporting infrastructure, like the shops, the businesses, schools and a hospital. If you want an attractive area, you need these basic infrastructure nearby. Oh wait Glen Waverley has a-lot of this basic infrastructure in place, which makes it easy just to build apartments nearby. Building from scratch is way more costly, than deviating the rail loop just a few kilometres to something already suitable. If it ain't broke, no need to fix. The reason why fisherman's bend development has stalled, is because we don't want another Docklands where there is just apartments and no supporting infrastructure. Mount Waverley would be much trickier to convert into a business hub than you make it to be.

Plus the fact that Glen Waverley is a terminus just makes that option way more attractive and viable than an altered Mount Waverley connection could ever become.

Re the Monash location, if it was (as assumed) to be at the current bus terminal, could that route have posed an issue with Synchrotron due to proximity? For those playing at home, trusty Wikipedia says it is "a light source facility which uses particle accelerators to produce a beam of high energy electrons that are boosted to nearly the speed of light". I'm no science guy, but it sounds like something you don't want lots of ground vibrations for.

Perhaps though the route wouldn't change anyway and the station location has no impact on Synchrotron?

Perhaps though the route wouldn't change anyway and the station location has no impact on Synchrotron?

I think the idea is that the trains will be accelerated by the synchrotron to light speed, therefore assisting Metro meet performance targets.

Re the Monash location, if it was (as assumed) to be at the current bus terminal, could that route have posed an issue with Synchrotron due to proximity? For those playing at home, trusty Wikipedia says it is "a light source facility which uses particle accelerators to produce a beam of high energy electrons that are boosted to nearly the speed of light". I'm no science guy, but it sounds like something you don't want lots of ground vibrations for.

Perhaps though the route wouldn't change anyway and the station location has no impact on Synchrotron?

Normanby House and the Bus Loop are both ~1km away from the Synchrotron.

I see there will be a few doubting people and organisations on this project but when it is completed everyone yes everyone will see what a great project it is solving one of the major issues with the Melbourne network being all lines radiate from the CBD.

What gauge will the line be built to SG?

How will it access the airport at Melbourne?

Personally I'm just relieved they will have started some construction and got things underway before the next few election cycles. Means it may actually stand a chance of being finished one day.

I think they should start framing Stage 2 as two parts that are smaller to bite off so that it too actually happens one day: Stage 2a from Reservoir -> La Trobe -> Heidelberg -> Doncaster -> Box Hill would stand on it's own as a project, giving you another university on the line, hospitals and employment precinct while linking the North East.

Then Stage 2b from Reservoir through to a termination of SRL East at the Airport. Maybe CSL can chip in a few billion to put the line through Campbellfield instead of further South !

The West needs it's own rail solution rather than waiting 30+ years for the construction from the SRL to finally get around to that side. Get that started as a completely different project.

Stage 2 is actually Werribee to Sunshine, then stage 3 Sunshine to the airport, with stage 4 airport to Box Hill, in order of planned building. That said, breaking up stage 4 ain't a bad idea but the west isn't going to have to wait until the other stages are done, unless the original build order is changed.

Neil

I think Glen Waverley is a superior location to Mount Waverley, as other posters have mentioned, it is already a significant terminus, with The Glen Shopping centre, significant amounts of jobs, services and is well suited for medium/ high density residential growth. To build Mount Waverley up to this same level of activity would require significant additional investment and time, whilst acknowledging it would save a little bit of time to go via Mount Waverley versus Glen Waverley. Still the extra travel time results in increased strategic benefits, so arguably it is justified.

SRL works best to service existing high activity centres that will encourage patronage, and combined with improved local feeder high frequency bus services should greatly enhance public transport provision across Melbourne.

I think an additional station is needed in the Clarinda area, to cater for the residental area and industries in the area. This would help reduce a significant gap of stations between Cheltenham and Clayton.

I think an additional station is needed in the Clarinda area, to cater for the residental area and industries in the area. This would help reduce a significant gap of stations between Cheltenham and Clayton.

Yes, there is a clear need in this catchment. A station at Heatherton has already been canvassed as highly probable. Either Heatherton or Clarinda both work subject to future  housing developments in the next decade.

I'd also suggest a Box Hill South station as well for this first section. Once ARL opens, there will be community demands in future decades to build extra stations. Adding a couple of extra stations now not only increasing patronage but will be more cost effective.

I think an additional station is needed in the Clarinda area, to cater for the residental area and industries in the area. This would help reduce a significant gap of stations between Cheltenham and Clayton.

Yes, there is a clear need in this catchment. A station at Heatherton has already been canvassed as highly probable. Either Heatherton or Clarinda both work subject to future  housing developments in the next decade.

I'd also suggest a Box Hill South station as well for this first section. Once ARL opens, there will be community demands in future decades to build extra stations. Adding a couple of extra stations now not only increasing patronage but will be more cost effective.

Oh gawd, yet another station underneath a big hill.
SRL doesn't need tunnel engineers, we need deep seam miners.

Things are moving forward quickly:
https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/suburban-rail-loop-works-out-market

I think the Govt will build this, see how it goes, and if it's a raging success and the economy is OK, they'll keep building North of Box Hill.

But they shouldn't build the North East Road Link. That's hideously expensive and reckless.

North East Link in its current scale is in my opinion an impulse election decision and isn’t the best value. Eastern Freeway soon will be like Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas.

North East Link in its current scale is in my opinion an impulse election decision and isn’t the best value. Eastern Freeway soon will be like Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas.

To be fair, the NE Link, Westgate Tunnel and the Suburban Rail Link has been impulse election decisions.

Michael

When considering the metro 2 tunnel proposal and the suburban rail loop I have questions.

For SRL how does the rolling stock get into and out of the current system onto the SRL system in morning and evenings?

Where will the rolling stock be stored and serviced?  Could the servicing be done outside of the SRL network maybe at a fringe service centre or maybe Dynon?

how will the SRL connect to the current tracks in Melbourne?

When considering the metro 2 tunnel proposal and the suburban rail loop I have questions.

For SRL how does the rolling stock get into and out of the current system onto the SRL system in morning and evenings?

Where will the rolling stock be stored and serviced?  Could the servicing be done outside of the SRL network maybe at a fringe service centre or maybe Dynon?

how will the SRL connect to the current tracks in Melbourne?

The current proposal is for SRL to use a different gauge so I doubt Dynon will be included. Cheltenham (Southland) to Box Hill is the first stage, so they will probably build yards between Cheltenham and Clayton in that area of former landfills we call Heatherton/Dingley.

When considering the metro 2 tunnel proposal and the suburban rail loop I have questions.

For SRL how does the rolling stock get into and out of the current system onto the SRL system in morning and evenings?

Where will the rolling stock be stored and serviced?  Could the servicing be done outside of the SRL network maybe at a fringe service centre or maybe Dynon?

how will the SRL connect to the current tracks in Melbourne?

SRL network and existing train network are separate networks. From your username, you'd be familiar how Metro and Sydney trains also run separately.

The new rolling-stock will be stored and serviced at a new facility between Cheltenham and Clayton. No would not be done at Dynon, likely built along it's route, as I said most likely candidate is btw Cheltenham and Clayton, where there are currently dumpsites and industrial area there.

The SRL will not connect to the current tracks in Melbourne, that has been ruled out months ago. Separate tracks, separate system, just like Sydney Metro is separate from Sydney Trains, it's no different here with SRL. SRL will be a metro operated system.

SRL network and existing train network are separate networks. From your username, you'd be familiar how Metro and Sydney trains also run separately.

The new rolling-stock will be stored and serviced at a new facility between Cheltenham and Clayton. No would not be done at Dynon, likely built along it's route, as I said most likely candidate is btw Cheltenham and Clayton, where there are currently dumpsites and industrial area there.

The SRL will not connect to the current tracks in Melbourne, that has been ruled out months ago. Separate tracks, separate system, just like Sydney Metro is separate from Sydney Trains, it's no different here with SRL. SRL will be a metro operated system.

I do understand how it works in Sydney but remember the Metro system here is driverless.

Will the SRL be a different gauge?