East West Link

<html><body>
By <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/graeme-hodge-262">Graeme Hodge</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university">Monash University</a>.

Two cheers for resolving the East-West toll road project mess. The agreement reached by the Andrews Government in Victoria to pay the consortium $339 million for its bid costs and early work is unprecedented, but also honourable and transparent. It was always going to involve considerable pain on all sides, because it was created by Labor, by the Coalition and by the consortium in the first place. But what a tangled government-business ‘partnership’!

Signed contract deals, a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-05/east-west-link-victorian-opposition-releases-secret-side-letter/6072904">hurried side letter</a>, four court challenges and an election fought and won over whether the five kilometre East-West toll road was good for Victorians or not… The signed business contract said “yes”, the democratic verdict was “no!” All the hallmarks of a comedy show on television. But it was our reality; $339 million down the drain. Opportunistic behaviour on all sides fanned along by a bunch of voracious bankers and eager businesses counting their future revenues.

<h2>Payout is lesser of two evils</h2>

Perhaps this agreement is the lesser of two evils, though. After all, with a benefit cost ratio for the project of just 0.45, after spending $10 billion we would also be losing around $5.5 billion straight down the drain. No-one in their right mind would “invest” in such a massive waste. In this respect, the price tag of only a few hundred million dollars to stop this financial catastrophe may be cheap.

But let’s talk about the bigger picture here. The past two Victorian elections have resulted in huge Public-Private Partnership controversies - firstly over a $5 billion desalination plant (which the conservatives apparently tried to renegotiate) and the second over the East-West toll road (which Labor, smelling the blood of infrastructure politics, did renegotiate.)

Both episodes have put into doubt the State’s professional planning capacity and resulted in arguably illegitimate project proposals being implemented through long-term privately funded infrastructure contracts.

<h2>Stop burning money</h2>

A new approach is needed so that we can make better infrastructure decisions. It is only by doing this that we will avoid burning so much of our money on stupid “Taj Mahals”. Business Councils can also play a role here by stopping their self-serving calls for new projects to replace the current failed ones. Perhaps they could devote their energy to ensure current businesses pay their tax bills here instead of sheltering in faraway tax havens?

Contract renegotiations of this size are extraordinary. And they are also tough because of our dual expectations. On the one hand, we expect government to maintain commercial legitimacy, drive a hard deal in our name, and behave in legally responsible ways. And as part of this we assume that governments believe in the sanctity of commercial contracts. After all, private contracts are the building block of the economy.

But on the other hand, we equally expect governments to take their democratic mandate and carry out policies taken into an election. In big projects such as the Desal plant and the East-West toll road, there is a clash of expectations. We want government to be both commercially sensible on our behalf, and democratically responsible on our behalf.

<h2>Legitimate projects, not ministerial favourites</h2>

Of course governments have always been able to sign us up to long-term projects and long-term debts - whether aluminium plants, hospitals or dams. And we will never take all the politics out of public infrastructure projects - this would be naive.

We do though need governments to put infrastructure priorities into a bipartisan process in which legitimate projects gravitate towards the top (instead of just the Minister’s personal favourites), undertake competent economic assessments (instead of back-of-the-envelope trumped-up business cases worth less than the napkin on which they were developed) and seriously consider whether dozens of smaller expenditures are likely to be better than the “Taj Mahal” mentality that government egos still seem to thrust on Victorian citizens.

It would also be better if governments could leave aside their <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/911b-melbourne-metro-swanston-street-project-to-go-ahead-daniel-andrews-20150416-1mm3wh">love of long-term infrastructure contracts</a>, private finance and commercial secrets and level with us. We are not mugs. Citizens expect to know what governments are doing in their name, how they are behaving with the power they temporarily hold and how the relationship they have with businesses is being employed.

<h2>Big secrets?</h2>

Can this be solved through legislation stopping governments from signing contracts before elections? I doubt it. Business and politics are both incredibly innovative in getting around new rules. But let’s try anyway. Big infrastructure projects imply big decisions, with big risks. Public risks.

Our current Victorian PPP habit, though seems to imply big secrets, and big “success” fees, even for failed public projects! These are particularly galling. But together, these form a cocktail of complex ongoing deals that could cripple the state if we keep going like this. If we can’t improve our infrastructure priority planning, our assessments, our transparency and bipartisan discourse we will repeat the recent history many times over in coming decades. So the real task here is to take another road.

Independent institutionalised professional planning needs to be reintroduced into the picture, not sidelined. Consultation needs to be undertaken. And priorities need to be re-established so that debates around medium and long-term project options, alternatives and relative timing can occur. Not just the immediate personal choices of ministers as if they were purchasing something in a retail shop.

We need to get on and re-professionalise for a more democratic approach to medium and long-term infrastructure success. And quickly.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/40232/count.gif" width="1">

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="http://theconversation.com/east-west-link-shows-miserable-failure-of-planning-process-40232">original article</a>.
</body></html>

theconversation

East-West Link shows miserable failure of planning process

<html><body>
On Monday night, Engineers Australia held their annual <a href="http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/events/transport-year-review">Transport: year in review</a> event at the Park Hyatt which included four panelists in front of a 100+ strong audience. Commentary was broad-based and thoroughly interesting if politics and city building piques your interest.

The panelists included The Age Transport reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/adamlcarey">Adam Carey</a>, Grattan Institute CEO <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/people/bio/john-daley/">John Daley</a>, Member of the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Plan Melbourne Professor <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/business/staff/johnsta">John Stanley</a> and CEO of the Committee for Melbourne <a href="https://twitter.com/committee4melb">Kate Roffey</a>.

Each of the panelists provided a wide range of views starting with Adam Carey giving his perspective on the way Transport policy played out both at the start of the year and during the election campaign.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en">
On <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ewlink?src=hash">#ewlink</a>: 'nobody in our community can explain why <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ewlink?src=hash">#ewlink</a> is a good project' - John Daley <a href="https://twitter.com/GrattanInst">@GrattanInst</a> <a href="http://t.co/laLl16Ivjr">pic.twitter.com/laLl16Ivjr</a>
— Urban.com.au (@UrbanMelbourne) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/UrbanMelbourne/status/541856978708873216">December 8, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>John Daley's focus on transparency and governance is best characterised when he lamented "We are in a world where there is no transparency in the way [transport] projects are selected". The audience liked John's quip when he labelled the elephant-in-the-room 'East-West-East link' project as well.

Kate Roffey focused on many issues but one which stuck out was the poignant reminder that in the not too distant future the new government will be dealing with the winding down of the automotive manufacturing sector. Kate Roffey also argued that many of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects such as the Pakenham/Cranbourne corridor project should be prioritised as it predominantly involved private capital and that it will go a long way to offsetting the impending job pain.

John Stanley brought a planning angle to the discussion and painted a picture when he highlighted the contrast in thinking at a State and Provincial level in Victoria and Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
John Stanley - 'I asked Ontario and BC reps what major road projects are underway, they looked at me like I was from a different planet'
— Urban.com.au (@UrbanMelbourne) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/UrbanMelbourne/status/541861110404501504">December 8, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Similarly John Stanley opined that Melbourne should slow its growth on the fringe and the heavy lifting for transport projects over the longer term should focus on connecting new residential development in the middle ring, where most of the metropolitan area's jobs are located.

<h2>Q&amp;A Session</h2>

Post presentations, the Q&amp;A session took on a more free-flowing discussion with many of the overarching themes revolving around:

<ul>
<li>Will the new Infrastructure Victoria agency have teeth? To what extent will local government have a role in both Infrastructure Victoria and the Metropolitan Planning Authority?</li>
	<li>Bi-partisan approach to transport policy and prioritisation is resulting in a sense in the community that nothing is being done to attack congestion, with the contrast being made with Sydney where a panelist believed the opposite were true.</li>
	<li>William McDougall, sitting in the audience (who previously presented at our <a href="https://urbanmelbourne.info/transport/2014/02/01/gmug-2013-william-mcdougall-on-future-transport-trends-for-cities">2013 Melbourne Knowledge Week event</a>), queried the panel on whether they believed the current models used to assess the public net worth of a project were adequate.
	<ul>
<li>One answer highlighted by Kate Roffey was the approach that UK cities are taking, in particular the Greater Manchester region. A summary of this approach can be seen in a <a href="http://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/uk-city-deal-economic-growth-productivity.pdf">recent publication</a> by KPMG and the Property Council of Australia.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>The middle ring of Melbourne needs to have far more focus on connectivity, with arterial road expansion in conjunction with accelerated introduction of more smart bus and local bus routes.</li>
	<li>Each panelist was asked to comment on "what should the new government have done or set in motion by January 1 2015". Their responses varied however an ever present theme amongst them: setting real expectations on the transport policies taken to the recent election.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Comment</h2>

Transport policy and projects did play a large role in media coverage during the year and in particular in the lead up to and during the election campaign as Kate Roffey pointed to in her opening remarks. Can voter's minds be further expanded to include land-use and how it affects them on top of the standard kitchen table policy areas of jobs, health and education?

I'd argue in no uncertain terms that the way we house ourselves and the way we transport ourselves - the fundamental way we use the land we inhabit - to and from school, work and leisure (remember: living isn't all about working!) should be the top issue with health and education playing a secondary yet complimentary role.

Transport for so many across Melbourne is about being forced into utilising private vehicles traveling to, from and within auto-centric suburbia which leaves these people at higher risk of vulnerability to external factors such as fuel price spikes. The lazy politicians in both the Liberal/Labor parties and in the road lobbies will bleat on about the need for a "balanced" approach to transport policy and expenditure but this just flies in the face of reality.

Sustainable and public transport use has increased in terms of mode share over recent years but continuing high population growth means that already over-used private transport is still growing and contributing to increasing congestion in the mode of transport that most Melburnians are locked in to. It's a vicious circle.

Perhaps when prosecuting the case for prioritising public transport over private transport investment - especially to the centre-right of the political spectrum as they appear to be struggling just that little bit more than the centre-left - the argument should be framed around some of the core Liberal values of individual choice and competition.

Individuals (and families) for the most part have limited choice in the way they spend their transport dollars and this lack of competition deprives the individual from pursuing the maximum amount of job and lifestyle opportunities compared to those living in competition-rich areas.

Is it not a quasi neo-liberal/conservative philosophy to maintain and ensure the individual (and family unit) has as much access to opportunities as possible for their own life pursuits?

Sitting in worsening traffic, bereft politicians talking of 'balancing transport priorities' and in reality applying expensive band-aid status quo solutions (more commuter Freeways) without attacking the core problem - that there's simply too many people required to use cars in the first place - is unproductive, lazy and likely to further fracture society by locking away opportunities.

Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/lonely-over-christmas-a-snapshot-of-social-isolation-in-the-suburbs-34810">Lonely over Christmas: a snapshot of social isolation in the suburbs</a>.

Lead image courtesy Norman Bear.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Highlights from Engineers Australia transport year in review

<html><body>
By <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-newman-1858">Peter Newman</a>, Curtin University.

Labor’s state election victory in Victoria has fatally undermined Melbourne’s most controversial tunnel, the now-doomed <a href="http://www.linkingmelbourne.vic.gov.au/east-west-link">East-West Link</a>, with new Premier Daniel Andrews pledging to rip up the contracts for the project.

His decision is a victory for anyone who values 21st-century urban thinking over the outdated car-first mentality.

It’s also a financial relief, because – as the project’s back story shows – the East-West Link was always more about politics than economics.

<h2>Courting cars</h2>

For many years, the only groups calling for a tunnel to link Melbourne’s Eastern and Citylink freeways were the <a href="http://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/racv/Internet/Primary/home">RAC of Victoria</a> and <a href="https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/">VicRoads</a>. The problem was that the tunnel never made economic sense when it was just a freight project, yet most attention in the transport planning system was on public transport, where demand was growing rapidly. The East-West tunnel needed a large dose of cars to justify it.

Enter Tony Abbott, who <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/tollfree-eastwest-link-preferable-tony-abbott-20130902-2t0ff">pledged A$1.5 billion</a> before last year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/federal-election-2013">federal election</a> for the East-West plan, arguing that Australians love their cars and public transport was not in his federal knitting.

The East-West project grew in concept and soon became a massive capital cost, with the price tag for the whole plan, including the western extension to Melbourne’s port, threatening to <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-budget-2014-major-road-and-rail-projects-worth-24b-to-transform-melbourne-20140506-zr5mj">hit A$10 billion</a> and swamp the transport budget.

Meanwhile, in the waning days of the first <a href="http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au">Infrastructure Australia</a> (on which I was privileged to serve for four years), it became obvious that the East-West tunnel and Sydney’s <a href="http://www.westconnex.com.au">WestConnex</a> would never be subject to the scrutiny of our process. They were to be seen as purely political projects and the case for their going ahead would depend on their popularity, not on value for money.

<h2>Why tunnelling Melbourne was a bad idea</h2>

The old shibboleth that building roads is vital for improving the economy is no longer true. Economic growth has divorced itself from car dependence (my new book with <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeff-kenworthy-15708">Jeff Kenworthy</a>, <a href="http://www.bibliovault.org/BV.book.epl?ISBN=9781610914635">The End of Automobile Dependence</a>, traces the fall of the empire of car-based planning).

Growth in the Victorian and Australian economies now depends on the growth in “knowledge economy” jobs. These jobs at the creative, productive, innovative edge of our economy are now firmly enmeshed in the dense centres of our cities.

As the US urban economists Ed Glaeser and Richard Florida have <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news">shown</a>, the knowledge economy depends on close interactions between creative people and those who can deliver projects. This work requires intensive spaces in cities, which in turn need intensive modes of transport to enable them. This means that rail, cycling and walking are critical to the knowledge economy. Although heavily into digital communications, knowledge economy workers need face-to-face contact and are now shifting back into central and inner city locations to optimise this process.

In contrast, cars and trucks are dispersive modes of transport, and are needed for the consumption economy. These jobs are important too, but are essentially based in the dispersed spaces of the suburbs. These jobs are not the ones we are seeking as much as those in the knowledge economy, because they do not drive productivity growth as effectively.

It is no wonder that around the world, we are seeing <a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38472#.VH1FI2SUdgA">declining car use per capita and growing public transport use</a>, as well as a widespread return to formerly neglected inner cities.

The six most walkable US cities have <a href="http://urbanful.org/2014/06/20/walkable-cities/">38% higher gross domestic product than the national average</a>. Cities now compete on new measures such as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/opinion/sunday/now-coveted-a-walkable-convenient-place?_r=0">walkability</a> and <a href="http://www.livablecities.org/blog/value-rankings-and-meaning-livability">livability</a>. Governments everywhere are aiming to build quality rail projects and make city centres more human in scale. Even <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-780m-light-rail-line-gets-final-go-ahead-business-case-to-be-released-20140915-10gzr3">Canberra</a> and <a href="http://www.parracity.nsw.gov.au/work/business_in_parramatta/strategy/solving_transport_problems/light_rail_for_western_sydney">Paramatta</a> are joining in, as they work out how to build light rail.

Melbourne has one of the most attractive city centres in the world for knowledge economy jobs. It needs to ensure that this is not lost by tipping more cars into its walkable centre. Instead it needs to encourage commuting by rail, bike and on foot.

<h2>Change in the air</h2>

Victoria’s people have now spoken. The East-West Link will be scrapped, and should be replaced by more sensible transport planning. Melbourne does need to improve east-west access for people and freight, but it should not be beyond us to find some solutions that do not break the bank.

Clearly there are plans for upgrading rail access through several proposed rail projects, including the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-19/melbourne-rail-a-better-deal-than-east-west-toll-planners-say/5902268">original Melbourne Metro plan</a>, and the <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PTV/PTV%20docs/Melbourne-Airport/Melbourne-Airport-Rail-Link-Study-Overview.pdf">Airport Rail Link</a>. <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/rail-projects/doncaster-rail-study">Doncaster Rail</a> should remain on the table, hopefully not for another 100 years, as it is a simple and direct way to move passengers east-west.

The freight system seems to be amenable to much simpler concepts than the East-West Tunnel, like those <a href="http://habitattrustmelbourne.org.au">presented by the Habitat Trust</a>, using several inland rail interchange facilities.

The <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/spinifex/bays-precinct-five-principles-emerge-from-summit/69895">same principles</a> should lead New South Wales to modify the Connex West project, especially where it spills traffic into Sydney’s central and inner areas. Such traffic “solutions” actually harm the economy of inner urban areas, burying investment opportunities under bitumen for parking and road-widening, and congesting areas that already have too many cars.

The public can sense that we have to update the way we travel and how we build cities so they are not car-dependent. The road-building brigade needs to take a deep breath and see that their plans are old-fashioned. Perhaps the legacy of the East-West Tunnel will be that such projects will never again be foisted on the Australian public.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/34914/count.gif" width="1">

Peter Newman does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-east-west-link-is-dead-a-victory-for-21st-century-thinking-34914">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The East-West Link is dead - a victory for 21st-century thinking

<html><body>
In an eight-page, plastic-wrapped newsletter released late last week, the Linking Melbourne Authority announced amongst spin and puff that the development plans required as the final step of the planning permit had been endorsed by the Planning Minister. On any other planning permit these development plans, or ‘endorsed drawings’ as they are also known, will detail all the design modifications from the permit conditions and essentially finalize the design which has been approved.

Whilst they will not detail the construction engineering aspects they typically cover such things as final finishes, proposed overall dimensions and all the features and aspects of the design proposal related to planning. In any other project, be it a 100 storey tower or a minor residential extension, these plans are public documents. However such is the secrecy around the East West Link that, like the ‘business case’, these documents are under lock and key away from public scrutiny.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/western-portal-copy_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The western portal"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="317" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/western-portal-copy_0.jpg?itok=A6X4r73M" title="The western portal" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The western portal</figcaption></figure>As a consequence of this veil of secrecy very simple questions pertaining to what has been approved cannot be answered. In Parkville, seven tollway flyovers cut through a residential precinct. The animation gives perhaps the best indication of what residents should prepare themselves for. It is very difficult to determine if sound and privacy barriers will be installed, what height and form they will take and how effective they will be.

Other basic questions include how tall are these flyovers? How far away are they exactly? How will the road be lit at night?

This situation leads to only two possible conclusions. The first possibility is that these issues have been resolved in the development plans, as they should have. These details are then being deliberately withheld from public scrutiny, for the benefit of the Liberal Party election prospects and public relations.

The second possibility is that these details have not been finalised and are therefore not part of the development plans which were endorsed by the Planning Minister. This would be an absolute disaster as the controls for what constitutes an acceptable design response would be transferred to either the LMA or the construction consortium who would be entitled to build whatever was expedient and cheap for them to construct.

<h2>Secret Property Reports</h2>

The Victorian Government’s dungeon of secret documents has also been expanded to include the Property Impact Reports which were required as a condition of the planning permit. These reports supposedly document local properties which will be impacted and were used to determine which properties would be offered voluntary acquisition. Was it comprehensive? Which properties were reported upon? What did it take into consideration?

Only very few guards within the secret dungeon have access to this document, so it is impossible to say. Despite this, from media reports it is possible to draw a rough map of which properties have and have not been offered acquisition. Whilst any number of government ministers can trot out the catch phrase ‘the line had to be drawn somewhere’ it is clear from this rough map that the line that was actually drawn does not treat properties fairly based on distance.

The line that separates between an optional exit and 5+ years of misery prioritises houses over others and does not use logical features such as existing laneways to determine its location.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/acquisition-map-copy.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Acquisition map"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="595" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/acquisition-map-copy.jpg?itok=jNdxxRTR" title="Acquisition map" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Acquisition map</figcaption></figure><h2>Purpose of mystery buildings confirmed</h2>

In a previous post discussing the then newly released final design, two newly proposed ‘mystery’ buildings in Parkville were highlighted by a freeze frame shot on the official video. At the time with no announcement or description of what they were, we were left to guess the purpose. After a subsequent twitter exchange and a discussion with the Linking Melbourne Authority, it has been confirmed that these two buildings will be the new 24 hour Freeway Control Centre and the Operations and Maintenance Management Facilities.

These buildings should have been included within the Comprehensive Impact Statement and public hearings process but were omitted. In order to make this location work for the emergency operations vehicles an additional ground level road through Royal Park will also be required. The alternative fastest route into the tunnel is a 3.5KM trip via Brunswick road.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/east-west-link-ops-maintenance-centre.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="East West Link operations maintenance centre"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="310" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/east-west-link-ops-maintenance-centre.jpg?itok=986DeHBM" title="East West Link operations maintenance centre" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>East West Link operations maintenance centre</figcaption></figure>Planning details such as the number of car parks for these facilities, shadowing impacts, building form, window location and overall dimensions are all either secret or as yet un-designed. The design should have been finalised in order to have been included on the development plans for endorsement.

<h2>West Parkville to be cut off</h2>

Another detail which has snuck through broader analysis is the road connection between West Parkville and the western and southern suburbs. In order to facilitate large traffic volumes exiting Citylink from the north, the only connection via Lennon Street will be entirely cut off. This will add over 2.5 kilometres to any trip going west via racecourse road or south via boundary road or Citylink.

Linking Melbourne Authority is aware of this problem and have verbally agreed to investigate possible solutions.

<h2>Real life ‘Utopia’ spin</h2>

In a case of life mimicking art it seems that the PR department at the LMA has taken a leaf out of the fictional ‘Nation Building Authority’ depicted by the ABC comedy/documentary Utopia. In order to sell the extension of the wetlands (at the expense of Royal Park’s Ross Straw Field) the glossy brochure announced the following:

<blockquote>
The wetlands will be accessible by a series of high quality boardwalks and complemented by a significant water themed playground, a new education and interpretative centre, and community facilities including barbecues, seating and shelters.
<cite>Linking Melbourne Authority, Western Gateway Brochure (page 2)</cite>
</blockquote>

This description was accompanied by an artist impression indicating a vague building within a park setting.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/fictional-park-impression.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Fictional park impression"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="295" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/fictional-park-impression.jpg?itok=8T7cVvMS" title="Fictional park impression" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Fictional park impression</figcaption></figure>Naturally the education and interpretive centre was not included in the consultation process, Comprehensive Impact Statement or in the public hearings. It was therefore a big surprise that it was included as part of the ‘final design’. There has been no discussion about how this centre would operate, if there would be buses dropping off school groups or the design location or footprint of any of these buildings.

Furthermore it is not entirely clear if the Linking Melbourne Authority even has a planning permit to construct these buildings as they are not ‘normal’ to the purpose of providing a transport link. In response to being pushed on these questions, the LMA reportedly told the City of Melbourne (on October 7) that the Education Centre would not be a staffed centre but a series of interpretive signs around the wetlands. Perhaps the LMA should tell that to their media spin unit.

The issues highlighted here are a summary of some of the known unknowns. The Liberal Government would have you believe that this project is ready to start in a few weeks yet the public has very little idea of what has even been approved. With such a secretive process the question is: what else is being kept in the secret dungeon of documents with the business case, property reports, signed construction contract and the development plans?

The public deserves to know. Architecture is for Everyone.

This article originally appeared on the <a href="http://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/east-west-link-and-the-secret-development-plans/">Red and Black Architect's blog</a>.
</body></html>

redblackarchitect

East West Link and the Secret Development Plans

<html><body>
Former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett has expressed his disappointment about the negative impacts that the proposed East West Link design will have on the Melbourne gateway landmark. Tweeting in response to my questions, Mr Kennett sees the value of the cheese sticks being lost by the new flyovers.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/jeff_kennett">@jeff_kennett</a> what do you think about the domination and obscuring of the gateway cheese stick by the East West Link design?
— Red+Black Architect (@Red_Black_Archi) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/Red_Black_Archi/status/517075700881178624">September 30, 2014</a>
</blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/Red_Black_Archi">@Red_Black_Archi</a> I do not like or agree with losing the value of cheese sticks which form a gateway into the wonderment of Melbourne
— Jeff Kennett (@jeff_kennett) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/jeff_kennett/status/517078492886753280">September 30, 2014</a>
</blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/jeff_kennett">@jeff_kennett</a> me either! The proposed EWlink design dilutes the potency and value of our city's unique and iconic gateway
— Red+Black Architect (@Red_Black_Archi) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/Red_Black_Archi/status/517080359666581504">September 30, 2014</a>
</blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/Red_Black_Archi">@Red_Black_Archi</a> Agreed
— Jeff Kennett (@jeff_kennett) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/jeff_kennett/status/517083942688526336">September 30, 2014</a>
</blockquote>

This is in reference to my article published on <a href="http://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/">The Red and Black Architect blog</a> yesterday, as seen below.

<h2>State Government Reveals Final East West Link Design</h2>

This week the Napthine Victorian Government signed a secret contract worth $6.8 Billion, with the Lend Lease led consortium to build the eastern stage of the East West Link toll road. In what has now become the standard approach from this Government, the public were left in the dark with regards to almost every detail. From financial business case to the property impact reports, the actual route of the road and the physical design of it.

If you are joining this story just now there is some important back reading for you to do.

<ul>
<li><a href="http://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/east-west-tollway-to-trash-an-inner-city-oasis/">East West Tollway to Trash an Inner City Oasis</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/atelier-red-black-reveals-a-better-east-west-link-design">A Better East West link Design Revealed</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-to-fail-east-west-link-part-1">Planning to Fail: East West Link (Part 1)</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-to-fail-east-west-link-part-2">Planning to Fail: East West Link (Part 2)</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/saving-west-parkville/">Saving West Parkville</a></li>
</ul>
A day after signing the State into a massive financial black hole, the government has revealed the final design to be constructed. This is of course pending the outcome of the two separate court actions and a probable change in government. So what have we just bought, is the design any good and were there any surprises?

<h2>Eastern Portal</h2>

The Eastern portal road design was one of the few known outcomes from the planning permit approval. This road design tears up heritage streets and imposes the visual bulk of a flyover upon the surrounding residential areas.

The good news however is the demise of the ridiculous vertical ‘feature’ on the bridge which detracted from the heritage listed Clifton Hill Shot Tower. This design element was completely superfluous and caused additional negative impacts for zero positive gain. It will not be missed by anyone other than perhaps the Planning Minister Matthew Guy, who in his planning approval deliberately and recklessly contradicted the Assessment Committee who had found it to be unacceptable. Clearly wiser more educated heads have prevailed in this case.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/eastern-portal-copy.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="View of the Eastern Portal (Clifton Hill and Collingwood)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="326" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/eastern-portal-copy.jpg?itok=9SBAHRCE" title="View of the Eastern Portal (Clifton Hill and Collingwood)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>View of the Eastern Portal (Clifton Hill and Collingwood)</figcaption></figure>Significant emphasis has been placed upon the acoustic tube refered to as the ‘Sound Wave. On the positive side it looks like it could be a dynamic and interesting form. It does seem however that the residential areas in most need of the noise protection (on the left of the picture above) seem to miss out all together. Hopefully this can be resolved to the satisfaction of those unfortunate residents.

<h2>Western Portal</h2>

Up until the point at which the design was released on Tuesday, the suburb of West Parkville was in limbo. Whilst the project had for weeks already been approved, no one could be sure where the roads would go, which properties would be demolished and how badly residents would be affected.

The bizarre situation for residents was that they would need to look in the newspapers or catch a TV news bulletin to determine if they would have a home in 6 months time. It was a public game of spot your home, with the winners getting to see their neighborhood be ripped apart over the 5 year construction period whilst the losers lost their home all together.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/western-portal-copy.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Western Portal"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="317" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/western-portal-copy.jpg?itok=J0QXjqdi" title="The Western Portal" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Western Portal</figcaption></figure>The outcome was disastrous for West Parkville. Any hopes of a better design which could save the 55 homes, Ross Straw Playing Fields and the White’s Skink habitat were dashed. The planning permit recommendation to investigate relocating the portal west of Oak street was clearly too soft to have any impact on the design. The work done by Safety Net on an alternative which was proven to be feasible by traffic engineers commissioned by the City of Melbourne, was largely ignored. One aspect of this design that was not ignored was the provision of the Flemington Road access at the Citylink interchange, rather than within Royal Park itself. This will help save a section of Royal Park that would have otherwise been lost forever.

The overall news for Royal Park is however, far from good. As well as the permanent loss of virtually all of the parkland west of the Upfield Train line, there was the added bad news of a large electrical substation which is now required to power the tunnel boring machines. Yet again a significant impact on the environment and the public that was not accounted for in the Comprehensive Impact Statement (CIS).

Whilst discussing Royal Park it is also important to note that this project will be the third incursion into our largest public urban park in a decade. The Commonwealth Games village, the Royal Children’s Hospital and now East West Link have all eaten significant portions of the park. This is incredibly short sited of a city claiming to be the worlds most livable. All levels of government need to be looking at ways to permanently protect our rapidly shrinking urban parkland. It is too important to lose.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/green-cheese.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The new green cheese stick"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="314" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/green-cheese.jpg?itok=_HBf46PY" title="The new green cheese stick" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The new green cheese stick</figcaption></figure>Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the proposed design is how the Linking Melbourne Authority and the Lend Lease consortium would address the connection with the Melbourne Gateway and the yellow ‘cheese stick’. The answer is with the use of mimicry. Not content to leave the iconic work of Denton Corker Marshall remain the cohesive entry for Melbourne, the new proposal is a classic case of ‘my project is bigger than yours’. The Cheese Stick has been duplicated, enlarged and set closer to vertical as a beacon to all who drive by. In a way green is a fitting colour for a yellow cheese stick gone bad. Not content with being taller and larger, the new triple decked flyovers are likely to substantially block the views of the original landmark, damaging its original purpose. This outcome, in my view at least, is unacceptable.

With the radical changes to West Parkville that are proposed, two mystery buildings were also subtly included into the scheme without explanation or clarification. Located beneath one of the seven new flyovers, are two new buildings built upon the land currently occupied with townhouses. Neither of these were within the reference design and therefore they were not discussed in the CIS or hearings either.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/mystery-buildings.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="It's a mystery!"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="209" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mystery-buildings.jpg?itok=9E_v29kA" title="It's a mystery!" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>It's a mystery!</figcaption></figure><h2>Debney’s Park</h2>

Another surprise inclusion is a new road through Debney’s Park between Mount Alexander Road and Racecourse Road, under the existing sound tube. Whilst this is a substantial blow to the Debney’s Park area which is currently a playground for a community of disadvantaged children, the silver lining is the $15 Million allocated for planning and implementing a new master plan for the area.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/new-road.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The new road as rendered"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="314" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/new-road.jpg?itok=OBaY3ajB" title="The new road as rendered" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The new road as rendered</figcaption></figure><h2>The Northern Interchange (Formerly the Ormond Road Off Ramp)</h2>

Residents in Moreland now have more reason to feel cheated as the Ormond Road off ramp has been unexpectedly expanded to include an on ramp from Brunswick Road. One has to seriously wonder what the point of all the discussion surrounding traffic modeling at the public hearings was for, given the substantial last minute changes to the proposed connections.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/surprise-brunswick-road-onramp.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="A new on ramp from Brunswick Road"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="320" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/surprise-brunswick-road-onramp.jpg?itok=dkXYWlzW" title="A new on ramp from Brunswick Road" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A new on ramp from Brunswick Road</figcaption></figure>The Northern Interchange has now also been given a replica set of red matchsticks. This is a desperate attempt to salvage something of the entry gateway that will be dominated by this project. The new sticks are clearly too far away to be read cohesively with the existing ones whilst simultaneously blurring the ability to navigate via these landmarks.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/new-red-matchsticks.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="New Red Matchsticks"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="321" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/new-red-matchsticks.jpg?itok=6cXbI8PJ" title="New Red Matchsticks" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New Red Matchsticks</figcaption></figure>All in all, the design will not rescue this project. All to often where impacts could have been reduced, they haven’t been. Royal Park will be permanently scarred with a portion amputated completely. West Parkville will be sliced and segmented with the loss of 55 homes unnecessarily. The iconic Melbourne Gateway experience will be lost among flyovers and diluted by a new green parody.

As well as being the most expensive urban project in the state’s history, it will also be among it’s most destructive. Terrible politics, a rushed process, a secret business case, poor planning have all led to a mistake of mammoth proportions.

What do you think about the impact of the East West Link design on the Melbourne Gateway? Have your say below.
</body></html>

Jeff Kennett voices concerns over East West Link design

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

Transport infrastructure and electoral cycles, they go hand in hand like beer and burgers, wine and cheese and the Labor and Liberal parties.  Well maybe not the last pairing but infrastructure projects are inherently the play-things of political parties when it comes to election time and with the news reports today on the ALP's shift in stance on the East-West link, the merry-go-round looks set to continue.

<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-to-dump-eastwest-link-if-elected-even-if-contracts-are-signed-20140910-10f46z">According to a piece</a> by The Age's state political editor Josh Gordon and state political reporter Henrietta Cook, the ALP have received legal advice that if it forms Government after the State election in November, it will use a court case brought on by Moreland and Yarra councils to render the contract for the eastern section of the East-West link invalid.

The East-West Link and Melbourne Metro tunnel projects are a by-product of the Eddington report into East-West travel across Melbourne, with the previous Brumby government had prioritising the rail component higher than that of the freeway project.

With the change of Government, priorities were then suddenly turned around and what appears to be in response to the sustained backlash across the inner Melbourne community, we learnt at the last State Budget announcement the powers that be on Spring Street had altered the path and rebranded the rail component as the Melbourne Rail Link.

The cynic in me says the current Government are employing a scorched earth policy in the event they don't win the November election yet on the other hand it is completely understandable that the legitimate Government of the day wishes to lock in one of its headline projects before the care-taker period.

It's no secret I don't view commuter-based freeway projects with any high degree of favour simply because we already have an auto-centric city/economy and <a href="/blogs/melburnists-braindump/2014/08/22/striking-a-real-balance-in-transport-policy">we have a great imbalance in our transport mix to start with</a>.  If balance in our transport mix is the actual goal, then Governments need to discriminate in favour of public transport and non-motorised transport infrastructure options.

In saying that, proper independent studies into the economic and, more importantly, social return of grand transport projects need to be conducted and made public upon completion, not near the end of an electoral cycle.

And we as urbanists should prepare for and accept that building rail lines ad nauseam is not necessarily going to always be the best option for dragging us into true balance in the way we transport ourselves around the city.

Should this new ALP stance pay off and allow them to form Government post November 29th, one of the first commitments the ALP should make, other than carrying out their policy of stopping the East-West Link, is to do a data dump.

Releasing all pertinent information the Victorian Public Service has on the transport projects in the various departments and continually keeping the public informed with regularly updated and published infrastructure plans - not to mention the decision-making process taken along the way - will also be critical.

Not undertaking an open approach is only going to cast any new Government in the same dim light the current one is shrouded in; the transport infrastructure and electoral cycle merry-go-round is rusty, decrepit and in sore need of replacing.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.flickr.com/photos/hinkelstone/5166544084">flickr</a>, CC BY-SA 2.0
</body></html>

Transport infrastructure and electoral cycles: isn't it time to end the madness?

<html><body>
With the State Government's East West Link project recently achieving planning approval, the community mission to save West Parkville from destruction has further intensified. Two inner city councils have announced that they will be launching legal action in an attempt to halt the project. In addition, the City of Melbourne have agreed to investigate further options to reduce the damage to be caused by this rushed and poorly conceived project.

Safety Net, the community group behind Better East West Link design have also been busy working on ways to limit the destruction. When the group presented to the assessment panel in May, convenor Anthony Peyton presented two design options which were both clearly an improvement on the Linking Melbourne Authority (LMA) reference design. Option one received more media attention due to the radical redesign, which relocated the western tunnel entrance and integrated it into a rejuvenated Arden Macaulay Precinct. With the project approved as it has been it now seems less likely that this option will proceed under a Liberal State Government.

Safety Net’s attention has now shifted to option two which is more in line with the project boundary as defined by the LMA. Developed in conjunction with architects Atelier Red + Black, this option focuses on integrating the East West Link portal with the Citylink ‘Melbourne Gateway’ originally designed by Denton Corker Marshall.

The benefits of this design over the LMA reference design are numerous.

In summary:

<ul>
<li>Ross Straw Field is saved in its entirety.</li>
	<li>55 Homes in West Parkville are saved from destruction.</li>
	<li>Fewer homes will have their amenity drastically impacted.</li>
	<li>A Flemington Road exit can be incorporated to avoid further destruction of Royal park.</li>
	<li>White’s Skink Habitat remains fully intact.</li>
</ul>
<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/aerial01-captioned.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image © Atelier Red + Black"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="319" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/aerial01-captioned.jpg?itok=JcSS1Us-" title="Image © Atelier Red + Black" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Image © Atelier Red + Black</figcaption></figure>From the urban design perspective the design seeks to respect the brilliant gateway by DCM whilst also having its own agile character. As the flyovers skim over the wetlands a series of sculptural forms act to soften the integration of industrial roadways with the waterway. The dynamic forms of the sound barriers imply the movement behind them, whilst reducing the visual and acoustic impact of the traffic.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/wetlands01_captioned.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image © Atelier Red + Black"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="239" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/wetlands01_captioned.jpg?itok=YfmAYoUF" title="Image © Atelier Red + Black" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Image © Atelier Red + Black</figcaption></figure><figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/road01_captioned.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image © Atelier Red + Black"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="239" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/road01_captioned.jpg?itok=WvofKhKm" title="Image © Atelier Red + Black" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Image © Atelier Red + Black</figcaption></figure>The latest proposal shows how a more respectful design could tread lightly on the local area instead of the brute force method shown under the reference design. By undertaking this process the Safety Net has set a benchmark design upon which the wider public can be better informed, in order to judge the final LMA project design.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/aerial02-captioned.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image © Atelier Red + Black"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="239" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/aerial02-captioned.jpg?itok=SEpfi9D9" title="Image © Atelier Red + Black" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Image © Atelier Red + Black</figcaption></figure>This post originally appeared on the <a href="http://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/saving-west-parkville/" target="_blank">Red and Black Architect</a> blog - click the link to see all renders produced by Atelier Red + Black. <a href="/industry/atelier-red-black" target="_blank">Atelier Red + Black</a> are an Urban.com.au <a href="/industry-hub" target="_blank">Industry Hub</a> member organisation.

Background: <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/atelier-red-black-reveals-a-better-east-west-link-design" target="_blank">Atelier Red + Black reveals "A better East West Link" design</a> (Urban.com.au via Red and Black Architect), <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/toll-road-cheese-stick-move-mooted-to-save-houses-from-east-west-link-20140727-zwzez" target="_blank">Toll road 'cheese stick' moved to save houses from East West Link</a> (The Age).
</body></html>

Atelier Red + Black and Safety Net deliver an alternative East West proposal

<html><body>
As <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-to-fail-east-west-link-part-1" target="_blank">previously</a> <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-to-fail-east-west-link-part-2" target="_blank">reported</a>, Matthew Guy has used his extraordinary powers as Planning Minister to approve the East West Link permits. In doing so he has ignored the majority of recommendations put to him by the independent Assessment Committee. This project was a major test case for how well planning law functions for major infrastructure projects. Unfortunately for those wanting a rigorous, logical, evidence based and transparent process the system has failed.

Aside from the question of the East West Link project is how do we fix the planning system so we can learn from the mistakes?

1. Prohibit the use of a reference design to obtain planning approval.

The use of a reference design to achieve planning approval is a terrible concept. Without a real design which has considered real opportunities and real constraints we cannot discuss the project in any meaningful way that would represent the reality of the project. It is absurd that we needed the East West Link project to prove this point. It causes angst and confusion for the community who have no certain design to even direct their comments and criticisms. A reference design is clearly not acceptable to any other private project in the planning system for good reason.

2. Enable the independent Assessment Committee to determine if sufficient information has been provided to assess the proposal. If they deem it insufficient remove the authority for anyone to approve the project until such time as it has been provided and assessed.

The Victorian Planning System gives unfathomable powers to the Planning Minister. Clearly further checks and balances are required. If the Assessment Committee has insufficient information to assess an application it should have the power to prevent any approval being granted until such time as the information is provided and assessed. Good decision making cannot occur without good information to base those decisions.

3. Require the Assessment Committee determine if design alternatives have been sufficiently considered. Prohibit the approval of projects requiring property acquisition unless the Assessment Committee has determined that design alternatives have been sufficiently considered.

If property is being acquired, land owners and in this case home owners have a right to know if there is a better way to achieve the project. Political considerations should not override a proper planning and design process.

<blockquote>
It appears to the Committee that the LMA have not fairly responded to or considered alternative designs
<cite>Remarks from the Assessment Committee</cite>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
No alternative design was exhibited and no alternative has been tested in the manner of the flyover. I do not agree that it is appropriate to describe the exhibited project as unacceptable in the absence of a demonstrated proven alternative
<cite>Remarks from Matthew Guy in his East West Link approval decision</cite>
</blockquote>

4. Require the Assessment Committee determine if community consultation has been sufficient. Prohibit the approval of projects that fail this test.

This requirement would enshrine community consultation as a mandatory requirement in undertaking major infrastructure projects. With the consequences of insufficient consultation being a substantial delay to the project, the proponent would see it as vital that they always cleared tis hurdle first time.

5. For public projects over a $1 Billion require that the business case and procurement method also be within the scope of the Assessment Committee.

It is not for the Assessment Committee to dictate how the government spends its money. However this provision would make sure that the public would have a right to be informed of the financial implications of major infrastructure.

6. Require that the Planning Permits are granted prior to the tendering process beginning. Design changes from the tendering process should be dealt with as amendments to the permit and be subject to their own rigorous planning process.

This requirement achieves two key benefits for the state. Firstly the tender process could accurately reflect the project as approved, avoiding nasty surprises. This would assist in preventing price blowouts due to limiting and controlling variations to the design. Secondly it would provide an opportunity for community consultation and assessment on substantial design changes.

In a democracy, people have a right to transparency and a right to be heard. The East West Link reality where four suburbs have an approved project with an unknown design is a sad example of our broken system. For those screaming at the politicians to ‘rip up the contracts’ for East West Link, don’t forget that there was also a broken system that contributed to this disaster. We need to reform this system urgently or we are destined to repeat the same mistakes.

Victoria Deserves Better. Architecture is for Everyone.

This post originally appeared on <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/fixing-the-victorian-planning-system-in-the-wake-of-east-west-link/">The Red and Black Architect blog</a>.

Lead image courtesy Permitted Development.
</body></html>

Fixing the Victorian Planning System in the wake of East West Link

<html><body>
Continuing from yesterday's <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-to-fail-east-west-link-part-1" target="_blank">repost of part one</a> from the <a href="http://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/planning-to-fail-east-west-link/" target="_blank">Red and Black Architect blog</a>.

<h2>Parkville</h2>

The suburb of West Parkville is arguably the most impacted by the East West Link reference project. The proposal put forward by the LMA involves the destruction of the Ross Straw Field, sensitive ecosystems and 55 homes to provide the ‘western portal’ to the tunnel and connection to Citylink.

Comments from the Assessment Committee:

<blockquote>
The location of the western portal shown in the Reference Project is unacceptable, as is thehorizontal and vertical alignment of the ramps from the western portal to CityLink. The Committee recommends further alternatives be investigated.

The impacts on these communities [In Parkville West] have been subject of cursory assessment and consideration. The Committee does not accept that the application of the UDF [Urban Design Framework] will have the capacity of “mitigating these visual impacts”. The Committee considers that the impacts need to be avoided through adoption of a different design outcome.

The resultant negative impacts of these southerly links on the residential communities of Parkville West, Travancore South, Flemington Public Housing Estate and Kensington residents are of such a scale that in the view of the Committee, they should not form part of the approved Project and that further work needs to be done.

The Manningham Parklands are the most visually impacted part of the Project area. The Committee considers that the evidence in support of the Reference Project in this area is unconvincing, and it was persuaded by the evidence and submissions made by experts, community groups and individuals.
</blockquote>

Comments from the Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy:

<blockquote>
The Committee considered that the visual and related impacts of the Reference Project within Precinct 3: Royal Park represented an unacceptable intrusion into Royal Park. The Committee found that the reduction in open space, the permanent loss of trees, the realignment of the tram line and the increase in road and traffic-related infrastructure within the Park were matters which can and should be avoided.

A condition of my approval decision for the Project is that the Elliott Avenue interchange is deleted and that a connection between the Project and Flemington Road be examined. I note that a connection between the Project and Flemington Road has not yet been the subject of detailed design. For this reason I have included a condition on the approval decision that a Development Plan showing the design for the connection between the Project and Flemington Road be submitted to me to my satisfaction.
</blockquote>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/ew-planning-status2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Planning status in Parkville"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="373" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ew-planning-status2.jpg?itok=wJFZ8Q_Y" title="Planning status in Parkville" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Planning status in Parkville</figcaption></figure>Red and Black Architect (R+BA) comments:

It is welcoming that the minister recognised that the proposed impacts upon Royal Park and West Parkville by the reference project were unacceptable. Indeed the deletion of the Elliott Avenue interchange is to be commended. What is less positive is the planning situation that the entire suburb of Parkville now faces. The project has approval but the roads are to be redesigned. Individuals and community groups are in the dark about what the changes are and are effectively locked out of the future planning and design process. This feels undemocratic and disrespectful towards the impacted communities.

<h2>Part B and Arden Macaulay</h2>

Part B of the East West Project involves essentially duplicating the elevated Citylink freeway along the Moonee Ponds Creek and then terminating at the Melbourne Port. The key issues with this precinct are the environmental impacts on the Moonee Ponds Creek, The social and amenity impacts on Debney’s Park and the nearby public housing and the viability of the proposed Arden Macaulay Structure Plan to revitalise the underutilised area.

Comments from the Assessment Committee:

<blockquote>
The Committee is not convinced that the LMA has adequately researched design alternatives for Part B, including consideration on the east side of CityLink or further in‐tunnel options. In addition on traffic grounds Part B is not justified in the short to medium term.

Since the Committee hearing concluded, there have been a number of statements issued by the State Government in relation to works on CityLink, and in particular the CityLink connection to the West Gate Freeway. This connection was mentioned a number of times during the Hearing as being a major contributor to congestion on the Bolte Bridge, even though CityLink appeared to have spare capacity.

The occupation of part of the Vision Australia property in Barrett Street, very recently upgraded as a national facility, suggests an inadequate planning and evaluation process and supports the perception that the Project has been designed [with] inadequate attention to its impacts and [designed with an alignment] following the ‘line of least resistance’

The Committee considers the intrusion into this proposed “dense, mixed‐use inner city suburb” is unacceptable, due to its impacts on the planned residential and mixed use redevelopment ambitions outlined within the Arden‐Macaulay Structure Plan Area.

The Committee considers that in terms of its significant visual impact on the Moonee Ponds Creek corridor and buildings and public spaces adjacent to the route, the extent of residential property acquisition that is to be acquired and its proximity to residential properties that are not to be acquired, Part B is an unacceptable design outcome.

The Committee acknowledges that the Reference Project does meet some of the many Urban Design Principles, but it remains concerned that any alternative design for the Project may not be a more complete example of the Urban Design Principles in action than the Reference Project.

The Committee considers that the Reference Project is not an acceptable response to the Urban Design Principles

Part B has not been adequately assessed, and should be set aside until the proposed Widening of CityLink and the Tullamarine Freeway, and the proposed WestLink connection is better understood and resolved. This should take into account a number of key issues, including:

(a) Resolution and development of Part B with greater integration with the Arden‐Macaulay Structure Plan.

(b) Key locational impacts such as the Vision Australia premises, SP AusNet site, the Flemington Housing estate (and its playgrounds, gardens and the community centre), and the apartments at 18 Bent Street.

(c) The alignment of the Moonee Ponds Creek and the potential to enhance its function as an open space corridor as part of the Arden‐Macaulay redevelopment.

(d) The reservation of the proposed WestLink alignment.
</blockquote>

Comments from the Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy:

<blockquote>
I have determined that Part B should be approved at this time subject to the design and implementation addressing as appropriate the recommendations of the Committee. Accordingly, the resolution of the design of the southern connection between Parts A and B of the Project will be addressed by the conditions I have imposed on the approval decision which require the preparation of a Development Plan for certain aspects of the Project including the southern connection. The Development Plan will be required to be in accordance with the Urban Design Principles and the Performance Requirements …and must be prepared to my satisfaction.

I intend to establish an advisory group comprising the Chair or Deputy Chair of the Committee, the Victorian Government Architect (or Associate Victoria Government Architect) and representatives of the DTPLI Planning group, VicRoads and the Department of Treasury and Finance to advise me on the Development Plans that I have required be submitted to my satisfaction.
</blockquote>

R+BA comments:

By approving Part B of the East West Link, the Minister has essentially ripped up a four year long detailed planning process that resulted in the Arden Macaulay structure plan. This plan would have facilitated a revitalisation of the precinct and supported a contemporary medium density community environment. The backbone of this work was the opening up of the Moonee Ponds Creek as an environmentally sensitive public open space. This parkland would have provided high quality amenity and provided sensible justification for higher density residential developments. The East West Link will now doom the creek to be little more than an overshadowed drain.

The way in which the permits were granted has left the majority of the project up to a further redesign process to meet the satisfaction of the planning minister. The question is how can the community trust this Minister given how he has recklessly disregarded so much of the expert independent report?

<h2>Conclusion</h2>

This project has been a rushed political propaganda exercise from its inception. It is suffering from terrible planning, woeful design and a community consultation process that is hopelessly inadequate. The planning process has remarkably left a greater level of uncertainty upon its conclusion than it had going into the Assessment Committee two months ago. If ever there was an example of how not to build infrastructure this is it.

As a final remark I would also like to extend my sympathies to those who have had their lives turned upside down by this ordeal. Hundreds will be displaced from their homes and thousands will see their neighbourhoods and parklands be permanently torn apart by this political idiocy. There is no justification for the level of hurt this is causing.

Architecture is for Everyone.
</body></html>

Planning to Fail: East West Link (Part 2)

<html><body>
<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-minister-approves-eastern-section-of-east-west-link" target="_blank">Last Monday</a> the largest and most destructive planning permit in Melbourne’s recent history was granted by Planning Minister Matthew Guy. The contentious East West link toll road is now approved to cut a swathe of destruction through Melbourne’s inner north. Coinciding with the announcement was the public release of the Assessment Committee report, the outcome of the 30 day hearing into the project.

The Assessment Committee’s findings contain massive criticisms of both the planning process and the proposed project. Whilst it does ultimately recommend that part A of the project from the Eastern Freeway to Citylink is approved, it does so through gritted teeth and a very long list of changes and protections. It makes no such recommendation for Part B of the project which they felt was inadequately addressed in the Comprehensive Impact Statement (CIS).

<h2>Will the project work from a traffic perspective?</h2>

Comments from the Assessment Committee:

<blockquote>
By 2031 with the Project constructed, there will be marginal changes to total vehicle trips, vehicle hours travelled, traffic speed and public transport trips compared with not having the Project constructed. The Project will clearly reduce travel time on the route between Hoddle Street and CityLink/Tullamarine Freeway. However, traffic volume increases on the approach routes and CityLink /Tullamarine Freeway, combined with the Zenith model neglecting intersection delays, show the benefits will not be as significant as the LMA document suggests.
</blockquote>

Red and Black Architect (R+BA) comments:

The Assessment Committee went on to find that many aspects of the reference design were not warranted having been presented with all of the available traffic data. Subsequently their recommendations included the removal of the Elliott Avenue entry and exit and also the removal of the connection at Citylink to the south. The flyover at Hoddle Street was also recommended to be deleted due to insufficient traffic demand. The Planning Minister in response has only agreed to the removal of the Elliott Avenue entry / exit in Royal Park and its replacement with a connection to Flemington Road.

<h2>The Reference Design</h2>

Unlike a typical planning application, the Linking Melbourne Authority achieved their planning approval via a reference project. This reference project is indicative only and will ultimately not what is built.

Comments from the Assessment Committee:

<blockquote>
The Committee considers that the process of reaching the design that is the Reference Project has not been one that follows a logical path of identifying viable options, evaluating them, engaging the community in the process at an early stage when such input can be incorporated, testing the preferred option against robust criteria, adjusting it and then proposing it with supporting justification.

The reliance on the Reference Project as the key expression of how the Project might be delivered has created angst and confusion in the community. In essence, the Reference Project, while not a real project, has been considered and assessed as such,and it has failed to deliver an appropriate outcome

As the Reference Project is a concept and not a ‘real’ project, it has made it difficult to fully assess the impacts of the Project, as they may occur or not, depending on whether the final Project is quite similar or very different to the Reference Project. In practical terms this has caused the following issues:

• Lack of certainty on key technical issues such as tunnelling approach leading to difficulty in fully assessing potential impacts;

• Lack of certainty on other issues such as social and economic effects;

• The generation of significant community concern and stress about Reference Project elements that may not be in the final Project

At the end of the day it is not up to the Committee to redesign the Reference Project. As put by LMA, the Reference Project is purely a concept for assessment purposes. However the Committee is concerned that even the Reference Project appears to be based on a limited design brief that would likely produce suboptimal outcomes when viewed across a range of community objectives, not just road design.
</blockquote>

R+BA comments:

The community has been let down massively by the use of the reference design in lieu of the actual proposal. If anyone other than the state government tried this method of seeking planning approval they would be laughed out of council and/or VCAT. The State Government should be setting the highest of standards for how the planning process should run, not scraping the bottom as they have done in this case.

<h2>The Eastern Section</h2>

The Eastern Section of the project involves the tunnel portal near the Hoddle street and Eastern Freeway Connection. The critical issues around this area include the acquisition and displacement of residents, the design impacts upon heritage streetscapes and the beautiful Clifton Hill shot tower and traffic issues.

Comments from the Assessment Committee:

<blockquote>
The Committee finds that there is no justification for the Hoddle Street flyover shown in the Reference Project based on traffic volumes and other impacts discussed later in this report. There is insufficient justification for the construction of the proposed sidetrack. Further, the Committee considers there is an opportunity to investigate relocation of the tunnel portal or portals east of Hoddle Street, and it has recommended accordingly.

The Committee considers that the design of this intersection, as well as the proposed land acquisition for the temporary sidetrack on Alexandra Parade, is the consequence of road design taking precedence over other considerations

The tower is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register (No. H0709) and is classified by the National Trust (B3798). It is, in [heritage Architect] Mr Nigel Lewis’ opinion, [that the tower] is of “global significance” as it has the most distinctive design for a shot tower due to its scale, design and patterned brickwork. Mr Lewis cited two international experts who have visited the site, one of whom was impressed with the visual impact of the tower on the surrounding area and how it dominates views from many locations due to its isolated location on relatively flat ground. Mr Lewis considered that it is imperative that the aesthetic and landmark values of this “remarkable structure” are not devalued by the Project.

The Committee does not support the above ground structures (apart from necessary overhead signs, lighting and sound barriers) at the Eastern Freeway/Hoddle Street interchange to preserve the visual integrity of the Shot Tower.
</blockquote>

Comments from the Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy:

<blockquote>
I have rejected the committee’s finding that the option for a flyover at the eastern end of the project would be unacceptable for the following reasons.

(a) The Project is of such significance to the state, and the interchange so critical to the design, that it is necessary and desirable that the eastern portal and access be resolved sooner rather than later and with this approval

(b) In rejecting the flyover the Committee relied upon the possibility of an alternative design. No alternative design was exhibited and no alternative has been tested in the manner of the flyover. I do not agree that it is appropriate to describe the exhibited project as unacceptable in the absence of a demonstrated proven alternative.

I do not accept that the flyover should be rejected on the grounds of cultural heritage. Any detrimental impact on cultural heritage values is more than offset by the benefits of the project and the landmark potential of the flyover.
</blockquote>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/lma-view-from-smith-st.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Linking Melbourne Authority image view from Smith Street"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="291" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/lma-view-from-smith-st.jpg?itok=4kfcyK7u" title="Linking Melbourne Authority image view from Smith Street" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Linking Melbourne Authority image view from Smith Street</figcaption></figure><figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/lma-view-from-wellington-st.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Linking Melbourne Authority image view from Wellington Street"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="288" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/lma-view-from-wellington-st.jpg?itok=crOP5BGc" title="Linking Melbourne Authority image view from Wellington Street" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Linking Melbourne Authority image view from Wellington Street</figcaption></figure>R+BA comments:

The approach shown here by Matthew Guy in my view is alarming, arrogant and misguided in the extreme. Firstly, Mr Guy is of the view that it so important that the project start immediately that he is not willing to allow time to properly design the project. Anyone who has ever started any construction project would be aware that failing to take time to plan and design can only lead to a poor result. To take such a foolhardy approach on the biggest transport project in the state’s history is baffling.

Another alarming aspect of Guy’s comments relate to the provision of alternative designs for the eastern section. He has somehow implied that it is the objector’s responsibility to provide a better design than the LMA reference design and that by failing to do so, no such design is possible. To someone with no legal qualification this seems like the equivalent of reversing the burden of proof. Councils, organisations and individuals were given no budget by the state government to commission their own designs. The planning system should not require them to prove a better solution, just that the proposed solution is unacceptable. To take this back to a smaller project example what the minister has said is that if you don’t like your neighbours extension you must redesign it for them or risk having it approved.

Atelier Red + Black and Safety Net for Royal Park worked pro bono for many weeks in order to provide an alternative design to save Royal Park. If they had the resources to work for free on the Eastern end as well, maybe the minister might have considered a redesign of this aspect.

The final outrageous point from Mr Guy is that the Clifton Hill Shot Tower is less important historically and culturally than the proposed Hoddle Street Flyover which will act as a monument to Mr. Guy. Mr Guy has a poor record of understanding heritage issues pertaining to architecture and the built environment. In January he was quoted in the Herald Sun newspaper as saying:

<blockquote>
People use the term brutalist architecture to legitimise ugly buildings
<cite>Matthew Guy, <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/planning-minister-matthew-guy-no-fan-of-ugly-hoyts-cinema-building/story-fni0fit3-1226814345343">"Planning Minister Matthew Guy no fan of 'ugly' Hoyts Cinema building"</a> 
(January 30, 2014)</cite>
</blockquote>

If this is the extent of Mr. Guy’s knowledge of heritage he should be taking the advice of experts rather than dismissing them.

Continued in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/planning-to-fail-east-west-link-part-2" target="_blank">part two of this series</a>.

This post originally appeared on <a href="http://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/planning-to-fail-east-west-link/" target="_blank">The Red and Black Architect blog</a>.
</body></html>

East West Link

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

East West Link

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News