Infrastructure Victoria

<html><body>
Laurence and I discuss the news in Melbourne this week.

We're getting toward the end of 'developing' Docklands, Southbank Boulevard changes kick off, Infrastructure Victoria has surprisingly gone out early for its first 30-year strategy refresh and shots fired! - the Victorian state opposition has announced their first public transport-focused election initiative.

And remember to subscribe to the Urban.com.au podcast through your favourite podcasting app - just search for urban.com.au.

<iframe allow="autoplay" frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/470561079&amp;color=%23ff5500&amp;auto_play=true&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;show_teaser=true" width="100%"></iframe>
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Weekly Podcast: Episode 23 - Docklands, Southbank Boulevard, Infrastructure Victoria and Cranbourne-Clyde

<html><body>
Infrastructure Victoria has today begun consultation on its first update to the state's 30 year infrastructure strategy that was first unveiled in late 2016.

The first step in the update process, that will run over the next 18 months, is to confirm strategy objectives, IV says.

"The objectives for the first strategy were developed through close consultation with stakeholders and the community.  We think they are just as relevant today but we need to know if stakeholders and the community agree", Michel Masson, CEO of Infrastructure Victoria, said in a recent newsletter.

The 10 objectives are:  Prepare for population change; Foster healthy, safe and inclusive communities; Reduce disadvantage; Enable workforce participation; Lift productivity; Drive Victoria's changing, globally integrated economy; Promote sustainable production and consumption; Protect and enhance natural environments; Advance climate change mitigation and adaptation; Building resilience to shocks.

The state-owned research house is seeing stakeholder feedback on the strategy's objectives through a survey on the Infrastructure Victoria <a href="https://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/30-year-strategy/objectives-survey">website</a> by Friday 3rd of August.

Regional Infrastructure needs will also benefit from a focused regional engagement round in order to 'deepen [the] understanding about each region's economic, social and environmental strengths and challenges' according to Infrastructure Victoria.

The research is aiming to develop profiles that use the latest data to build an evidence base of the context for each of Victoria's regions to inform the identification of infrastructure needs.  Dates and times are yet to be determined.

Infrastructure Victoria is also set to publish the evidence base that will underpin the advice it gives to the state government on what infrastructure may be required to enable highly automated and zero emissions vehicles.  

"The evidence base will include all technical reports commissioned for the advice, all documents will be available on our website," Michel Masson said.

A series of information sessions will be held on August 16th where Infrastructure Victoria will provide an overview of the key findings from the technical work.  A Q&amp;A session will also feature on the day.

There are three sessions and interested parties can register on <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/automated-and-zero-emissions-vehicles-evidence-base-information-session-1-tickets-47407554271">eventbrite.com.au</a> 
</body></html>

Infrastructure Victoria begins its first update to the state's 30 year strategy

<html><body>
Infrastructure Victoria has released the first public draft of its <a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/">30 year infrastructure strategy</a> and thus it has opened up for another round of consultation.

The draft strategy makes recommendations in a wide variety of areas and after the new consultation period has concluded, the final version will be presented to the Victorian Government toward the end of the year. Thereafter, the government has 12 months to respond and publish a 5-year infrastructure plan.

It is worth re-iterating this point because we are in effect only half way through the first-run of a process, that according to the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/iva201538o2015335/">enabling legislation</a>, will be repeated every three to five years.

Infrastructure Victoria nominated three specific areas as their 'top picks' for infrastructure investment priority.

<ol>
<li>Increasing densities in established areas to make better use of existing infrastructure.</li>
	<li>Introducing a comprehensive transport pricing regime to manage demands on the network.</li>
	<li>Investing in social and affordable housing for vulnerable Victorians to significantly increase supply.</li>
</ol>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wzGosdXHhmQ" width="100%"></iframe>

Read the draft <a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/images/IV%2030%20Year%20Draft%20Infrastructure%20Strategy_Final%20Web%205.pdf">30-year infrastructure document</a> and read through Infrastructure Victoria's <a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/files/Draft%20Options%20Book%20Version%20Two%20-%20FINAL.PDF">preliminary assessments</a> of various infrastructure project options.

<h2>Analysis and comment</h2>

There is still quite a way to go for this 'first-run' process that Infrastructure Victoria is undertaking, the draft strategy (and final strategy once it is presented to the Victorian Government) is really just an aggregation and stock-take of infrastructure initiatives that have been floating about in the public domain.

Many of the big ticket transport projects have had preliminary economic analyses conducted and Infrastructure Victoria made recommendations accordingly.

In a handful of cases, Infrastructure Victoria has assessed infrastructure options with a negative economic return (a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of less than 1) but recommended them for more in-depth analysis owing to limited information and assessment tools: the 'Metro 2' project through Fishermans Bend is one of these.

And on the other hand, projects like the Doncaster rail line, which returned a very poor BCR in the preliminary analysis, is recommend not to proceed.

<blockquote>
A number of the options we considered for this need did not emerge as priorities; however, there are some projects we would specifically recommend against. These include building a new heavy rail line to Doncaster (ref. DHR) and building a new station at <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/south-yarra-vic">South Yarra</a> (ref. SYM) as part of the delivery of Melbourne Metro. The benefits of these projects do not appear to outweigh the costs, with South Yarra already being very well served by public transport and, in the case of Doncaster, alternative lower cost solutions being available.
<cite>Victoria's draft 30-year infrastructure strategy, October 2016, page 122</cite>
</blockquote>

Perhaps the most radical transport recommendation, after the road pricing regime changes, is to take the large bus route map of Melbourne, wipe it clean and start from scratch. Not long after the draft strategy's release, there were calls on social media to bring in Jarrett Walker (of <a href="http://humantransit.org/">HumanTransit.org</a>) to do in Melbourne <a href="http://humantransit.org/2015/08/houston-welcome-to-your-new-network">what he did to Houston's bus network</a>.

<blockquote>
There is a theme across several of our recommendations of moving our rail network towards more of a ‘metro’ style of operation. In practice, this means changing the network from one where train lines often merge as they approach the city to one where lines operate separately, but people often have to change trains to get to their final destination.

It’s a trade-off , but we think the benefits of improved capacity and reliability are worth it, so long as careful planning is put into how people move around the system. This is relevant to introducing the full service uplift delivered by Regional Rail Link, the Melbourne Metro rail project currently underway, and future projects such as reconfiguring the City Loop.

Indeed, on a more local scale, our recommendation to reform the metropolitan bus network will involve similar trade-off s between services that wind around local streets serving many different places and a more efficient and direct network.
<cite>Victoria's draft 30-year infrastructure strategy, October 2016, page 122</cite>
</blockquote>

Turning to Infrastructure Victoria's top picks, the number one priority for instance: increasing densities in areas where infrastructure can support it. It would seem to be one of the easier tasks for the state government to implement, given how much higher-density development that currently occurs outside the Plan Melbourne inner-city subregion.

The municipalities of <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/melbourne-vic">Melbourne</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/council/stonnington">Stonnington</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/council/port-phillip">Port Phillip</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/council/maribyrnong">Maribyrnong</a> and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/council/yarra">Yarra</a> make up the inner-city subregion and when combined, at the time of writing, have 583 projects on the Urban.com.au Project Database with all remaining local government areas totaling 698.

There may be more projects located outside the inner-city however the five inner-city councils contain approximately double the amount of total residential units in the pipeline: 95,000 in the inner-city subregion versus 51,000 elsewhere.

A 700-odd project, 50,000-dwelling pipeline is a significant tool that can be used to illustrate to those potentially antagonistic toward the idea of increasing densities in existing suburban areas how it is not all about skyscrapers.

It's a safe bet many will run a critical eye over the prominence of increased densities in the government plan, due 15 months from now (assuming the final 30-year strategy is presented before the end of the year); ditto the language used.

Infrastructure Victoria's number three priority - investing in social and affordable housing - is not as clear when attempting to discern a possible direction the state government may take.

While I acknowledge there is an enormous body of work going on at DELWP and the Victorian Planning Authority - Fishermans Bend's vision, Plan Melbourne's refresh, national employment clusters throughout the metropolitan area to name but a few - there is still a frustrating lack of discussion on affordable housing policy and mechanisms. Please, let's change this.
</body></html>

Infrastructure Victoria's draft 30 year strategy is out, and there's plenty more to come

<html><body>
Foreshadowed recently <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/red-black-interviews-the-ceo-of-infrastructure-victoria-part-1">in an interview with Michael Smith</a>, Infrastructure Victoria - as part of one phase in its community consultation process - empaneled two citizens juries to "give a voice to the people" as CEO Michel Masson put it, and the authority has now <a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/">released the metro and regional</a> jury reports.

<blockquote>
Michael Smith: How does this [citizens juries] work? What have they been deciding upon?

Michel Masson: We were very keen to ensure that in process of the developing the 30-year infrastructure we had depth and breadth in the consultation. This was about real, genuine engagement, not just an exercise in ticking a box. The citizen jury is a very interesting way to give a voice to the people. It was fundamental to have the right tool, the right mechanism to have the community express their views.

We’ve created two citizen juries – one in metropolitan Melbourne and another in regional Victoria which is based in Shepparton. These citizen juries are two groups of 40-ish people which have been randomly selected but statistically representative of regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne.

They spend six Saturdays meeting every few weeks and work like a court jury. Each jury has the opportunity to call on experts on a range of issues- from former treasurers, experts in transport planning, specialist in schools or education and so on – in order to gather evidence.

At the same time they are going through all of the options which we tabled. At the end of the process, they will deliberate and provide their recommendations.

<cite>Extract from Michael Smith's <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/red-black-interviews-the-ceo-of-infrastructure-victoria-part-1">interview</a> with Michel Masson, CEO of Infrastructure Victoria</cite>
</blockquote>

Throughout the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/download_file/view/898/1">metro jury report</a>, a system of various endorsement ranks (or strengths) as well as a priority system (high, medium, low) is used to provide high-level guidance on the metropolitan jury's recommendation on each 'need' and the various areas of focus within each category. Each recommendation and priority is accompanied with a summary of the jury's deliberations.

In contrast to the metro jury report, the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/download_file/view/899/1">regional jury</a> used a system whereby each juror was given five votes to rank infrastructure priorities. This has had the effect of creating a list of priorities ranked from highest to lowest. The regional jury report also expands on why recommendations were made along with other pertinent information.

The 'needs' and various options that went before the juries were originally outlined in the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/download_file/view/900/1">'All Things Considered'</a> report which summarised the feedback Infrastructure Victoria had received in response to its initial public consultation round. And comparing the popularity of some of the transport projects in the 'all things considered' report with the jury recommendations ought to make any populist politician - or political party preparing the platform for the 2018 election - sit up and take notice.

In the all things considered report, the Doncaster heavy rail line (ranked number 6 out of 24) and Rowville heavy rail line (ranked number 13 out of 24) appear in the "most frequent expressions of support" yet in the metro jury report, both options are not supported. The jury report gave this explanation: "the jury recognises that although there is strong community support for these options, Infrastructure Victoria has indicated that they are very high cost and long lead-time options".

The metro jury did provide one caveat, saying "the jury would like to note that these options were not exhaustively researched and that jurors didn't have sufficient opportunity to consider these options".

One area that there appears to be (furious!) agreement between the feedback as outlined in the all things considered report and the metro jury is on bicycle and walking path expansion and improvement. In all things considered this is the number one most frequent expression of support and in the metro jury report, 'Need 4: Enable physical activity and participation - Active Lifestyle Infrastructure Provision' has strong endorsement and high priority.

<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/metro_citizens_jury_active_1.png" rel="gallery-all" title="From the metro citizen jury report (page 15)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="665" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/metro_citizens_jury_active_1.png?itok=j9o5vhEA" title="From the metro citizen jury report (page 15)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>From the metro citizen jury report (page 15)</figcaption></figure>While I am more than happy to give Infrastructure Victoria the full benefit of the doubt in the way it selected the regional jury, I detected a slight anomaly while sifting through the regional jury report.

The regional jurors met in Shepparton and they also provided a list of the towns and cities they come from. If you drew a line from Melbourne to Bendigo and then on to the state border near Kerang and another line from Melbourne along the peaks of the alps to the state border at Wodonga, the regional jurors came from this north-central part of the state.

Like in a courtroom jury, we, the public, should trust that the jury made the right decision - or in this case recommendation - yet one can't help but feel there's a borderline worrisome location bias inherent in the recommendations.

The location bias becomes quite apparent when high-speed rail from Melbourne to Sydney is #5 on the regional jury's priority list (this kind of project will benefit regional Victorians in the aforementioned north-central region the most) and the 'Regional Rail eastern corridor dedicated rail track' that would benefit Gippsland the most, is opposed owing to cost.

In a publicly funded scenario (in the regional jury's defence, it does recommend considering privately funded options for high-speed rail), perhaps the most costly piece of transport infrastructure for the state (or federal) government to build would be high-speed rail line to Sydney!

This in and of itself shouldn't be cause for trashing the entire process, nor the regional jury's recommendations as they currently stand, but perhaps it highlights that there can't just be one jury for all of regional Victoria: there would need to be many, should citizens juries be empaneled in future to deliberate on updates to the state's infrastructure strategy.

<h2>Further reading</h2>

<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/download_file/view/898/1">Metropolitan citizen jury report</a>. Pay particular attention to the introduction if you're still unsure of exactly what these citizen reports are all about.</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/download_file/view/899/1">Regional citizen jury report</a></li>
</ul>
P.S. Infrastructure Victoria: in future, if you could record and publish any audio/video testimony experts give to the juries, it would be a sure-fire way to maximise even greater community engagement.
</body></html>

Infrastructure Victoria releases metro and regional citizen jury reports

<html><body>
Michel Masson is the CEO of Infrastructure Victoria, the government body charged with formulating a 30 year strategy for Victoria’s infrastructure. This is the second part of the two part Red+Black Architect interview.

If you missed part 1, click <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/red-black-interviews-the-ceo-of-infrastructure-victoria-part-1">here</a>.

Red+Black Architect – While selecting the right piece of infrastructure to build at the right time is critical, it’s equally critical to the liveability of the state to ensure that the design quality of the proposed infrastructure is of a very high standard? How is Infrastructure Victoria addressing this complex issue of the design quality?

Michel Masson – Let’s be clear as to what Infrastructure Victoria stands for. We are responsible for the strategic planning only. We’re not touching on the procurement. We’re not touching on the delivery. Clearly, we’re not here to revisit designs and look at those when we identify projects. That’s at a later stage. Having said that, we do acknowledge the importance of design in getting the right outcome. We are very focused on being outcome oriented, rather than focused on an output.

With that in mind, we’ve looked at a couple of ideas that are about improving design standards.

We are looking at universal design principles to provide accessibility for people with mobility challenges, and how we can push that further.  We’ve looked also at active design as a way to promote more active lifestyles using infrastructure, such as putting cycling and pedestrian pathways into new developments.

We’re looking at design in relation to social housing.  We’re also looking at design around cyber security. Infrastructure will have more and more technology embedded into it so that needs to be taken into account.

R+BA – Have you been consulting with the Office of the Victorian Government Architect on how to achieve design quality in the process of delivering infrastructure?

MM – You’ll be pleased to know that I’ve had already exchanges with Victorian Government Architect Jill Garner in order to have exactly that discussion. We’ve highlighted a couple of areas where indeed our role and their involvement into the strategy could actually be reinforced to ensure design is considered.

R+BA – From the projects that made it into the options paper, are there any that you found particularly surprising either in perhaps because they initially sounded far-fetched but have since shown promise or perhaps a project that was assumed to be a very important part that actually is not particularly viable?

MM – It won’t come as a surprise that when you table 236 options in a very agnostic way, of course, some catch the attention of the public more than some others. Infrastructure Victoria is an evidence-based organisation. We are totally agnostic. We tabled those and we’re very interested to get the feedback from the public.

Of course, when the public cast their eyes on recycling water for drinking purposes, or the mobile police stations for instance, this is very good news for us because we certainly don’t want to shy away from controversial ideas.

Our process is not a popularity contest. We clearly want to engage with the community and say, “We’re here to plan for the next 30 years. Clearly the next 30 years won’t be anything like the past 30 years. Let’s think outside of the box.”

Business-as-usual won’t cut it when it comes to planning for the next 30 years when you’ve got so many new people coming and settling in Melbourne and you’ve got technology changing so rapidly. We need to think differently when it comes to water, when it comes to education, when it comes to transport. Of course, there are some far-fetched ideas but we’re talking about the future so let’s unleash our imaginations and also look at what worked in the rest of the world.

R+BA – How does Infrastructure Victoria assess projects that cross state borders, for example, the high-speed rail on the Eastern Seaboard?

MM – There is a close collaboration between Infrastructure Australia, Building Queensland, Infrastructure New South Wales, Infrastructure Victoria and Infrastructure Tasmania.

We meet on a regular basis in order to exchange information on who is working on what. We’re not here to reinvent the wheel in our silos, far from it. The more we collaborate, the more we share what we are working on, the better we cross-pollinate our ideas.

Of course, in the process of exchanging ideas and cross-pollinating, we discuss national projects like high-speed rail or inland rail in order to confirm our thinking and come up with a consistent approach.

R+BA – With the way technology is advancing rapidly, is the 30-year goal a realistic goal or will it be virtually obsolete within a decade? How do you deal with that rapidly changing technology?

MM – I think that the beauty of having a 30-year plan is that it’s sufficiently far off in order to be able to make some good assumptions as to how we see the future. Clearly we don’t have a crystal ball. Ten years ago, nobody knew that we would have these mobile phones in our pockets and how much it would revolutionise our lives.

Having said that just because we haven’t got a crystal ball doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t plan. This is the whole essence of planning.

It is important to keep in mind that we’re going to refresh our strategy every 3-5 years. This is not a one-off exercise and then we’ve got to live with it. If that were the case, you would be absolutely right, it would be a pointless exercise.

Two things to keep in mind: one, we’re very mindful that technological advances will make a big impact in how we build, how we operate and how we maintain infrastructure. That’s why we got technology at the forefront what we are looking at. We’ve secured the help of the former chief innovation officer from Google to help us think about the “known unknowns” but also the “unknown unknowns”.

We also need to be very clear in identifying what are the potential disruptors that we need to monitor the impact of. It’s very clear that we can already see the impact of big data and the internet on things. We can see how sensors are already revolutionising water use, for instance, or the energy sector.

I’ll finish off by saying that the last big elephant in the room that we are working on in terms of modernisation is driverless cars. Is this a blessing or is this a curse? What are the changes of the paradigm that we should be looking at in order to leverage upon this and all of the implications that this will have.

R+BA – Yes. It’s very hard to get your head around exactly how that will play out. It could go two ways, in terms of rapidly increasing the amount of cars on the roads because we’ve got all of these cars driving themselves and running errands for people or perhaps it could reduce the numbers of cars, particularly households currently with two cars.

MM – Even if you’ve got less cars overall, you will have more kilometres being driven. It comes back to that question of what is the outcome we want to achieve. Driverless cars also cast a light also on the concept of ownership. With driverless cars, if we stick to the concept of ownership of a car, it will bring different outcomes than if we look at the driverless cars in a new paradigm of non-ownership.

R+BA – Barcelona recently wired a lot of their streets to prepare themselves for an innovation of these driverless cars. Is that something that’s in the draft options report, the idea of WiFi on the street everywhere, facilitating that sort of future outcome?

MM – We certainly are in the process of identifying what are the technology changes that we need to facilitate in order to enable the driverless cars to flourish in the future.

What do we need to start looking at in order to ensure that Victoria is ready for what is to come. It’s not a question of if that’s going to come. It’s a question of how fast and how prepared we are. A lot has got to do with policies and regulations currently in place that need to be looked at in order to ensure that Victoria is ready for it.

R+BA – Absolutely. I can imagine the law would be one of the areas that would need to change, who’s responsible for accidents and so forth.

Are there any aspects of Infrastructure Victoria’s work that have been overlooked or under reported in the media … Is there a message that you would like to put out there that sometimes gets lost amongst the East West Link and other controversial topics?

MM – Well, one of the key characteristics of the 30-year strategy is to cover the whole state, meaning that regional Victoria is equally as important as metropolitan Melbourne. We are very eager to have regional Victorians express their views throughout the consultation so that we are sure that what we table to Parliament reflects their views and their contribution, not just what is best for Melbourne.

The other thing which has probably been overlooked is our guiding principle of land use planning being integrated with the infrastructure planning. We’re very keen to look at ways of bridging that gap. Of course, we are working in close collaboration with the Melbourne Planning Authority. The refreshed Plan Melbourne will be an input into our strategy together with the regional growth plans. Looking at the next 30 years, I think one of the most fundamental changes that we can bring is better integration between infrastructure and land use planning.

The last thing that I’ll say is that we are very ambitious in the final strategy we plan to table at year end, because strategy without execution is nothing. We’re very keen to not only provide a pipeline of strategic recommendations, but for the final strategy to be workable. It needs to be an input to the community, to business, to the local and state governments.

We’re very keen to identify in parallel to our strategic recommendations, what are the tactical next steps? What is the first actionable item that we should be starting to do in order to see a recommendation being implemented?

It may be as an example that we plan for significant capital expenditure, say for a road for instance in 10 or 15 years. Even though you won’t need to build it for 10 or 15 years, we would recommend to pass the relevant legislation in the first 18 months to preserve the corridors. That I think will reposition the true essence of planning into the state of Victoria.

R+BA – Thank you very much for your time

Michael Smith is a director of Atelier Red + Black.  This article was originally published on the Red + Black architect <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/redblack-interview-with-michel-masson-ceo-of-infrastructure-victoria-part-2/">blog</a>.
</body></html>

redblackarchitect

Red & Black interviews the CEO of Infrastructure Victoria - Part 2

<html><body>
Ever since the East West Link fiasco there has been substantial talk about removing the politics from Victoria’s infrastructure planning. The perception has been that politicians choose infrastructure projects that best suit their political agenda, rather than the projects that meet the objectives of a broader plan for a city. One only needs to read the East West Link report from the <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/approval-and-administration-commonwealth-funding-east-west-link-project" target="_blank">Australian National Audit Office</a> to see how politics can interfere with due process in infrastructure delivery.

Infrastructure Victoria is the body created by the Daniel Andrews led State Government to fix this problem. Recently the CEO of Infrastructure Victoria, Michel Masson, took time out of his busy schedule to discuss the complex task of preparing an evidence based infrastructure strategy for Victoria.

Red+Black Architect – Currently Infrastructure Victoria is working through a process to develop a 30-year strategy. Where is this process currently at and when can we expect the draft strategy to be released?

Michel Masson – 2016 is clearly the year of the development of the 30-year strategy which will be tabled to parliament at year end. Where are we at? The method we took is one of common sense.

First, we decided to look at what are the problems that we’re trying to solve instead of looking at the solutions. There are so many engineering solutions out there looking desperately for a problem to solve in order to justify their existence and request for funding.

This first round of consultation – which focused on our discussion paper Laying the foundations –  was where we asked the community what are the infrastructure challenges we should focus on.

We know all throughout the process we’re going to have to make some pretty tough decisions in terms of what we do and what we don’t. This is strategy 101. You decide what you’re going to do, and equally what you will not be doing.

We were very pleased with the level of engagement we received from the community during that round of consultation. We received a lot of very good feedback about the importance of putting regional Victoria front and centre in the strategy.

We also received feedback about the need to promote integration between the land use planning and the infrastructure planning, which we’ve now incorporated into our guiding principles.

We have just finished the second phase of the consultation surrounding the options paper. Once we defined the strategy framework and the problems we’re going to focus on, we looked at the options. We’ve tabled to the community over 200 ideas to address Victoria’s infrastructure needs. At this stage, the whole process is to get constructive feedback and criticism from the community on the options we’ve put forward and also source new ideas from stakeholders and from the community.

We are in the process of putting all of these pieces of the puzzle together which will form the draft strategy to be released later this year. That will form the basis for a final round of consultation, again asking  the community to review our draft recommendations and tell us:  “Do we agree that this is the pipeline that we’ll want in the short, medium, and long-term?”

Once we’ve incorporated that next round of consultation, then we’ll table the final strategy to parliament at the end of the year. Once that strategy is tabled to Parliament, the government has 12 months to respond with a five-year plan.

R+BA – Those projects in the draft, will it be prescriptive as to for example project X will start between 2018 and 2019 and project Y will follow that from 2020 onwards? Are there timeframes for those projects?

MM – First of all, we talk about options and not necessarily projects and the reason is that our approach is not just about building new pieces of infrastructure. It’s first and foremost about how do we look at demand management and most importantly how do we optimize the current assets? How do we make the most of what we currently have before we look at building new things? We’re very keen to look at policies and regulations which are currently in place and should be amended or new policies and regulations which would help make better use of the existing assets.

The draft strategy will be a series of recommendations, policies and regulations, and new pieces of infrastructure which will be positioned as short, medium, and long-term draft recommendations. We won’t be as precise as saying this should start the second quarter of 2018 but we’re really going to position them as a pipeline. The recommendations will make it very clear as to how they interact with each other.

It will be clear that before you go to that big piece of new infrastructure as option D, you’ve got to do A, B and C beforehand. Everybody will understand why it makes sense to do A, B and C before D. Again, we recommend but the government of the day decides. They may want to go straight to D but everyone will be able to measure the consequences of the impact of bypassing A, B and C and going straight to D.

R+BA – As part of this process you’ve used citizen juries?

MM – Yes

R+BA – How does this work? What have they been deciding upon?

MM – We were very keen to ensure that in process of the developing the 30-year infrastructure we had depth and breadth in the consultation. This was about real, genuine engagement, not just an exercise in ticking a box. The citizen jury is a very interesting way to give a voice to the people. It was fundamental to have the right tool, the right mechanism to have the community express their views.

We’ve created two citizen juries – one in metropolitan Melbourne and another in regional Victoria which is based in Shepparton. These citizen juries are two groups of 40-ish people which have been randomly selected but statistically representative of regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne.

They spend six Saturdays meeting every few weeks and work like a court jury. Each jury has the opportunity to call on experts on a range of issues- from former treasurers, experts in transport planning, specialist in schools or education and so on – in order to gather evidence.

At the same time they are going through all of the options which we tabled. At the end of the process, they will deliberate and provide their recommendations.

The interesting thing with the citizen jury is that you need to reach consensus with forty people. What we’ve seen is when you take forty people from all parts of the socio-demographic fabric of Victoria, you get a lot of common sense.

When you ask them to come up with one common view on the future of transport or education, the answer you get is just fascinating. We’re very keen to see what their recommendations will be, which will form a key input to the draft strategy.

R+BA – Will we be able to see a report on that process and their input? Will that be identifiable in that draft strategy as ‘here’s what the jury said’?

MM – Absolutely. It will be clear where the jury’s recommendations are positioned in the draft strategy but we will also be releasing the citizen juries’ recommendations in full prior to that.

R+BA – When you released the options paper, it must have been terribly frustrating having some politicians and media outlets falsely reporting about Infrastructure Victoria making recommendations for projects rather accurately describing projects in the report as options for consideration. How would you address those commentators?

MM – I fully acknowledge that the complexity of what we’ve embarked upon developing a 30-year infrastructure strategy is not something intuitive to grasp. We’ve been engaging with the media at length to readdress that perception. We are keen to reiterate that these are options, not recommendations. Everything is on the table and this options stage was really when we invited the community to tell us what they think and what we missed as we prepare the draft strategy.

It is very satisfying to feel people are now inside the tent with us and really eager to provide their views. In fact, the number of submissions we’ve received echoes that.

R+BA – How important are cost benefit ratios? Are there circumstances when projects should be built regardless of the cost implications?

MM – Benefit cost analysis is a very interesting aspect of what we are doing. Infrastructure Victoria was created for three purposes. The first one is to develop the 30-year infrastructure strategy. That is a very strong focus this year. The second one is to provide advice to the government on projects and the government has already requested Infrastructure Victoria to provide advice on the second container port in Melbourne. The third is our research program.

Through our research program we looking at the tools currently being used in decision-making and assessing projects, including benefit cost analysis. It’s a very useful tool but its an imperfect tool, because it only captures economic benefits and costs. We are currently trying to capture social and environment benefits in monetary terms.

Currently, we take full cost of an engineering solution, a tunnel for instance, but we do not take account of any benefits from leaving everything above ground flourishing in terms of social and environment impact which is a problem. Everybody recognises that. When I say everybody, I mean Infrastructure Australia and the state infrastructure bodies. Victoria is taking the lead in working on this.

R+BA – Looking back upon the East West Link Saga, what do you take out from that whole process that eventuated?

MM – To be clear, Infrastructure Victoria is positioned to look ahead at the next 30 years. We’re not looking back at past decisions. The past is the past. This is not our field. We are taking for granted as a base case all of the major projects which are fully committed and funded. That’s why people are asking, “Why aren’t you talking about the Western Distributor? Why aren’t you looking at the level crossings?” We are not assessing those. We take those projects already underway as the base case in projecting ahead for the next 30 years. When it comes to what has been known in the past as the East West, we are steering clear from politics. We are steering clear from what it was and we’re looking at what it should be in the future. Our recommendation could be completely different from what has been known as East West. We’re not barracking for an option or solution in particular. We’re just looking in an evidence-based way at what is for the good of Victoria in the next 30 years.

<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/red-black-interviews-the-ceo-of-infrastructure-victoria-part-2">Continue reading part 2</a>.

Michael Smith is a director of Atelier Red + Black.  This post was originally published on the Red + Black architect <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/redblack-interview-with-michel-masson-ceo-of-infrastructure-victoria-part-1/">blog</a>.
</body></html>

Red & Black interviews the CEO of Infrastructure Victoria - Part 1

<html><body>
The second in a line of what is likely to be many document releases by Infrastructure Victoria has happened with the 'All things considered: exploring options for Victoria's 30-year infrastructure strategy' paper appearing on the authority's website yesterday.

The paper seeks to put all the options Infrastructure Victoria "has thought of for meeting Victoria's infrastructure needs on the table". Infrastructure, in this case, refers to the broad definition of the word: the paper canvases infrastructure options across a wide spectrum.

Addressing infrastructure demands in areas with high and low population growth; infrastructure that enables physical activity and participation; addressing 'expanded demand' on the justice system; providing better access to housing for the most vulnerable; improving freight supply chains, waterways and coastal areas; and transitioning to lower carbon energy. As the paper's title says, 'all things' are on the table.

Rather than attempt to provide a broader summary in this space, we'll keep it brief because the next round of consultation has begun (and ends mid next month) and there's a lot to read.

<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/iv_why.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Why you should read the paper. From Infrastructure Victoria's &quot;All Things Considered&quot; options paper"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="780" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/iv_why.png?itok=2ULj-253" title="Why you should read the paper. From Infrastructure Victoria's &quot;All Things Considered&quot; options paper" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Why you should read the paper. From Infrastructure Victoria's "All Things Considered" options paper</figcaption></figure>The <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/download_file/view/481/1">options paper</a> groups project ideas by areas of need. For instance, the 'provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians' mentions affordable housing mechanisms and the 'Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne' chapter deals with various transport projects.

Further to the options paper, Infrastructure Victoria has also published a <a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/application/files/7614/6355/5855/Infrastructure_Victoria_Draft_Options_Book_v1.0.pdf">draft options book</a> which looks at all the various infrastructure projects in more detail; the "Eastern Freeway to Citylink (EWE)" and "Melbourne Metro 2 (MMS)" sections make for interesting reading.

Submissions can be made until 6pm on Friday 17th June.

<a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/">yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au</a>

Infrastructure Victoria wants to start a conversation. Use the comment section below to let us know your thoughts.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cazzjj/24093068545/in/photostream/">flickr</a>
</body></html>

Infrastructure Victoria releases 'all things considered' options paper

<html><body>
The Victorian Government today announced the appointment of board members to Infrastructure Victoria, an agency which will be tasked with assessing Victoria's infrastructure needs in an apolitical way.

The distributed media release announced <a href="http://www.infrastructure.org.au/Content/MrJimMiller.aspx">Jim Miller</a> being appointed as the inaugural Chair. Jim Miller was an Executive Director at Macquarie Capital from 1994 to 2015 and has extensive experience in the infrastructure sector. He is currently the Deputy Chair of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia.

<a href="http://www.fsc.org.au/about-us/the-board/director,-maria-wilton.aspx">Maria Wilton</a> is named as Deputy Chair. Maria Wilton is the Managing Director of Franklin Templeton Investments Australia and is a director of the Financial Services Council of Australia and the National Breast Cancer Foundation.

Professor <a href="http://www.monash.edu/about/structure/senior-staff/vice-chancellor/profile">Margaret Gardner</a>, the current President and Vice Chancellor of Monash University as well as <a href="http://www.carnivalaustralia.com/about-us/executive-members/ann-sherry-ao.aspx">Ann Sherry</a>, the former CEO of Westpac New Zealand and the Bank of Melbourne, are also set to join as members of the board.

The secretaries of the <a href="http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/about/keystaff">Department of Premier and Cabinet</a>, the <a href="http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/About/Structure-and-functions/Senior-management">Department of Treasury of Finance</a> and the <a href="http://delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/300719/DELWP-Organisation-Chart-September-2015.pdf">Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning</a> will also join the board.

<h2>Background</h2>

Infrastructure Victoria was set up last month as <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/and-on-the-third-day-infrastructure-victoria-was-born">reported on Urban.com.au</a>.

One of the new body's tasks is to devise a 30 year infrastructure strategy for Victoria and publicly release it by the end of next year. Urban.com.au is looking forward to it.
</body></html>

Spring Street announces inaugural board members for Infrastructure Victoria

<html><body>
The Legislative Assembly yesterday agreed to the amendments proposed by the Legislative Council after the third reading of the <a href="http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/bd7ef38ce1a4b425ca257e6d00170ff2!OpenDocument">Infrastructure Victoria Bill 2015</a>. Once the Governor has lent her signature to the bill, the way will be paved for the creation of Infrastructure Victoria.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck">
The Parliament passed 5 bills today <a href="http://t.co/V75wHdEdsq">http://t.co/V75wHdEdsq</a> Next they go to the Governor for royal assent <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/springst?src=hash">#springst</a>
— Victorian Parliament (@VicParliament) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/VicParliament/status/639371853727862784">September 3, 2015</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Much of the rhetoric to date has centred around Infrastructure Victoria needing to be independent of Government and while the legislation sets out the boundaries of its independence, the seven member board will have a minority of three Department heads as ex officio directors and a majority of four independent directors. The <a href="http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/BD7EF38CE1A4B425CA257E6D00170FF2/%24FILE/581105exi1.pdf">explanatory memorandum</a> for the bill explains this as follows:

<blockquote>
The inclusion of Department Heads on the board ensures Infrastructure Victoria is able to receive input from the public sector. However, the composition of the board safeguards Infrastructure Victoria's independence by ensuring these Department Heads are a minority of board members
</blockquote>

Infrastructure Victoria will be required to create a 30-year infrastructure strategy which assesses the current state of infrastructure in the state and identifies Victoria's infrastructure needs and priorities over the 30 year period. Furthermore the legislation requires the Government to provide a formal response to the 30-year strategy by creating and then publishing a five-year infrastructure plan within 12 months of Infrastructure Victoria releasing its 30-year strategy.

The Government's response and five-year plan must also identify the priority projects "including an explanation of how the priority projects will achieve the social, economic and environmental objectives stated in the 30-year infrastructure strategy".

Public consultation on the 30-year strategy is enshrined in law requiring Infrastructure Victoria to run a public consultation process when the initial 30-year strategy is drafted and if Infrastructure Victoria subsequently updates the plan in future. Infrastructure Victoria will furthermore be keeping tabs on the Government as the body will be required to publish a report measuring progress against the Government's five-year infrastructure plan in its Annual Report.

In commentary in the Assembly on Thursday, the Minister for Public Transport, Jacinta Allan, gave a run down on the amendments the Government was agreeing to.

First amongst the amendments, according to the Minister, was to include clarifying statements in the legislation relation to Infrastructure Victoria needing to research the benefits and costs of infrastructure, not just the benefits.

Secondly the Minister said an amendment moved by the Greens that "requires Infrastructure Victoria to research the impact of climate change on infrastructure, including the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions" had been agreed to. The Minister furthermore said "this research area is indicative rather than prescriptive but it obviously includes the addition of the opportunity to look at the impact of climate change on infrastructure that is being considered".

Other amendments mentioned by the Minister in <a href="http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2015/Assembly_Aug-Dec_2015_Daily_3_September_2015.pdf">hansard</a> relate to the requirement that directors sitting on Infrastructure Victoria's board have private sector experience and that Infrastructure Victoria's first 30-year infrastructure must be released by the 31st of December 2016.

<figure><a 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/ivbroc2.jpg" title="A comparison of similar bodies from the Victorian Government's Infrastructure Victoria brochure" class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" rel="gallery-all"><img src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ivbroc2.jpg?itok=BWAlltAB" width="580" height="547" alt="" title="A comparison of similar bodies from the Victorian Government's Infrastructure Victoria brochure" class="image-article-full-width-580px"></a>
<figcaption>A comparison of similar bodies from the <a href="http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Infrastructure_Victoria/Infrastructure_Victoria_brochure_June_2015.pdf">Victorian Government's Infrastructure Victoria brochure</a></figcaption></figure>
</body></html>

Infrastructure Victoria

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Infrastructure Victoria

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News