Suburban Rail Loop (Election promise)

 
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
always apparent when an argument is failing, just throwing abuse will distract sometimes.

obviously my putting quotes around "own" is too subtle for @don. Everybody else knows the difference between the possession rights of lessee vs owner.

your definition of potential property development remains as weird as when I previously commented.
Its mostly Melbourne Water preservation of waterways.
It was a huge compromise to allow the road through, but at least a lot of good remediation came along with it.

perhaps @don can enlighten us all what he considers to be the measure of a "generous median strip". And no, the inside emergency lanes and crash barriers do not count. As one who regularly travels both Eastlink and the Ringwood line, is quite obvious how much room there is not.
justarider
"Throwing abuse", what are you, Sarah Hanson-Young? Boo hoo, someone said something I don't like, I'm off to sue now...

Crown land leased to someone else, end-of-story. As opposed to the CityLink deed the Eastlink agreement has no penalty if the government decides to build a railway line down the middle in the future - at least Bracks managed to get that bit right.

I've been to Perth several times and it always amazes me that they managed to fit a train line down the middle of a freeway (TWICE in fact); something that is absolutely impossible according to you. Perhaps you should go and have a look and marvel at the ingenuity of the engineers, I'm sure you'll be astonished to see it actually in operation.
You must just love making up stuff to put some lipstick on the pig. There is indeed provision for a 3rd track to Blackburn. It would help the peak track shuffle created by the Blackburn shorts. Beyond that, a little project called LXRP (I presume you know that acronym, being a Victoria expert) made it 2 track road overpasses all the way to Ringwood, with lots of cuttings up to neighbours' back fence. Provision for 4 - rubbish. the rest is just echo echo echo. Not biting.
justarider
Look at Nunawading post LXRP - there is clearly provision for four tracks on the south side of station. Most of the structures built as part of those grade separations have plenty of room for additional track and in fact the bridges were engineered with the possibility of provisioning for four tracks just as they did with the bridges on Regional Rail Link (Anderson Road, Sunshine for example), also constructed with the space for an additional two tracks underneath. Again, the miracle of building redundancy into an engineering project, something that you obviously have no understanding or comprehension of. Perhaps you should have a look at all these modern-day marvels yourself, some of them are in your own city, and decide whether an alignment already in existence is potentially cheaper than $1 billion per kilometer of bored tunnel guaranteed to send the Victorian government broke.

Sponsored advertisement

  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

@tayser. Ok you make some good points as regards to the engineering. But sorry $50 Billion is far too much. And trains running every 3 to 4 minutes when corridors like the Werribee line can barely manage every 7 minutes during the peak.

Providing world class Public Transport is not just about building mega expensive rail lines with very long lead times. It is about all nodes having efficient frequent services. Building a mega $50 Billion rail line when 65% of Bus services in Melbourne run at 30 min intervals during weekdays, hourly on weekends and finish no later than 10pm does not sit well with me.

Michael
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
...I presume you know that acronym, being a Victoria expert...
justarider

I was born in Victoria and I've spent more than half my life there but I choose to live in Adelaide - incredible I know but crawling through traffic even on weekends just isn't my thing.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Ahh, the cost of urban sprawl eventually catches up....

I tend to think that a BG version of the Alstrom Metropolis train set might be the way to go.  That could be keep Ballarat Alstrom going...
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
@tayser. Ok you make some good points aa regards to the engineering. But sorry $50 Billion is too much. And trains running every 3 to 4 minutes when corridors like the Werribee line can barely manage every 7 minutes during the peak.

Providing world class Public Transport is not just about building mega expensive rail lines with very long lead times. It is about all nodes having efficient frequent services. Building a mega $50 Billion rail line when 65% of Bus services in Melbourne run at 30 min intervals during weekdays, hourly on weekends and finish no later than 10pm does not sit well with me.

Michael
mejhammers1

That's the thing, is it going to cost $50 billion? And that figure that was first trotted-out a year ago when we all found out about the government's SRL policy, what does it include?

We only had the MM1 project to compare to, but as we now know, we can safely throw any comparison out the window.

I don't disgaree with your points on making all modes having efficient, frequent services (and I doubly agree / am just as frustrated like others with relative inaction on getting buses to do a lot more heavy lifting) but given the SRL is a 'thing', I don't see the point in venting spleens like don_dunstan is.  

Being drip-fed information is smeg, but it's all we got.  I'll reiterate, note the absence of the $50billion figure from the Premier/Transport Infrastructure Minister's statement on the weekend.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Dunno if anyone was looking forensically at the video (I can't help it) but the most detail in it is clearly at Clayton station.

Exhibit A: a google earth/other 3D sat image of Clayton looking North-East (that's Clayton Road / high street shops extending to bottom right corner). Monash university is at the top / in the out of focus section beyond.



Exhibit B: closer in, showing surface and below.  The orange lines are the real street network in Clayton, with bulk of the underground section to the south of the new station.



Taking a stab at the outline of the station box from directly above:



If the renders from the video are anything like what the actual station will look like, I'd say the open space directly south of Clayton Station (has 3 shops on the street corner) will be used to dig down and the station would probably excavated/mined further southwards under everything (rather than rip everything up).

Cheltenham & Glen Waverley have car parks surrounding existing stations that could be used for surface access.  Monash, if it's on the university campus land would have a similar amount of options (I assume the same for Deakin) but Box Hill might be a nightmare / most expensive, no?
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

@tayser Thia is an expensive project that neither Infrastructure Victoria or Transport Victoria had any idea of this, since they did not feel the need for such a project in their long term plans.

It was a thought bubble by Development Victoria. And this State Government whom I have been very supportive of decided on this project with little planning and as a cynical election ploy.  Arguing that there are more pressing concerns with the rail network than the Airport link and the SRL is not venting spleen. Those two projects should be at the bottom of the to do list.

Michael
  justarider Assistant Commissioner

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.

I've been to Perth several times and it always amazes me that they managed to fit a train line down the middle of a freeway (TWICE in fact); something that is absolutely impossible according to you. Perhaps you should go and have a look and marvel at the ingenuity of the engineers, I'm sure you'll be astonished to see it actually in operation.
You must just love making up stuff to put some lipstick on the pig. There is indeed provision for a 3rd track to Blackburn. It would help the peak track shuffle created by the Blackburn shorts. Beyond that, a little project called LXRP (I presume you know that acronym, being a Victoria expert) made it 2 track road overpasses all the way to Ringwood, with lots of cuttings up to neighbours' back fence. Provision for 4 - rubbish. the rest is just echo echo echo. Not biting.
Look at Nunawading post LXRP - there is clearly provision for four tracks on the south side of station. Most of the structures built as part of those grade separations have plenty of room for additional track and in fact the bridges were engineered with the possibility of provisioning for four tracks just as they did with the bridges on Regional Rail Link (Anderson Road, Sunshine for example), also constructed with the space for an additional two tracks underneath. Again, the miracle of building redundancy into an engineering project, something that you obviously have no understanding or comprehension of. Perhaps you should have a look at all these modern-day marvels yourself, some of them are in your own city, and decide whether an alignment already in existence is potentially cheaper than $1 billion per kilometer of bored tunnel guaranteed to send the Victorian government broke.
don_dunstan
again you're just making it up to suit your position.

Anderson Rd RRL is absolutely built for 4 tracks. Irrelevant to this discussion.

Maybe if you looked at the Ringwood line in 3D you may notice the severe height differentials.
Not exactly the Adelaide Hills, but some decent cuts to ease the gradient climb to Ringwood.
Began with the rebuild of Box Hill station 35 years ago, and each new project since has smoothed another hill. Now that is some real "long term" planning. (not 4 tracks though - oops.)

The pedestrian/bike paths alongside the tracks (that replaced a few bits of existing inferior path) that take up much of your postulated "plenty of room", surely weren't constructed with an imminent destruction and no possible replacement in mind.

Sure you could bulldoze the south side of Blackburn Station, but what does that achieve aside from a lot of very angry LNP voters.
The Blackburn Rd bridge over the rail is 2 tracks plus a footpath 3 meters higher up. The foundations are tight against those extremities. Engineering 101, don't put a foundation 3 meters deeper than you have to.
The beams now carry the load, but underpinning foundations to dig further down - nah not a good idea.

As for the rest of the Road Bridges AND stations down to Ringwood, the foundations and beams are at the edge of the 2 tracks. 4 tracks in mind not likely.
Maybe those foundations could carry another beam toward the outside, who knows, but this city is littered with such foundations that 30-50 years later the engineers said rightly "not gunna trust that thing with more load"

Feel free to remove all the retaining walls, gouge out another 4m each side and rebuild the stations yet again. How long is the line going out of commission, and at what extreme cost.

But of course you can't be bothered answering the one question that makes all your hypotheticating moot.
What IS YOUR measure of a "generous median strip". Don't give me WA Engineering marvel waffle, just a number.

cheers
John
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

@tayser Thia ia an expensive project that neither Infrastructure Victoria or Transport Victoria had any idea of this, since they did not feel the mwed for such a project in their long term plans.

It was a thought bubble by Development Victoria. And this State Government whom I havw been very supportive of decided on tbis project with little planning and as a cynical election ploy.  Arguing that there are more pressing concerns with the rail network than the Airport link and the SRL is not venting spleen. Those two projects should be at the bottom of the to do list.

Michael
mejhammers1

I think it's a fair argument that the project was purely driven by politics without going through the full merits of the project in its entirety.

Let's focus on the Cheltenham-Box Hill section only. Does this section of the SRL stack up? Perhaps if they're delivering it as a light-metro project. I would think that section is a higher priority than the MARL, to be honest. Though Metro 2 should have happened first.

Now is the section btw the Airport and the northern suburbs viable? Probably not right now, or maybe not in a long time.

I wouldn't worry about the whole project as 50 billion since I believe it won't be delivered in its entirety by the Andrews Government. Let's say 15-20 billion dollars for the section it is working on.

Should they have started 15-20 billion dollars on Metro 2 instead, there's no doubt about it that was the better alternative. But I think they've already made up their minds on this.
  justarider Assistant Commissioner

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
@tayser Thia ia an expensive project that neither Infrastructure Victoria or Transport Victoria had any idea of this, since they did not feel the mwed for such a project in their long term plans.

It was a thought bubble by Development Victoria. And this State Government whom I havw been very supportive of decided on tbis project with little planning and as a cynical election ploy.  Arguing that there are more pressing concerns with the rail network than the Airport link and the SRL is not venting spleen. Those two projects should be at the bottom of the to do list.

Michael
mejhammers1
Michael,

obviously the first priority should be more spending on education (Reading Righting and R something).
In the meantime we're stuck with the lack of spell checking, undermining the credibility of what you are trying to say.

We don't agree, but up to 29 pages now of back & forth.

cheers
John
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
@tayser Thia ia an expensive project that neither Infrastructure Victoria or Transport Victoria had any idea of this, since they did not feel the mwed for such a project in their long term plans.

It was a thought bubble by Development Victoria. And this State Government whom I havw been very supportive of decided on tbis project with little planning and as a cynical election ploy.  Arguing that there are more pressing concerns with the rail network than the Airport link and the SRL is not venting spleen. Those two projects should be at the bottom of the to do list.

Michael

I think it's a fair argument that the project was purely driven by politics without going through the full merits of the project in its entirety.

Let's focus on the Cheltenham-Box Hill section only. Does this section of the SRL stack up? Perhaps if they're delivering it as a light-metro project. I would think that section is a higher priority than the MARL, to be honest. Though Metro 2 should have happened first.

Now is the section btw the Airport and the northern suburbs viable? Probably not right now, or maybe not in a long time.

I wouldn't worry about the whole project as 50 billion since I believe it won't be delivered in its entirety by the Andrews Government. Let's say 15-20 billion dollars for the section it is working on.

Should they have started 15-20 billion dollars on Metro 2 instead, there's no doubt about it that was the better alternative. But I think they've already made up their minds on this.
True Believers

I wonder when transport projects are not driven by politics TBH.

All the Network Development Plans we've seen (2012/2013 and 2018) probably didn't have any form of orbital railway line on it because the public servants may just not have been instructed to investigate its use.

Wouldn't it be lovely in a technocratic world where _everything_ is planned out in advance and politicians of any persuasion do the public servent's bidding and implement plans to the letter and the like. However, by the same token, in that world biases are amplified and there's a risk of zero innovation occurring.

I don't think there's anything wrong with shaking things up a bit - and that's what the SRL has done.

On the topic of MM2, the 2018 NDP appeared to have split it up in two (much like how Eddington originally split MM1 up into South Kensington-Shrine and Shrine-Caulfield) which I infer means that as a whole, the project shouldn't be a high priority for reasons the government/public servants haven't explained yet.  The 2018 phasing appears to be make sense: Newport-Parkville first then Parkville-Mernda line second because Fishermans Bend will be that mega-redevelopment that will be paying off MM2 over 30 years as the entire precinct gets done.

And another wing of government has put the brakes on re: Fishermans Bend.  Dept of Transport is playing second fiddle to DELWP in this case.  DELWP  has spent a few years now (and probably another 1 or 2) to get the structural and precinct planning done first - something that wasn't really all that well done for Southbank then Docklands... plus Arden redevelopment will have a greater focus in the near term because its new PT infrastructure is on the way.

It was another election policy (because apparently election policies are bad when technocrats didn't think of them first!), but the Western Rail Plan - i.e Metro-ification of the RRL through quadding and electrifying would probably be a higher priority than doing the first part of MM2 because much of the precinct structure plans (the overall documents that guide low-density suburban development - which many of those out near Tarneit et all have higher-density town centres) are already in place and that part of the fringe is growing rapidly.  Geelong line patronage speaks to that.

I can see an overall political judgement being made with regards to focusing on the MARL, SRL and Western Rail versus MM2 because despite MM2 affecting outer suburban areas (Werribee, Mernda), SRL and WRP all bring new services to the middle suburbs and create new pathways between suburbs (MARL does too, but really it's in its own category) whereas MM2 could easily be flogged as an inner-city only type project.  Don't get me wrong, I want to see them all done and I get that MM2 will probably pay for itself over 30-50 years with the swathes of stamp duty that will flow from Fishermans Bend, but throwing major investment just at the inner-city in project after project probably would be politically damaging and putting the wider programme at risk.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Another thing: people really need to wake up and smell the coffee.  Melbourne's been growing by 100,000 per annum (give or take) for a decade and we've all seen the population projections for the next few decades.  

All the big-ticket rail projects are no doubt going to be needed (as well as root and branch review of road-based PT) and you're a fool for saying/thinking/remaining in the mindset that one of today's projects is a boondoggle versus another of your (not directed to anyone in particular) favoured projects.  

7-8 million people by 2040-2050.  Let it sink in.
  LeroyW Junior Train Controller

Location: Awaiting MM2
I'm loving the discussion and I think a lot of points people are making are valid: No infrastructure should be built without considering the cost; Melbourne is in need of some PT transformation etc.

But I still think some of the biggest points to focus on here are the political (as I highlighted a few posts ago, but they've been swept away by the rampaging discussion) and the meta-narrative if you will.

Remember when the Ring Road was first built? Stage 1 was Greensborough Bypass to Plenty Rd - a few kms of nothing, not even to freeway standard (still isn't). But it got everyone thinking... soon there will be an orbital freeway I can drive my car on.

Well, in a mainstream discussion Victoria hasn't had maybe ever, people are talking about 30 year rail plans and orbital LOOPS - rail that won't exist for decades. So even if they only build one bit of it, the rest will forever be etched in people's minds as an unfinished mega project. Win win win right?
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Another thing: people really need to wake up and smell the coffee.  Melbourne's been growing by 100,000 per annum (give or take) for a decade and we've all seen the population projections for the next few decades.  

All the big-ticket rail projects are no doubt going to be needed (as well as root and branch review of road-based PT) and you're a fool for saying/thinking/remaining in the mindset that one of today's projects is a boondoggle versus another of your (not directed to anyone in particular) favoured projects.  

7-8 million people by 2040-2050.  Let it sink in.
tayser
Agree but given how much money has been spent so far? Given that the entire proceeds from the sale of the Port of Melbourne are now gone there's got to be a limit to the spending and/or the VIC/Commonwealth governments have to make the money goes as far as possible.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
again you're just making it up to suit your position.
justarider
Could say exactly the same of you - there's no denying that the Frankston-Ringwood corridor is already in existence and ready to use, I'm not a weekly or daily user of Eastlink as you are but I have indeed travelled the route end-to-end (admittedly not since I lived there) and I've had a careful Google Earth of it too further to our recent discussion. Heaps of room there all the way to Heatherdale - sure some of it is through the Melbourne Water treatment plants but there are some stubstantial benefits to my proposal - not the least of which is saving around $30 billion for the Victorian taxpayers.

What would you prefer, bang-for-your-buck or a really, really expensive boondoggle that will take decades to complete? My Box Hill-Frankston project would be tens of billions less, completely shovel-ready and fully integrated with the Melbourne suburban network with the addition of providing regular express services to Heatherdale/Ringwood it would also probably be faster for Pennisula people to get to the CBD taking pressure off the Frankston line. The new interchange at Yarraman could also possibly provide an express route to the city potentially faster than the existing route via Caulfield which is now out-of-the-question for extra tracks since they didn't provide that redundancy in there with the Skyrail thing. Solution? New limited stops trains to Frankston via Box Hill and Eastlink interchanging with all the new and fast growing bits of Melbourne.

In all seriousness what's not to like? Because the entire route is above-ground it would probably be a third of the cost of the Cheltenham-Box Hill route and could form the spine of future express cross-metro services to the Airport on the other side without having to build the rest of it (Box Hill to Epping etc) in the immediate future. Hell, there's even extra platform space at Box Hill already there and unused for my turnback/interchange for the all stops network on the north side. The land acquisition would be minimal compared to the SRL, slivers of land in places particularly through Canterbury/Hawthorn might be expensive but nothing compared with a completely new bored tunnel route.

All round my idea is cheaper and provides Melbourne with the transport solution that it actually needs.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Dunno if anyone was looking forensically at the video (I can't help it) but the most detail in it is clearly at Clayton station.

...

If the renders from the video are anything like what the actual station will look like, I'd say the open space directly south of Clayton Station (has 3 shops on the street corner) will be used to dig down and the station would probably excavated/mined further southwards under everything (rather than rip everything up).

Cheltenham & Glen Waverley have car parks surrounding existing stations that could be used for surface access.  Monash, if it's on the university campus land would have a similar amount of options (I assume the same for Deakin) but Box Hill might be a nightmare / most expensive, no?
tayser

Thanks for capturing those stills, I guess that's the only interchange between the Dandenong/Gippsland line and the SRL?

Also I think it's really a poor feature that Chadstone isn't included as its pretty much the main business area only moments away from the proposed stations. It's become a defacto CBD for that part of Melbourne, it desperately needs to be included probably just as much as Monash Clayton. It's not that I'm intrinsically against SRL as such, I just think it could follow a different route or perhaps the Eastlink express line could be built in the meantime.

Hey let's go full user-pays for the premium express-link service: Special station charges on the premium express charges for 15-20 years like the Sydney Airport Train concessions to pay for the Eastlink express line.

Whattya think?
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria

Also I think it's really a poor feature that Chadstone isn't included as its pretty much the main business area only moments away from the proposed stations. It's become a defacto CBD for that part of Melbourne, it desperately needs to be included probably just as much as Monash Clayton. It's not that I'm intrinsically against SRL as such, I just think it could follow a different route or perhaps the Eastlink express line could be built in the meantime.
don_dunstan

Providing a station at Chadstone would most likely form part of a future separate (and smaller scale) project to reconnect the Alamein line with the Dandenong line somewhere between Hughesdale and Oakleigh.

I think the problem with including this as part of the SRL is that it wouldn't connect easily to other significant destinations such as Monash Uni and Box Hill.

Ross
  justarider Assistant Commissioner

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
again you're just making it up to suit your position.
Could say exactly the same of you - there's no denying that the Frankston-Ringwood corridor is already in existence and ready to use, I'm not a weekly or daily user of Eastlink as you are but I have indeed travelled the route end-to-end (admittedly not since I lived there) and I've had a careful Google Earth of it too further to our recent discussion. Heaps of room there all the way to Heatherdale - sure some of it is through the Melbourne Water treatment plants but there are some stubstantial benefits to my proposal - not the least of which is saving around $30 billion for the Victorian taxpayers.

What would you prefer, bang-for-your-buck or a really, really expensive boondoggle that will take decades to complete? My Box Hill-Frankston project would be tens of billions less, completely shovel-ready and fully integrated with the Melbourne suburban network with the addition of providing regular express services to Heatherdale/Ringwood it would also probably be faster for Pennisula people to get to the CBD taking pressure off the Frankston line. The new interchange at Yarraman could also possibly provide an express route to the city potentially faster than the existing route via Caulfield which is now out-of-the-question for extra tracks since they didn't provide that redundancy in there with the Skyrail thing. Solution? New limited stops trains to Frankston via Box Hill and Eastlink interchanging with all the new and fast growing bits of Melbourne.

In all seriousness what's not to like? Because the entire route is above-ground it would probably be a third of the cost of the Cheltenham-Box Hill route and could form the spine of future express cross-metro services to the Airport on the other side without having to build the rest of it (Box Hill to Epping etc) in the immediate future. Hell, there's even extra platform space at Box Hill already there and unused for my turnback/interchange for the all stops network on the north side. The land acquisition would be minimal compared to the SRL, slivers of land in places particularly through Canterbury/Hawthorn might be expensive but nothing compared with a completely new bored tunnel route.

All round my idea is cheaper and provides Melbourne with the transport solution that it actually needs.
don_dunstan
yet again @don you omit putting any meaures on you assumptions.

At least this time your had a look at Google Earth. You could have used the "ruler" tool instead of eyeballing your onion of "plenty of room". You could look even further on Street View and take a virtual drive down the road.

I'll make it easy for you. The width of the easement between the roadways varies 8-10 meters.

The typical width of 2 tracks at grade is 10M, plus the width of the power stanchions, plus safety fencing etc.
Very tight at the easements's widest. Not gunna fit for the majority.

But is get's worse. Take the Canterbury Rd overpass for example. There is a 1.5M wide pillar is the centre.
So you need at least 6M for West track + 1.5 pillar + 6M for the East track = 13.5M

6M for a single track is the absolute minimum
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/17493239/structural-gauge-envelopes-public-transport-victoria/22
page 12 ENVELOPE C

So what to do?
  • Sacrifice the safety standards of both the road and rail.
  • Rebuild the bridge with no middle span and move the road pavement out - oops there goes $500M for this one
  • Remove one of the road lanes.


Many more examples along the way.

But of course you have now added the "benefit" of a Dandenong line detour. Let's look at that.
  • Yarraman to Melbourne Central 43 minutes
  • Heatherdale to Melbourne Central 30 minutes

Do you honestly believe that you can do the 18km PLUS passenger interchange in 13 minutes?

Maybe if the train is 130kph "express", but then where is your improved value of adjacent properties that cannot access the train in any way. Just blew the money argument up again, can't have it both ways.

cheers
John
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
yet again @don you omit putting any meaures on you assumptions.

At least this time your had a look at Google Earth. You could have used the "ruler" tool instead of eyeballing your onion of "plenty of room". You could look even further on Street View and take a virtual drive down the road.

I'll make it easy for you. The width of the easement between the roadways varies 8-10 meters.

The typical width of 2 tracks at grade is 10M, plus the width of the power stanchions, plus safety fencing etc.
Very tight at the easements's widest. Not gunna fit for the majority.

But is get's worse. Take the Canterbury Rd overpass for example. There is a 1.5M wide pillar is the centre.
So you need at least 6M for West track + 1.5 pillar + 6M for the East track = 13.5M

6M for a single track is the absolute minimum
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/17493239/structural-gauge-envelopes-public-transport-victoria/22
page 12 ENVELOPE C

So what to do?
  • Sacrifice the safety standards of both the road and rail.
  • Rebuild the bridge with no middle span and move the road pavement out - oops there goes $500M for this one
  • Remove one of the road lanes.


Many more examples along the way.
justarider

The cost of modifying the odd overpass would still be a drop in the ocean compared to 30km of bored tunnels; you can't be serious when you compare the modification of an existing toll-way to an entire new greenfields construction involving the acquisition of land in developed areas.

Try again.
But of course you have now added the "benefit" of a Dandenong line detour. Let's look at that. Yarraman to Melbourne Central 43 minutes Heatherdale to Melbourne Central 30 minutes Do you honestly believe that you can do the 18km PLUS passenger interchange in 13 minutes? Maybe if the train is 130kph "express", but then where is your improved value of adjacent properties that cannot access the train in any way. Just blew the money argument up again, can't have it both ways. cheers John
justarider
Yarraman to Melbourne Central is 48 minutes.

I'm talking about providing a limited express service to the city from Frankston and Dandenong which would stop only at (say) Heatherdale and Box Hill; provide access to the central east from the south and Gipplsand. It would ultimately form the spine of your SRL and could proceed underground from Box Hill towards Doncaster ultimately rather than just head to the city. The cost would be substantially cheaper than a greenfields bored tunnel from Cheltenham to Box Hill that I don't think will ever be built. Clearly you don't think my idea of using an existing corridor specifically set aside for the purpose of providing a rail service is a good one but at $100,000,000,000 or so for a a pair of bored tunnels I reckon you're dreaming if you think SRL will ever get off the drawing board. My idea would be way cheaper and would accomplish the cross-suburban eastern suburbs route that apparently is badly needed.
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

As I've said previously. Dandenong - Frankston will only be built as part of Quadding Caulfield-Dandenong because of Hastings Port.

If that doesn't happen, then Dandenong-Frankston won't happen.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

@tayser A fool for questioning a project that was not approved by either Infrastructure Victoria or Transport for Victoria. Is merely a thought bubble dreamt up by Planning Victoria who would have little experience in Transport and rushed through by a Premier who wanted it to avoid scrutiny and having no plan or business case. It is the same sort of behaviour that Michael O Brien engaged in when trying to rush through E-W link.

To state that because MM2 goes through the inner suburbs and so maybe get a backlash from the electorate is irrelevant. Capacity contraints on both the Werribee and Mernda lines is happening NOW.

If the SRL is to be built it and the MARL should be built after MM2.

Michael
  John E Station Master

@tayser A fool for questioning a project that was not approved by either Infrastructure Victoria or Transport for Victoria. Is merely a thought bubble dreamt up by Planning Victoria who would have little experience in Transport and rushed through by a Premier who wanted it to avoid scrutiny and having no plan or business case. It is the same sort of behaviour that Michael O Brien engaged in when trying to rush through E-W link.

To state that because MM2 goes through the inner suburbs and so maybe get a backlash from the electorate is irrelevant. Capacity contraints on both the Werribee and Mernda lines is happening NOW.

If the SRL is to be built it and the MARL should be built after MM2.

Michael
mejhammers1
Only difference Michael was there was no side letter for SRL - from memory just a promise of $300 Million on a business case. The Andrews government was also very public that no contracts would be signed for the North East Link until they were re-elected.
  justarider Assistant Commissioner

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
again you're just making it up to suit your position.
but there are some stubstantial benefits to my proposal - not the least of which is saving around $30 billion for the Victorian taxpayers.

don_dunstan
forgot this little tit bit earlier on,

Cheltenham to Box Hill is 22km of the 90km SRL, so that would be about 25% of the $50B cost = $12.5B.
Let's be very conservative and double that to $25B

So after we build down the Eastlink, we a due for a refund of $5B

more to come
John
  justarider Assistant Commissioner

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
yet again @don you omit putting any meaures on you assumptions.
.....
But is get's worse. Take the Canterbury Rd overpass for example. There is a 1.5M wide pillar is the centre.
So you need at least 6M for West track + 1.5 pillar + 6M for the East track = 13.5M

So what to do?
  • Sacrifice the safety standards of both the road and rail.
  • Rebuild the bridge with no middle span and move the road pavement out - oops there goes $500M for this one
  • Remove one of the road lanes.


Many more examples along the way.

The cost of modifying the odd overpass would still be a drop in the ocean compared to 30km of bored tunnels; you can't be serious when you compare the modification of an existing toll-way to an entire new greenfields construction involving the acquisition of land in developed areas.

Try again.
But of course you have now added the "benefit" of a Dandenong line detour.
Let's look at that. Yarraman to Melbourne Central
43 minutes Heatherdale to Melbourne Central 30 minutes
Yarraman to Melbourne Central is 48 minutes.

I'm talking about providing a limited express service to the city from Frankston and Dandenong which would stop only at (say) Heatherdale and Box Hill; provide access to the central east from the south and Gipplsand. It would ultimately form the spine of your SRL and could proceed underground from Box Hill towards Doncaster ultimately rather than just head to the city. The cost would be substantially cheaper than a greenfields bored tunnel from Cheltenham to Box Hill that I don't think will ever be built. Clearly you don't think my idea of using an existing corridor specifically set aside for the purpose of providing a rail service is a good one but at $100,000,000,000 or so for a a pair of bored tunnels I reckon you're dreaming if you think SRL will ever get off the drawing board. My idea would be way cheaper and would accomplish the cross-suburban eastern suburbs route that apparently is badly needed.
don_dunstan
just a few inconvenient facts.

There are 17 (yes ONE SEVEN) bridges going over the Tollway. Of those 14 have an available easement of only 8 meters.
Modifying the odd overpass - really !!
They will have to be completely new bridges, and each cover the enormous span of 65-70 meters.
Not cheap. $500M each is conservative.

And then another 8 bridges with the tollway going over. Again only 8 meters gap, so more bridges to modify.

I guesstimate about $5B-$8B just for that work, and nothing has started on the train tracks yet.

Yarraman to Melbourne Central is 48 minutes.
Don

Dueling fact checking !
So the PTV are wrong to suggest that the
7:56 Yarraman arrives Melbourne Central at 8:39 (43)
or 8:07/8:50 (43)  8:19/9:03 (44)  8:27/9:08 (39)  8:37/9:17 (40)  8:47/9:27 (40)  8:57/9:37 (40)  9:07/9:47 (40) nothing fantastic, but yet why would anybody bother with a long detour to save nothing.

entire new greenfields construction involving the acquisition of land in developed areas
Don
You mean like the Metro Tunnel ? A little fact:
only the Town Hall Station precinct acquired any land. Didn't McDonalds scream about their favourite leased shop.
The rest is a mixture of closed /diverted roadways and Victrack land.
That's the big plus of tunnels, you go UNDER so that do not have to affect the land above.

Clearly you don't think my idea of using an existing corridor specifically set aside for the purpose of providing a rail service is a good one
Don

Err no, it's not a good idea.

cheers
John
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
forgot this little tit bit earlier on,

Cheltenham to Box Hill is 22km of the 90km SRL, so that would be about 25% of the $50B cost = $12.5B.
Let's be very conservative and double that to $25B

So after we build down the Eastlink, we a due for a refund of $5B

more to come
John
justarider
Swanston metro tunnel is 9km long and is officially costed at $11,000,000,000 but will probably be more like $2-3 billion more. Let's be really generous with SRL cost-overruns and having the CFMMEU closed-shop and say that its $1.5 billion per km for SRL.

22km for just that Cheltenham-Box Hill section probably $33 billion plus. Let's be extremely unfair to my Eastlink idea and double the usual $50,000,000 per km greenfields construction cost to $100,000,000 per km to account for your ridiculous request to completely rebuild every overpass on the tollway; bear in mind that the alignment is mostly already there though so land acquisition on the Eastlink route would be extremely minimal. Heatherdale to Box Hill already has much of the alignment suited to expansion despite your protests - but again let's be really mean to my project and slap on yet another $100,000,000 per km to satiate the NIMBYism along the route and ensure high speed express operation along the 8km from Eastlink/Heatherdale to Box Hill.

The total cost would be around $4.4 billion or approximately one eighth of the cost of the Cheltenham-Box Hill bored tunnel.

The expensive bored tunnel option is financially irresponsible and needs to be dumped in favour of the manifestly cheaper, faster and more feasible original 1969 plan to connect the Pennisula and the South Eastern lines with the Ringwood line.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: