“Just what government needs is more bureaucracy. Just another government department to swallow our tax dollars. I can smell a Myki coming on,” Michael said.

What do you think? Will the new tunnel make Melbourne’s network as good as New York or Tokyo?
“One line? What about additional capacity to the city from all corners not one line that crosses it?” Adam Warren said.

Establishing a project team to deliver the project is not new.  Is he planning a separate authority and is this authority a separate company and is it a rebranded Linking Melbourne Authority?

The real question is why if the project is ready does the link need more planning?

Why is the Herald Sun being so negative towards the project?

The 'Linking Melbourne Authority' was created as a pseudo-VicRoads - it had people who designed freeways, not rail projects.

And drawing pretty lines on a map does not a 'shovel ready' project make. It takes a hell of a lot more engineering work to get anywhere near breaking ground for a project like Melbourne Metro. Go and watch one of the docos on Crossrail and see what it took to do planning over there - depending on when you mark the point of conception, Crossrail took up to 40 years to go from a napkin drawing to the first turned sod.

Why is the Herald Sun being so negative towards the project?

Because they are in the Murdoch stable and the government is not conservative. Simple.

"What do you think? Will the new tunnel make Melbourne’s network as good as New York or Tokyo?"

What an utterly stupid question. Ask it again when there are a couple of hundred more stations and a few dozen more interchange stations and more lines going across today's flow. Which will never happen in our lifetime.

The route works for me.  It is far more sensible than the planned tunnel which took in Fishermans's Bend but failed to serve Flinders Street (the hub of the network) and city loop stations other that Southern Cross at all.  It is immaterial which line might have been diverted onto that course though Frankston was suggested - it is a fact that the greatest number of peak commuters require Parliament, Melbourne Central or Flagstaff while the greatest number overall and throughout the week use Flinders Street.

Taking a tunnel from South Yarra, where there may be space to create a portal without resumptions, via Domain Interchange (offering rail connectivity to the St. Kilda Road and South Melbourne office precincts and relieving trams from Federation Square into the bargain) then via Flinders Street and Melbourne Central (CBD South and North, whether or not the course of Swanson Street is followed) to Parkville (for Melbourne University and again relieving pressure on trams) before heading out to existing railway land in the west makes a good deal of sense.

Why is it OK for a rail tunnel and not road?  The East - West Link would have been a six-lane tunnel (or two three lane tunnels side by side) requiring a huge amount of disruption to build, significant permanent loss of amenity due to the space it requires and would do nothing to alleviate rail overcrowding.  It is likely that it would have led to increased road delays based upon the generally acknowledged premise that building more road space only increases rather than relieves congestion.  Two single-bore rail tunnels will require very much less ground disturbance, will therefore be cheaper per metre to construct, may not require any loss of ground level amenity and will be capable with that of transporting up to 1000 passengers per minute in each direction.  Even a three-lane road tunnel cannot approach that sort of capacity.  The East - West Link was designed to get people through Melbourne and offered nothing for those whose destination is Melbourne itself.  The rail line will provide for journeys to, from and across the city.

Put simply a rail tunnel is far better value and is likely to offer increased network capacity and support the Government's aim to have 20% of all journeys made by public transport by 2020; currently it is 10% and constrained by a near-capacity rail network.

There is also the clear intent to through-route more services than now and while this might mean slightly fewer trains running through the City Loop in the sense that they presently do a north-south tunnel will still provide direct trains to two of five stations and place most passengers within easy walking distance of their ultimate destinations.  The tunnel will therefore also serve to alleviate peak overcrowding on City Loop trains and at Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament stations.

Why is the Herald Sun being so negative towards the project?

They just think the world should be exactly like they want it to be... the world has changed however, they don't have the sort of influence that they used to.

Put simply a rail tunnel is far better value and is likely to offer increased network capacity and support the Government's aim to have 20% of all journeys made by public transport by 2020; currently it is 10% and constrained by a near-capacity rail network.

If they want this town to become a 'world city' then they should take heed of the enormous amounts of money being spent in the other world cities like London.  They're not building whopping big toll-ways - they're building things like Cross-rail.

Why is the Herald Sun being so negative towards the project?

The Herald-Sun and only to a slightly lesser degree The Age were bitter that their readers paid no attention whatsoever to their respective editorials and voted out the Napthine government and voted in Dan Andrews.

The Herald-Sun as reported in these pages was banging on ad-nauseum about how wonderful the East-West link was going to be for Melbourne and how it would be the best thing since sliced bread.
Again many of it's readers, apart from a vocal minority paid little attention and voted for Dan.

Now the METRO rail project has been announced...the nemesis to the East-West link; in its own way this is the government rubbing that Murdoch publications nose in excreta. The East-West link is off the radar and the new and FAR more sensible and FAR more useful project gets the thumbs up. Not only that...it's going right down the middle of the City...not out to Port Melbourne, actually Montague where friends of the former government were hoping to make a killing with the increased land values

Again, this is the new government hitting the ground running and shows that Dan will be a can do Premier leading a can do government.

The  main objective of the about to be abolished Linking Melbourne Authority was overseeing the East-West link regardless of what the Herald-Sun says.

Mike.

If they want this town to become a 'world city' then they should take heed of the enormous amounts of money being spent in the other world cities like London.  They're not building whopping big toll-ways - they're building things like Cross-rail.

And the Melbourne Metro Tunnel is very similar to Crossrail - much more so than the Tube, NYC Subway, Tokyo Metro etc. Their closest equivalents in Melbourne would actually be the tram network - imagine what it could do with more grade separated rights-of-way and actual honest-to-god 100% traffic light priority!

I would still rather see more investment in new rollingstock, line upgrades/extensions and actual new signalling instead of the MMT, but it is far and away a better investment than more bloody urban freeways and a much bigger 'announceable' than the former items. Alas, like the rest of our country Infrastructure Australia is obsessed with building Big Things.

Why is the Herald Sun being so negative towards the project?

Because they are pro-Liberal.

The Herald-Sun and only to a slightly lesser degree The Age were bitter that their readers paid no attention whatsoever to their respective editorials and voted out the Napthine government and voted in Dan Andrews.

The Herald-Sun as reported in these pages was banging on ad-nauseum about how wonderful the East-West link was going to be for Melbourne and how it would be the best thing since sliced bread.
Again many of it's readers, apart from a vocal minority paid little attention and voted for Dan.

Now the METRO rail project has been announced...the nemesis to the East-West link; in its own way this is the government rubbing that Murdoch publications nose in excreta. The East-West link is off the radar and the new and FAR more sensible and FAR more useful project gets the thumbs up. Not only that...it's going right down the middle of the City...not out to Port Melbourne, actually Montague where friends of the former government were hoping to make a killing with the increased land values

Again, this is the new government hitting the ground running and shows that Dan will be a can do Premier leading a can do government.

The  main objective of the about to be abolished Linking Melbourne Authority was overseeing the East-West link regardless of what the Herald-Sun says.

Mike.

@ Vinelander

I am not in favour of the Melbourne Metro and before you see me as anti-rail hear me out.

The problem I see is that in London as well as building Crossrail, TFL are also Modernising the Tube. Here in Melbourne however they are grafting new infrastructure on to a tired old, fragile commuter rail system with its numerous level crossings and clapped out signalling equipment and to me that does not make sense. Daniel Andrews should concentrate on updating the existing system to world class standards. Updating the signalling system so that it can take up to 20 Trains per hour, modernising stations and I mean rebuilding or remodelling them not just sticking up a few platform shelters. Purchasing New Trains that are fit for purpose, not that cheap Obsolete Xtrapolis crap, a product that Alstom stopped producing years ago.

There is so much the Government can do for Public Transport other than this massive big ticket item that requires Federal Funding, which isn't forthcoming. Like a complete overhaul Bus network, modernising the track between Upfield and Somerton so that Seymour and Shepparton Trains can run via Upfield and release more paths for the busy Craigieburn line.

Michael

Agree with some of the points made above.

With regards to resignalling for closer headways watch this space and the Dandenong corridor specifically.

Melbourne is stuck with large numbers of level crossings on some lines and which cannot be grade separated in many cases.  However many are only modestly used so there could be a program of consolidation whereby two of three close crossings remain open but an intermediate one is closed.  That would go some way to ameliorating the effect of close-headway trains upon road traffic.

To have country trains running via Upfield would require dual-gauging of that route.  Far better as things stand now to have those trains run via the RRL and the Jacana Loop though at the cost of not being able to serve the likes of Essendon.  While some are on the broad gauge now that may not always be the case as standard slowly gains ground outside the metropolitan area.

Dual-gauging Upfield will require relocation of the stabling facility there and will require some significant grade separation works at Somerton. As things are the ARTC appear to be insistent that any such works are to double-stack clearance despite the improbability of double-stackers reaching Melbourne while Bunbury Street tunnel exists.  It will also have an effect upon line speed placing more restriction on country trains than on suburban sparks but in total will affect the route capacity.  More trains on the Upfield line are constantly demanded; it does not meet Metro's aim for a 10-minute daytime headway and cannot do so while the single track remains north of Gowrie and while there is insufficient capacity through the City Loop for those additional trains.  Having them turn back short of Flinders Street is unlikely to be a popular option with users but might be workable operationally.

We are, I am afraid, stuck with a substantial fleet of Xcrap trains for many years to come.  All types in the fleet have their faults and weaknesses.  The next sizeable rolling stock order may be to start Comeng replacement in perhaps  5 - 10 years from now.

In general I welcome the move to a "metro-style" service with daytime headways close enough that a timetable is not needed.  What Metro should remember however is that just like London some lines are rather long with end-to-end travel times above an hour to the City.  Few journeys on the London Underground take that long.  More express running and significant cuts to travel times will make the service more attractive.  I know of many people who will not consider the train from Frankston to the City because it takes around 65 minutes and feels very slow.  Driving can take as little as 30 minutes, typically 45, and doesn't stop at 30 intermediate stations.  Free unrestricted parking is also impossible at or within comfortable walking distance of Frankston station after 6.30am.  

Yes more needs to be done as a whole package.  There are encouraging signs that this is being addressed.  Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was Melbourne's public transport system brought up to scratch.  But it's headed in the right direction and not before time.

The herald sun proved it's integrity as a paper along with it's journalists. They have presented to us their objectives and their focus.

It is a reminder that we must be careful and vigilant with what we hear or see. Information we read or receive must be considered with wisdom to ensure we are not fooled or indoctrinated.

Victoria belongs to the people and the government elected must be accountable and responsible to the people.

The people of Victoria already understand the urgency of public transport.

I hope for the best with the premier's attempts to progress with this project.

Lets not forget the Napthine governments own transport planners favoured the rail tunnel over the east west link.

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/melbourne-metro-better-for-state-than-east-west-link-government-emails-reveal

A number of very interesting posts, a couple of points from the the thread.

You cannot compare Melbourne with London, the latter city has been over crowded for many centuries, so there is a greater awareness for decent public transport.
Greater London has aprox double the population in around 1/6th of the area of Melbourne so London has a far greater access to resources than Melbourne has.

The real "fly in the ointment" as far as Victoria and in fact Australia is is the constant cry for lower taxes. There is almost no decent studied debate on the required taxes to pay for all these improvements. The media sadly including the ABC CONSTANTLY complain bitterly about money wasting when allmost any project comes up. Even Railpage is not immune to this, look back at the almost constant cry of money wasting on the RFR project a billion dollar project that in the end was money well spent.
Everyone PARTICULARLY the Liberal party needs to understand the money to upgrade the rail transport system simple HAS to be spent and will need to be raised as quickly as possible.

The last major upgrade to Melbournes rail network was in the mid to late 1950's when the population was less than half of what it is now a rail transport system upgrade is WAY overdue and in the end _________________MUST__________________ be a bipartisan approach, something a simply cannot see happening. In that case Victoria is done for!!!

woodford

A number of very interesting posts, a couple of points from the the thread.

You cannot compare Melbourne with London, the latter city has been over crowded for many centuries, so there is a greater awareness for decent public transport.
Greater London has aprox double the population in around 1/6th of the area of Melbourne so London has a far greater access to resources than Melbourne has.

The real "fly in the ointment" as far as Victoria and in fact Australia is is the constant cry for lower taxes. There is almost no decent studied debate on the required taxes to pay for all these improvements. The media sadly including the ABC CONSTANTLY complain bitterly about money wasting when allmost any project comes up. Even Railpage is not immune to this, look back at the almost constant cry of money wasting on the RFR project a billion dollar project that in the end was money well spent.
Everyone PARTICULARLY the Liberal party needs to understand the money to upgrade the rail transport system simple HAS to be spent and will need to be raised as quickly as possible.

The last major upgrade to Melbournes rail network was in the mid to late 1950's when the population was less than half of what it is now a rail transport system upgrade is WAY overdue and in the end _________________MUST__________________ be a bipartisan approach, something a simply cannot see happening. In that case Victoria is done for!!!

woodford

@Woodford, agreed you cannot compare Melbourne with London, in fact you cannot compare a great deal of cities compared to London. London is a far wealthier city than Melbourne with a GDP exceeding that of Many countries within Europe and close to that of Vic and NSW combined. Also London has a full metro as well as an extensive commuter system and a Light Rail to boot. Despite all this there is still no excuse as to why the infrastructure that Melbourne has is not up to world class standards. Signalling is outdated and prone to failure, the purchase of cheap trains that are not fit for purpose. The Xtrapolis Trains are truly crap, stations that need modernising etc, etc.

The problem is that Londoners realise that you have to pay for improvements in Public Transport either through Taxes or through the farebox, something that Melburnians have not grasped at all. They want an extensive system paid for with a beer budget. The problem with our state leaders is that they are too focused on point scoring, rather than knuckle down and get trhings done.

Michael

Another fact of London life is the Congestion Charge.  There was some opposition to it before it began and in its early days but it has lived up to its promise and is closely monitored to ensure that as promised the monies collected are used entirely for providing additional public transport.

Melbourne supports half-hourly buses on the busier nights of the week, relatively recently upped from hourly after pressure and persistent complaints that some trips overloaded and left people stranded.  London used to have that sort of service albeit six nights a week and ironically not on Saturday night / Sunday morning.  Now you seldom need a timetable for a night bus as most run at least 3 - 4 times an hour every night and some are as often as every 10 minutes all night at weekends.  All night tube services are about to be offered on some lines.  There are however few night trains on the suburban rail lines.  

Day buses are often so close that another is in sight if one is missed; in outer suburbs they might run every 15 minutes.  Compare Melbourne (with much lower housing density but no less a need for people to move around) which has wide and often irregular interval services, some only hourly and a few even less frequent, typically finishing at 9pm and not always providing good links to railways, schools, TAFEs, hospitals, shops or other significant trip generators.

Melbourne could, if it chose to do so, take the same step.  The technology exists.  Many motorists already have eTags in their car for use on Citylink / Eastlink.  It isn't hard to set up charging points on all entry routes to the CBD and immediate surrounds and it won't affect 95% of motorists who never drive into the city anyway.  But it would capture revenue which can be used to buy more and improved bus and tram services and perhaps to kick-start the big-ticket projects on the rail network.

We may not be able to directly compare London and Melbourne but we can acknowledge what a world-leading city is doing and emulate it.  "World's Most Liveable City" is a title Melbourne coveted until it was lost.  It would be ironic if London - still perceived as dirty by many who haven't been there in recent years - or at all - was to take that crown.

Another fact of London life is the Congestion Charge.  There was some opposition to it before it began and in its early days but it has lived up to its promise and is closely monitored to ensure that as promised the monies collected are used entirely for providing additional public transport.

Melbourne supports half-hourly buses on the busier nights of the week, relatively recently upped from hourly after pressure and persistent complaints that some trips overloaded and left people stranded.  London used to have that sort of service albeit six nights a week and ironically not on Saturday night / Sunday morning.  Now you seldom need a timetable for a night bus as most run at least 3 - 4 times an hour every night and some are as often as every 10 minutes all night at weekends.  All night tube services are about to be offered on some lines.  There are however few night trains on the suburban rail lines.  

Day buses are often so close that another is in sight if one is missed; in outer suburbs they might run every 15 minutes.  Compare Melbourne (with much lower housing density but no less a need for people to move around) which has wide and often irregular interval services, some only hourly and a few even less frequent, typically finishing at 9pm and not always providing good links to railways, schools, TAFEs, hospitals, shops or other significant trip generators.

Melbourne could, if it chose to do so, take the same step.  The technology exists.  Many motorists already have eTags in their car for use on Citylink / Eastlink.  It isn't hard to set up charging points on all entry routes to the CBD and immediate surrounds and it won't affect 95% of motorists who never drive into the city anyway.  But it would capture revenue which can be used to buy more and improved bus and tram services and perhaps to kick-start the big-ticket projects on the rail network.

We may not be able to directly compare London and Melbourne but we can acknowledge what a world-leading city is doing and emulate it.  "World's Most Liveable City" is a title Melbourne coveted until it was lost.  It would be ironic if London - still perceived as dirty by many who haven't been there in recent years - or at all - was to take that crown.

That is correct particularly the last paragraph. I am not saying we can not look for answers from the "Pretanic isles" (Britain) (Note 1) or Europe, but I do get sick of people directly contrasting Melbourne to these places. Melbourne is a quite new well spread out city, while cities in the Britain and Europe have been there for many centuries and the layouts reflect this and as a consequence a need for good public transport was realised ages ago. A 2nd point that needs to be kept in mind is that the popuation density in that area of the world is very high so these countries have much more resources.

Australia is a large well spread out country with a low population and it does not have either the rainfall or large stretchs of arable land to support a population much bigger than current. Therefore the the tax system has to have quite a bit different priority than these well populated places. This will make financing a good transport system a much more difficult task but if we do not make an effort Aus will be financially doomed.

Note 1: Pretanic isles, what the britons called there country prior to the roman invasion.

Another fact of London life is the Congestion Charge.  There was some opposition to it before it began and in its early days but it has lived up to its promise and is closely monitored to ensure that as promised the monies collected are used entirely for providing additional public transport.

We may not be able to directly compare London and Melbourne but we can acknowledge what a world-leading city is doing and emulate it.  "World's Most Liveable City" is a title Melbourne coveted until it was lost.  It would be ironic if London - still perceived as dirty by many who haven't been there in recent years - or at all - was to take that crown.

Try getting around London or for that matter anywhere else in England by PT on Christmas or Boxing days...

The route works for me.  It is far more sensible than the planned tunnel which took in Fishermans's Bend but failed to serve Flinders Street (the hub of the network) and city loop stations other that Southern Cross at all.  It is immaterial which line might have been diverted onto that course though Frankston was suggested - it is a fact that the greatest number of peak commuters require Parliament, Melbourne Central or Flagstaff while the greatest number overall and throughout the week use Flinders Street.

Taking a tunnel from South Yarra, where there may be space to create a portal without resumptions, via Domain Interchange (offering rail connectivity to the St. Kilda Road and South Melbourne office precincts and relieving trams from Federation Square into the bargain) then via Flinders Street and Melbourne Central (CBD South and North, whether or not the course of Swanson Street is followed) to Parkville (for Melbourne University and again relieving pressure on trams) before heading out to existing railway land in the west makes a good deal of sense.

Why is it OK for a rail tunnel and not road?  The East - West Link would have been a six-lane tunnel (or two three lane tunnels side by side) requiring a huge amount of disruption to build, significant permanent loss of amenity due to the space it requires and would do nothing to alleviate rail overcrowding.  It is likely that it would have led to increased road delays based upon the generally acknowledged premise that building more road space only increases rather than relieves congestion.  Two single-bore rail tunnels will require very much less ground disturbance, will therefore be cheaper per metre to construct, may not require any loss of ground level amenity and will be capable with that of transporting up to 1000 passengers per minute in each direction.  Even a three-lane road tunnel cannot approach that sort of capacity.  The East - West Link was designed to get people through Melbourne and offered nothing for those whose destination is Melbourne itself.  The rail line will provide for journeys to, from and across the city.

Put simply a rail tunnel is far better value and is likely to offer increased network capacity and support the Government's aim to have 20% of all journeys made by public transport by 2020; currently it is 10% and constrained by a near-capacity rail network.

There is also the clear intent to through-route more services than now and while this might mean slightly fewer trains running through the City Loop in the sense that they presently do a north-south tunnel will still provide direct trains to two of five stations and place most passengers within easy walking distance of their ultimate destinations.  The tunnel will therefore also serve to alleviate peak overcrowding on City Loop trains and at Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament stations.

This is another piece of utter crap i've ever read...
Your thinking is to BLAND, NOT BROAD ENOUGH.
Do you know what the cost is to this state in congestion??
Not every person can use the rain to go to work, you realize this? I definitely can't.
What about the West Gate Bridge which is already at constant daily risk of failure due to the amount of traffic moving over it each day? Your telling me a new rail tunnel will remove that strain? Please. That's smeg and you know it.

Like others have said, there's not point building the Melbourne Metro Tunnel till all relevant infrastructure that will use it is modernized because at the moment we're still 20 years behind current infrastructure. Our road network however is quite good and up to date and needs this tunnel NOW not later!

Try getting around London or for that matter anywhere else in England by PT on Christmas or Boxing days...

@The Vinelander

Is that all you have got? Granted it should run but Vic's PT is nothing to shout about just because it runs on Christmas Day and Boxing Day !!!

Michael

With Dan the Man saying the East/West link aint worth the paper it is written, by golly we are going to look like fools when all the Comp is started to be paid out what are we going to beleft with. You guessed it NOTHING, a pretty expensive nothing $1.3b and counting. Even $300,0000m to Qld, they must be feeling pretty happy with themselves up North.   Not only that Dan the Man has gone running to the Feds (Please Sir, I want some more $'s.)                  As if that is like;y to happen.     Labor, what a PAIN...................

This is another piece of utter crap i've ever read...
Your thinking is to BLAND, NOT BROAD ENOUGH.
Do you know what the cost is to this state in congestion??
Not every person can use the rain to go to work, you realize this? I definitely can't.
What about the West Gate Bridge which is already at constant daily risk of failure due to the amount of traffic moving over it each day? Your telling me a new rail tunnel will remove that strain? Please. That's smeg and you know it.

Like others have said, there's not point building the Melbourne Metro Tunnel till all relevant infrastructure that will use it is modernized because at the moment we're still 20 years behind current infrastructure. Our road network however is quite good and up to date and needs this tunnel NOW not later!

@ Grosso

The East-West Link will not remove the Strain for People in the South Eastern Suburbs either, which happens to be amongst the fastest Growing areas in the Nation. I am not entirely sure about Melbourne desperately needing the tunnel. It is an East-West route with little connection to the CBD, and even you must admit, the road is designed to favor trucks rather than Commuter Traffic. Isn't that what we are trying to do, ease the strain on the commuter? Can you tell me how the East-West link links up with the Westgate Freeway, without getting emotional about it? i do concede that Mr Andrews has canned the road for the wrong reasons. That is that he and the ALP was spooked by the Greens!!

However I am in total agreement with you about the Melbourne Metro. The signalling is outdated on the system, why not try and update it, I am sure you could get 30 Trains per hour on the City loop with more modern signalling. I just think it is so wrong to graft a new tunnel on a fragile commuter system, it just does not make sense. The Government should embark on a Modernisation Project rather like what TFL is doing on the London Underground, to lift the existing system to Modern Standards. Updating the signalling, renewing track, renewing stations, purchasing trains that are fit for purpose, not that cr*p Xtrapolis Rubbish, a trainset so obsolete it is no longer made by Alstom.

When and only when the Rail system has been modernised can we think of adding new infrastructure.

Michael

Try getting around London or for that matter anywhere else in England by PT on Christmas or Boxing days...

Another fundamental difference between London and Melbourne.  London is in mid-Winter and Melbourne mid-Summer.  Once the shops close in London on Christmas Eve they stay shut for a couple of days.  Few people need to travel; those who do are accustomed to doing so before things close down.  In Melbourne there is a greater need for public transport simply because it is the start of everyone's summer holiday.

There are limited services in the UK on Boxing Day and more are added every year though they are still patchy.  Last year only the London Victoria - Gatwick Airport trains ran but in several areas there were bus services.  A very small number of buses also ran on Christmas Day.

London Transport (as it then was) used to provide bus and tube services on Christmas Day at wide headways and on major routes.  Not all tube stations were served.  The Conservative administration which abolished the Greater London Council also cut the funding which supported these loss-making operations.  For one final year (1977 IIRC) they ran free of charge and were then woefully overloaded as everyone sought to have a Christmas present from LT; by 10am local media was broadcasting appeals to only make essential trips.  From time to time a very few Christmas Day services have been offered by various operations on a commercial basis but none has run for several years now.

However I am in total agreement with you about the Melbourne Metro. The signalling is outdated on the system, why not try and update it, I am sure you could get 30 Trains per hour on the City loop with more modern signalling. I just think it is so wrong to graft a new tunnel on a fragile commuter system, it just does not make sense. The Government should embark on a Modernisation Project rather like what TFL is doing on the London Underground, to lift the existing system to Modern Standards. Updating the signalling, renewing track, renewing stations, purchasing trains that are fit for purpose, not that cr*p Xtrapolis Rubbish, a trainset so obsolete it is no longer made by Alstom.

When and only when the Rail system has been modernised can we think of adding new infrastructure.

Michael

I honestly think it would be a good idea to do such things as an interim solution while the metro tunnel is under construction, because it would add a lot of capacity for a relatively small outlay. If done right, it would also provide better cost recovery through a massive increase in patronage, the money from which could then be used to pay for the tunnel.