50 level crossings to be removed

 
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

Good to see the Libs finally coming to the party. Whether any of these would actually end up being removed under a hypothetical Liberal government is another matter - we all know their record.
Most of them actually don't look too bad. There's clear bias towards the east which is to be expected but it's not like Labor hasn't had some incredibly politically motivated crossing removals like on the Franga line.
Given the recent announcements about Geelong Fast Rail, I would like to see as many of the remaining Werribee line crossings (excluding the Altona Loop) go as possible, perhaps instead of the ones way out on the Belgrave or Hurstbridge lines or the Sandringham line ones they have proposed at least in the short term. I would also prioritise getting rid of all of the Pakenham and Sunbury line crossings so that the Metro Tunnel can run level crossing free. We should focus more on the train capacity side of things in removing the crossings that limit frequency the most.
From this it seems pretty clear that level crossing removals are here to stay in Melbourne. They are popular, and while they might potentially have limited benefits compared to other projects, they provide that feeling of satisfaction that you know longer have to worry about the crossing on your commute/journey. Hopefully the Libs have ditched their ridiculous road intersection plan as part of this.
I would expect Labor to commit to removing an additional 25 level crossings by 2030 anyway by the next election, with this hopefully including more of the crossings I mentioned.
reubstar6
Altona Loop crossings should be removed as part of duplication.

1. Re-route all Werribee trains via duplicated Altona Loop, giving Geelong trains free access to Newport-Laverton express tracks
2. Duplicate to Altona, then new track to Point Cook in anticipation of Metro 2.

Sponsored advertisement

  ngarner Deputy Commissioner

Location: Seville
Victoria Liberals now wanna endorse the level crossing removal project, with them picking the next 25 level crossings they wanna add to the list. Only thing I'd note is a lack of level crossing removals targeted on the Werribee line and the Northern lines.

And also some level crossings on the Belgrave, Lilydale and Hurstbridge lines are probably not the worse of the bunch.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/state-opposition-calls-for-more-level-crossing-removals-to-boost-jobs-with-100-in-the-gun/news-story/b9a76a231367c1f376a202647655518d?btr=49ac7b6ce39e56b727428f934b18cd68

News is paywall so I've listed what they've picked to be removed.
Frankston line:
— Warrigal Road, Parkdale
— Highett Road, Highett
— Wickham Road, Highett

Lilydale line:
— Dublin Road, Ringwood East
— Coolstore Road, Croydon

Glen Waverley line:
— Madden Grove, Burnley
— Glenferrie Road, Kooyong
— Tooronga Road, Malvern
— High Street, Glen Iris

Hurstbridge line:
— Marshall Street, Ivanhoe
— Main Hurstbridge Road, Diamond Creek.

Alamein line:
— Riversdale Road, Camberwell
— Prospect Hill Road, Camberwell

Belgrave line:
— Alpine Street, Ferntree Gully
— Railway Ave, Ferntree Gully

Baxter/Stony Point line:
— Moorooduc Highway level crossing to prepare for Baxter electrification.

Craigieburn line:
— Macaulay Road, Kensington
— Puckle Street, Moonee Ponds
— Park Street, Moonee Ponds

Sunbury line:
— Calder Park Drive, Calder Park

Upfield line:
— Barry Road, Campbellfield

Pakenham line:
— Officer South Road, Officer

Sandringham line:
— Glen Eira Road, Ripponlea
— South Road, Brighton

Mernda line:
— Keon Parade, Reservoir
True Believers
Interesting collection, although more than a few ideas stolen from others; e.g.
Coolstore Rd Croydon was proposed by the local council who even have well considered plan, prepared by consultants;
Calder Park Dve already has a Vicroads plan for road over, according to some on this site;
Moorooduc Rd Frankston = Baxter electrification - not much imagination required there;
all of the Glen Waverley line ones - by the federals (no, not ferals but...) except the Glen Iris one, which the local council has asked LXRP to business case (again, someone on this site)

A bit bemused that they've chosen Marshall St Ivanhoe over Station St Fairfield, considering it ain't a major thoroughfare, unlike Station St; likewise the two in the Gully but the others don't seem to be too bad a selection. They certainly haven't just gone for highest remaining ones from the LX list of 2008; too easy to pick up on by the cynics amongst us?

Neil
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
Altona Loop crossings should be removed as part of duplication.

1. Re-route all Werribee trains via duplicated Altona Loop, giving Geelong trains free access to Newport-Laverton express tracks
2. Duplicate to Altona, then new track to Point Cook in anticipation of Metro 2.
"John.Z"
you sound like a true country entitled, who doesn't give a rats about city folk trying to get to work on time.

Great idea, reduce service for the many, in order to coddle the few.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Hopefully the Libs have ditched their ridiculous road intersection plan as part of this.
reubstar6

Geez I hope so.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

you sound like a true country entitled, who doesn't give a rats about city folk trying to get to work on time.

Great idea, reduce service for the many, in order to coddle the few.
justarider
Maybe I should've been more clear. It was a one or the other, not both.

My preference is for Werribee-Newport to be quad track with local metro and express regional. Run that through metro 2.

Altona extended to Point Cook, as well as Williamstown run local via Footscray.

Either way, Altona Loop should be fully duplicated no matter what, which I've said all along. How's that for giving a rats about city folk trying to get to work on time?
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
you sound like a true country entitled, who doesn't give a rats about city folk trying to get to work on time.

Great idea, reduce service for the many, in order to coddle the few.
justarider
Maybe I should've been more clear. It was a one or the other, not both.

My preference is for Werribee-Newport to be quad track with local metro and express regional. Run that through metro 2.

Altona extended to Point Cook, as well as Williamstown run local via Footscray.

Either way, Altona Loop should be fully duplicated no matter what, which I've said all along. How's that for giving a rats about city folk trying to get to work on time?
"John.Z"

so you're still suggesting the Werribee train should take 38min SAS Laverton to Flinders St, instead of the current 24min semi-express.
Such an improvement, which duplicating the loop would not change one iota.
All so Geelong pax can have exclusive use, booting out the vastly greater number of Weeribee etc.

Quad track, really !!!    All for  that 4 tph ??
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner


so you're still suggesting the Werribee train should take 38min SAS Laverton to Flinders St, instead of the current 24min semi-express.
Such an improvement, which duplicating the loop would not change one iota.
All so Geelong pax can have exclusive use, booting out the vastly greater number of Weeribee etc.

Quad track, really !!!    All for  that 4 tph ??
justarider
You have a great imagination.

Nothing stopping there being a two tiered service for werribee, with half the trains going via Altona and half going express either.
  ngarner Deputy Commissioner

Location: Seville
Gentlemen, gentlemen!

We will not be having a good old fashioned duel here, thank you very much. Just shake hands (oops, bump elbows) and agree to disagree.

Neil
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
What happened to Mont Albert and Surrey Hills?  Surely these would be of higher priority than some of the others?  In any case, a line which carries express trains should not have any level crossings.  

....  or are they in the "wrong" electorate?
  ngarner Deputy Commissioner

Location: Seville
What happened to Mont Albert and Surrey Hills?  Surely these would be of higher priority than some of the others?  In any case, a line which carries express trains should not have any level crossings.  

....  or are they in the "wrong" electorate?
Lad_Porter
Still happening L_P, just to be completed by 2025.

Neil
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last

so you're still suggesting the Werribee train should take 38min SAS Laverton to Flinders St, instead of the current 24min semi-express.
Such an improvement, which duplicating the loop would not change one iota.
All so Geelong pax can have exclusive use, booting out the vastly greater number of Weeribee etc.

Quad track, really !!!    All for  that 4 tph ??
justarider
You have a great imagination.

Nothing stopping there being a two tiered service for werribee, with half the trains going via Altona and half going express either.
"John.Z"

I have no objection your retraction of your statement that "Re-route all Werribee trains via duplicated Altona Loop"

cheers
John
  Jordy33 Station Master

In my opinion for Altona Duplication should be done in 2 stages, because the Seaholme - Westona section will generally be painful to complete.

They should do the easier sections now, such as duplicating fully from Newport to just before Seaholme, and Laverton - Westona. This would assist in boosting reliability and would help squeeze more TPH out of the Altona Loop.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
In my opinion for Altona Duplication should be done in 2 stages, because the Seaholme - Westona section will generally be painful to complete.

They should do the easier sections now, such as duplicating fully from Newport to just before Seaholme, and Laverton - Westona. This would assist in boosting reliability and would help squeeze more TPH out of the Altona Loop.
Jordy33
I think it would be better to do it all in a single shutdown so as to avoid causing too much disruption.
  Upven Junior Train Controller

What happened to Mont Albert and Surrey Hills?  Surely these would be of higher priority than some of the others?  In any case, a line which carries express trains should not have any level crossings.  

....  or are they in the "wrong" electorate?
Lad_Porter
My sister-in-law's aunt works for the LXRA in the team responsible for property acquisition. That's what's delaying it, they started initial proceedings in 2017 I think. It's going to be a doozy.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
My sister-in-law's aunt works for the LXRA in the team responsible for property acquisition. That's what's delaying it, they started initial proceedings in 2017 I think. It's going to be a doozy.
Upven
Some projects acquisition proceedings can take over a decade.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
My sister-in-law's aunt works for the LXRA in the team responsible for property acquisition. That's what's delaying it, they started initial proceedings in 2017 I think. It's going to be a doozy.
Some projects acquisition proceedings can take over a decade.
Nightfire
Just look at the trouble V/line have had trying to acquire a paddock to build their new facility at Waurn Ponds. Feels as if that has been going on for about a decade.
  Lockspike Deputy Commissioner

My sister-in-law's aunt works for the LXRA in the team responsible for property acquisition. That's what's delaying it, they started initial proceedings in 2017 I think. It's going to be a doozy.
Some projects acquisition proceedings can take over a decade.
Just look at the trouble V/line have had trying to acquire a paddock to build their new facility at Waurn Ponds. Feels as if that has been going on for about a decade.
Gman_86
Look at moi! Now I've got two words to say to you.
Compulsory Acquisition.

I'm guessing the gov doesn't want to be seen as being too heavy handed.
  Galron Chief Commissioner

Location: Werribee, Vic
My sister-in-law's aunt works for the LXRA in the team responsible for property acquisition. That's what's delaying it, they started initial proceedings in 2017 I think. It's going to be a doozy.
Some projects acquisition proceedings can take over a decade.
Just look at the trouble V/line have had trying to acquire a paddock to build their new facility at Waurn Ponds. Feels as if that has been going on for about a decade.
Look at moi! Now I've got two words to say to you.
Compulsory Acquisition.

I'm guessing the gov doesn't want to be seen as being too heavy handed.
Lockspike


If there's no rush for the project to progress, they can slowly take the time they want. Start by putting some form of development restriction or public transport overlay on the area, including any properly they want to aquire. Then start negotiating with those properties owners needing to be aquired. I belive the relevant act's require a fair market price for the land, and why pull out the big stick if you have willing sellers. They only need a contract with the land holder to sell to the government if they want out before the project is readt to go, which may include conditions along the lines of you can stay until we want it, then we are going to buy you out at an agreed price If your project gets to the top of the pile, then you start pulling the compulsory aquisition trigger as required.
  Upven Junior Train Controller

I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

Upven
I suggested same thing a couple of years ago, but got po poopooed on this very idea. Get rid of Surrey Hills and Mont Alber which are both curved platforms.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Things like that have been suggested plenty of times - merge Hartwell and Burwood into a new station at the Burwood Hwy (better tram integration etc etc).  Probably a great idea operationally, but closing stations is a vote-loser to Joe Public.
  Jordy33 Station Master

In my opinion with the Surrey Hills and Mont Albert project they should demo Chatham station for room for quad tracks and make the new Surrey Hills and Mont Albert stations only 2 platforms, but 4 tracks. With tracks being skewed and a 4th track crammed in along the line there could be minimal property acquirements. There would be some significant tree removals though.
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

Upven
The existing Mont Albert and Surrey Hills stations are located directly adjacent to activity centres, which provides convenient access to adjacent facilities.  Replacing the two existing stations with one in the middle would put the station within a residential area requiring people to walk to access either of the activity centres.

Note an ideal outcome in my opinion.

Ross
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Things like that have been suggested plenty of times - merge Hartwell and Burwood into a new station at the Burwood Hwy (better tram integration etc etc).  Probably a great idea operationally, but closing stations is a vote-loser to Joe Public.
Adogs
Some bureaucrat would come up with a plan to add an additional station above the Burwood Highway, while keeping Hartwell and Burwood stations as they are.
  Upven Junior Train Controller

I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

The existing Mont Albert and Surrey Hills stations are located directly adjacent to activity centres, which provides convenient access to adjacent facilities.  Replacing the two existing stations with one in the middle would put the station within a residential area requiring people to walk to access either of the activity centres.

Note an ideal outcome in my opinion.

Ross
Rossco T
The distance between the two stations from end of one platform to the other is around ~600 metres. Average new platform length is ~160 metres. Add into that the footpaths, stairs etc, and you are only asking people to walk an extra ~200 metres from the footprint of the existing stations. Sadly I agree it won't happen, but it would allow for the "activity centres" to be combined and the "residential area" to be rezoned for higher density housing.



Edit: Go further and cut n' cover it and sell the land rights above especially in the area closer to Box Hill.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: