Although there are no plans for an Upfield rail tunnel, I want that future option kept open, also that section of the railway is higher than Sydney road, and a viaduct would just make it even higher. Note that it is possible to roof over a viaduct and put a bike path and a footpath on top of that. I have seen gradient diagrams for the Upfield line and it is uphill from Brunswick station to Moreland station, also downhill just past Batman. A trench would flatten those gradients or at least keep open the future option of flatting them. EDIT: A preference to raise a railway that is already (sort of) on top of a hill really does suggest a lot of bias in favour of viaducts, that both the government and the L.X.R.A share.
I like the upfield tunnel but only from royal park to parkville and then via metro 2
My proposal is for the Wollert extension to come from Cragieburn when the tracks are duplicated from Gowrie to Roxbrough Park and extend to Epping. This improves orbital connectivity, gives stations at Epping North and Wollert and gives reason for the upfield Line to go into tunnel at royal park. Otherwise the underground isn’t justified.
Your constant anti skyrail bias makes me think that you are David Davis. You list all these ridiculous benefits of Trench, oh the area supports it. There have been studies from universities that price elevated Rail is the way to go along upfield. It creates community spaces, new bike path and improves local amenity. Not to mention the cost for 3 TPH and future 6 TPH isn’t worth it. There is no preference by the government to elevated rail, that is another pathetic liberal party fan base claim. There are five ways to deal with a LX removal, Trench, elevated, road under, road over and close, all options have been used so far. Your underground obsession will not happen, you can spread your delusion among David Davis, netz Melbourne Twitter moron, the anti skyrail twitter accounts and Peta credlin.