Urban Affairs

<html><body>
Over the weekend, the Premier announced a naming competition for the five 'new' stations that are to be built on the route of the Metro Tunnel project. The Melbourne Metro Rail Authority has reported, via its twitter account, they've received 10,000 suggestions as of Tuesday.

In what looks like an effort to avoid a situation akin to the 'Boaty McBoatface' that occurred in the UK, name suggestions will be shortlisted before being decided upon by a panel chaired by the MMRA's chief executive.

There's been a lively discussion through social media channels about new station names, from the absurd &amp; hilarious to the thoughtful &amp; evocative; from the conservative to the progressive.

I think there's room for both a conservative and progressive view and it's mainly based on geography.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck">
We've had more than 10,000 submissions to our station naming competition so far! 
Make your suggestion here: <a href="https://t.co/WDqL11YGH2">https://t.co/WDqL11YGH2</a> <a href="https://t.co/Y2PtQCcGlC">pic.twitter.com/Y2PtQCcGlC</a>
— Metro Tunnel (@metrotunnelvic) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/metrotunnelvic/status/902339269309501440">August 29, 2017</a>
</blockquote>

<h2>Conservative</h2>

For me, the stations currently referred to in all public domain documentation as 'CBD North' and 'CBD South' are clear cut -  let's not complicate the new maps nor confuse existing train users and just call them what they are.

CBD North - Melbourne Central.

CBD South - Flinders Street.

Everyone in Melbourne has heard of or knows where Melbourne Central and Flinders Street are located, as they've been a fixture of Melbourne's rail network for multiple generations.

At these two sites, the existing stations are expanding - Melbourne Central's platforms 5 and 6 and Flinders Street Station's platform 14 and 15.

<h2>Progressive</h2>

Beyond the two stations mentioned above, there's far more freedom because all three remaining stations are of course brand new.  Absolutely they're in places which have readily identifiable names - Parkville in particular.

However Arden is named after a street, yet will see a completely new TOD suburb spring up around it - is that name, of the existing area, relevant to what it will be in the future?  Why wouldn't you give this new area a completely new name - just like a new suburb on the fringe?

I don't think it's a coincidence the state government launched this competition in the middle of the broader history and public statue debate; a debate that is polarising and at the extreme ends on both sides there's a lot of loopy ideas and bluster.  

With that said, however, there's nothing wrong with debating the kind of city we want, and naming places is one part of that.

There's a <a href="https://www.change.org/p/vote-to-name-the-5-new-melbourne-cbd-stations-after-the-aboriginal-nation-of-kulin">petition on change.org</a> which has attracted 8,500 signatures at time of writing, stating that all five stations should be named after the Kulin Nation. While there are five new stations and five nations which make up the Kulin alliance, for the reasons stated above, it's going to be problematic.

Rather, naming the station currently referred to as Parkville as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulin">Kulin</a> might be a good compromise.

<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/kulin_map.png" rel="gallery-all" title="The original tribes that make up the Kulin nation - map: wikipedia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="574" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/kulin_map.png?itok=No79-6x8" title="The original tribes that make up the Kulin nation - map: wikipedia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The original tribes that make up the Kulin nation - map: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulin">wikipedia</a></figcaption></figure>The station now known as Parkville will one day, if the heavy rail network development plan released in 2012 comes to fruition, have a second underground rail line run through a second set of platforms underneath those that are not far off getting built.  

And those two rail lines will traverse three of the five original tribal lands and connect with each other at Kulin station (currently known as Parkville).

Many of Melbourne's suburbs (and therefore stations) are named after blokes with some exceptions - especially if royalty is involved (such as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick,_Victoria#/media/File:Plaque_at_site_of_Thomas_Wilkinson%27s_house,_Brunswick.jpg">Duchess of Brunswick</a>) - and it's this fact that makes me think the argument for refraining from naming stations (and suburbs) after people is weak.

Henrietta <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Dugdale">Dugdale</a> springs to mind as a candidate for renaming the station currently referred to as Arden.  An activist and founder of the Victoria Women's Suffrage Society in 1884, the first such society in Australia, she lived to see women get the vote in Federal Parliament in 1902 and in Victoria in 1908.

Have you provided suggestions through the <a href="http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/stations/suggest-a-station-name">Metro Tunnel website</a>?  Share them with us in the comment field below!

Over to you.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Thoughts on new metro station names

<html><body>
The Victorian Government has announced the winning bidders in the tender to power Melbourne's tram network by renewable energy.

At the same time, the Victorian Government has announced plans to legislate the Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET) ensuring that by 2020, 25% of Victoria's energy will come from renewable sources and the target rises to 40% by 2025.

The winning tenders to power Melbourne's tram network with renewable energy were the Bannerton Solar Park located near Robinvale in the state's north-west and the <a href="http://numurkahsolarfarm.com.au/">Numurkah Solar Farm</a> directly north of Melbourne.

The Bannerton solar farm is expected to provide 100MW and the Numurkah solar farm is expected to produce 38MW for the Yarra Trams network.

The Victorian Government also announced it will commence the first VRET auction of up to 650MW of new solar and wind renewable energy capacity.

<blockquote>
The renewable energy sector will now have the confidence to invest in renewable energy projects and the jobs that are crucial to Victoria’s future.
<cite>Lily D'Ambrosio, Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change</cite>
</blockquote>

State and territory governments are big energy consumers. Think of the schools they own, the state or territory government ultimately pays the electricity bills for them, ditto hospitals, public transport networks and all other state and territory government services.

The reverse auctions are a way for those governments to use their market power to ignite a new wave of electricity generation by offering contracts to buy the output from the new generators.

A good example of this was the ACT government auctions, the first in Australia, which saw the ACT government ultimately sign a deal to buy the electricity output from the <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/plunging-cost-of-renewables-act-wind-auction-goes-at-81-50mwh-98344/">Ararat and Coonooer Bridge wind farms</a> in Victoria.

The South Australian Government just last week <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/solar-thermal-power-plant-announcement-for-port-augusta/8804628">announced</a> it will buy the electricity output from the first SolarReserve project - a solar thermal generator that has on-site energy storage that can be used when the sun is not shinging or at night - to be located just north of Port Augusta.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Premier Andrews and Minister D'Ambrosio sign contracts for Victoria's first big solar farms. Solar trams here we come! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SpringSt?src=hash">#SpringSt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VRET?src=hash">#VRET</a> <a href="https://t.co/WrKmdmyOsy">pic.twitter.com/WrKmdmyOsy</a>
— Leigh Ewbank (@TheRealEwbank) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/TheRealEwbank/status/900127240037347329">August 22, 2017</a>
</blockquote>

Like transport networks, energy generation and transmission networks in Victoria are changing in response to sector-specific particulars, all in the context of very strong population growth in Victoria.

In the energy sector, Victorians are witnessing year on year price rises in the electricity and gas bills and in the electricity sector specifically, consumers who live in detached houses are seeing an increased amount of choice to control their bills through solar panel and battery kits.

For those who live in attached dwellings - which as well know is increasing - the same control over electricity generation and storage is not available to them.

Therefore new grid-connected generation will be key to both increasing price competition as well as help the state meet its emissions reduction targets.

As <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/its-not-just-melbourne-developing-westward-our-electricity-network-is-too">published in late July</a>, there's plenty planning work underway in Victoria's energy transmission network and AEMO has now embedded a summary of its work into the <a href="http://www.aemo.com.au/aemo/apps/visualisations/map">interactive map</a>. It's worth a look (in the layers/filter options, select 'Victorian Annual Planning Report (WAPR), Network Development and then Current Network Opportunities, click on the green overlay in Western Victoria).

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-class_Melbourne_tram">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Winners of tender to power Melbourne's tram network with renewable energy announced

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

It was looking flakey already but now with the announcement over the weekend that the on-again, off-again rail port shuttles are back on the agenda, the West Gate Tunnel project has gone beyond barely scraping through the sniff test to stinking to high heaven.

The West Gate Tunnel Project was a market-led proposal from Transurban that would see new segmented lanes on the West Gate Freeway from the Western Ring Road interchange leading into a tunnel and then a bridge over the Maribyrnong, culminating in an enormous new road deck above Footscray and an interchange with the Western section of Citylink, Dynon Road and Wurundjeri Way.

The Port Rail shuttles have been in the <a href="https://wongm.com/2015/10/port-rail-project/">public domain</a> for a while now and is based around the concept of three intermodal road-rail freight terminals in key suburban locations. The last mile of containerised freight would shift away from driving, instead heading to one of the three terminals where trains would take containers to the Port, and vice versa.

Compare these headlines.

The first answer in the <a href="http://westgatetunnelproject.vic.gov.au/faqs/">project website's FAQ</a> states "The West Gate Tunnel Project is a city-shaping project that will deliver a vital alternative to the West Gate Bridge, provide quicker and safer journeys, and remove thousands of trucks off residential streets".

The opening line of Sunday's announcement <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/port-rail-shuttle-to-ease-congestion-and-boost-productivity/">joint Federal and State media release</a> says "The Australian and Victorian Government are investing in projects to take trucks off local roads and connect the Port of Melbourne to major freight hubs using the existing rail network".

Both the fresh announcement and the project claim to do similar things - remove trucks from residential streets / local roads - but one of them simply shifts them to another road, the other removes trucks from the inner-city entirely.  Some might argue they can compliment each other yet another argument is which project would shift the most truck trips away from local roads, therefore, freeing up public money for other projects?

<h2>The bare bones</h2>

Two of the three proposed suburban intermodal hubs are in a very good position, right from the get-go: Altona in the south-west and Somerton in the north are both located adjacent to the interstate standard gauge rail network.  

It's this network that is already entirely segregated from the broad gauge metropolitan network - segregation of freight and passenger services is the holy grail as it would enable the two networks to scale as needed when the freight or passenger carrying task demanded it.

Future capacity constraints on single-track sections of the interstate standard gauge network within Melbourne notwithstanding, it appears the only major works required in order to connect the Port of Melbourne directly to these two sites is building the points and tracks leading from the main lines into the sites - like building a new off-ramp from a freeway.

The <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8560779,144.7936187,828m/data=!3m1!1e3">Altona site</a> is less than a kilometre from the Princess Freeway/Kororoit Creek Road interchange and the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.6296151,144.9428745,690m/data=!3m1!1e3">Somerton site</a>'s bare bones are already there, directly fronting the Hume Highway and approximately 3-4km from the Cooper Street and Hume Freeway interchange.

The <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.0498954,145.2417085,660m/data=!3m1!1e3">Lyndhurst / Dandenong South site</a> is problematic because the standard gauge network does not cross into Melbourne's east and freight trains would need to mix with metro and v/line services on the two track railway between the Port and Dandenong and the single track, but easily duplicated, railway on the Cranbourne line.

The state government might point to all the rail investment happening in the south-east (the Caulfield-Dandenong level crossing removals, the Metro tunnel project, the new signalling system and new trains) which all good and well, however the pressure to build even more capacity on this corridor through quadruplication - from two tracks to four - is a constantly bubbling under the surface and is not being addressed.

Bringing the La Trobe Valley closer to Melbourne through decreased journey times on V/Line trains with their own express paths through the south-east, decreasing journey times from the outer suburbs by adding permanent express services on the Dandenong corridor, relieving pressure to continually expand the Monash Freeway by an extra lane every 5 years and an increased rail freight task; this pressure is only going to increase and it can only, efficiently, be addressed with an expansion of track.

<h2>Get out of jail free?</h2>

Regardless of the limitations at the south-east intermodal site, both Altona and Somerton sit neatly with what Infrastructure Victoria advises the state government to do: make existing assets work harder.  Building track connections and sidings, duplicating single track sections &amp; upgrading signalling, building a new rail terminal (or set of terminals) at the Port - they're all upgrade tasks, not new-build infrastructure like the West Gate Tunnel.

According to the Department of Treasury and Finance's <a href="http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/Infrastructure-Delivery/Market-led-proposals/Projects">website</a>, the 'Western Distributor' project as it was originally known is currently at stage four of five in the market-led proposals hierarchy.  

Given the opaque nature of market-led proposals, we the taxpayer don't know if there is any get out of jail free card available to the government and should there be one. The West Gate Tunnel Project's progress should pause while a rigorous study into impacts of the port rail shuttles project is conducted and then compared to the business case of the West Gate Tunnel project.

If Port Rail shuttles reduce truck movements from the west and north for a small but not insignificant amount of public money better than shifting those movements to a multi-billion road tunnel then we ought to know this.

Not surprisingly urban design issues are mounting against the West Gate Tunnel. A ludicrous double-deck Footscray Road section to the expansion Wurudjeri Way, complete with triple-stacked interchange that would dump cars in the inner-city, is straight out of the 1960s suburban transport planning textbook.

This project will lessen the value of redevelopment zones already earmarked.  Remember E-Gate?

The Port of Melbourne where it currently resides is going to be with us for at least another 50 years but that shouldn't force the inner-west and the West Gate Bridge into serving increasing amounts of trucks entering and exiting the port over that time.

Let's do the right thing - what should have been done at an earlier stage of the market-led proposal process for the West Gate Tunnel project - let's pause it while a robust case for the Port Rail shuttles is completed and compared to the West Gate Tunnel business case.
</body></html>

The case for West Gate Tunnel looking wobbly in light of Port Rail shuttle return

<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-buxton-1381">Michael Buxton</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>

In Sydney and Melbourne, the squeeze is on. Population is booming; house prices are still rising; roads and trains are congested. Australian governments generally have ignored the benefits of relating metropolitan and regional planning.

However, some state governments are now investigating more integrated sectoral and spatial planning strategies, initially through shifting public sector jobs to regional centres.

In particular, improved regional rail connections do work. Already <a href="https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/rail-projects/">rail investments</a> have brought Ballarat, Geelong and other regional centres closer in travel time to Melbourne than many outer suburbs, and this trend will continue.

<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/commuters-help-regions-tap-into-city-driven-growth-63097">Commuters help regions tap into city-driven growth</a>

<hr>
Sydney has similar opportunities with regional rail connections, but has not yet exercised them. Rail services to and from Gosford, Newcastle and Wollongong have improved little over recent decades.

<h2>Rail bypasses clogged arteries</h2>

For decades, policymakers’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/victoria-needs-a-big-picture-transport-plan-that-isnt-about-winners-v-losers-65567">preferred solution to congestion</a> has been adding and widening freeways. But promises of faster travel times and freer movement have been illusory. New roads and freeway lanes <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-freeways-cure-congestion-time-to-put-the-myth-to-bed-13896">induce more traffic</a> and will provide short-lived solutions in our biggest cities.

<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/traffic-congestion-is-there-a-miracle-cure-hint-its-not-roads-42753">Traffic congestion: is there a miracle cure? (Hint: it’s not roads)</a>

<hr>
These cities are the main drivers of Australia’s national economy, attracting advanced business service professionals and knowledge providers.

Access to high-value jobs, transport arteries that function well, and better-managed population growth will become critically important to urban economies as these cities move towards populations of 8 million people.

In Sydney and Melbourne, critics are claiming that major new road projects such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-fewer-drivers-are-likely-to-use-westconnex-than-predicted-38286">WestConnex</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/modelling-for-major-road-projects-is-at-odds-with-driver-behaviour-63603">Western Distributor</a> will <a href="https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/.../may16-fmc2-agenda-6-1.pdf">increase central city traffic congestion</a>, particularly for <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-city-council-report-is-critical-of-western-distributor-plans-20160512-gou0tq">work-related journeys</a>.

<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/modelling-for-major-road-projects-is-at-odds-with-driver-behaviour-63603">Modelling for major road projects is at odds with driver behaviour</a>

<hr>
<h2>Victoria proves regional rail works</h2>

Contrast that with the success of regional rail development. Victoria has invested several billion dollars in a series of projects. These have raised maximum regional train speeds to provincial cities to 160kph, increased reliability, provided new and much <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/2016/08/intercity-how-regional-rail-can-re-balance-population-growth-and-create-a-state-of-cities-in-victoria/">faster trains and transformed frequency</a>.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/181124/area14mp/file-20170807-6948-tecx1i.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/181124/width237/file-20170807-6948-tecx1i.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Victoria’s investment in regional rail has quadrupled train services and almost halved travel time between Ballarat and Melbourne. <a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/camperdown/28038626890/in/photolist-JHFhVy-Khcmja-K41PqS-Kacg5q-sQLNRo-JxQmGN-Ht53h3-Krv3yb-yC5G2E-K9mrf8-JxJsDj-JxSCxF-xXj8Ya-K2oyrj-JxJoeC-E1Qxyk-KnyQVx-Kno1tT-scpF6Y-sR1Q8H-bX8kv3-6hCxPF-6hGHcA-KhcqQp-sQYuxi-KufDw8-Kum23z-qV4ajk-UULjeH-UThL7X-VVUCUC-WduPzL-aHieqX-VmhYvH-X7BVan-nzEMuB-nkcFBD-UihKzM-TMo3zY-nAswF7-nku4UJ-aHpbxz-TbJf5q-TRzjkj-bX8mif-W9Vppf-qr1EH8-aHpbxD-UihJKR-h9SDEX">Hugh Llewelyn/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></figcaption></figure>The 119km peak-hour trip from Ballarat to Melbourne before these investments took two hours, with four trains a day on offer. Today 22 daily trains operate in each direction between Melbourne and Ballarat. Boarding the 4.33pm from Southern Cross delivers passengers to Ballarat 65 minutes later.

From Geelong, the transformation has been even greater. The recently completed <a href="http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/rail-and-roads/public-transport/regional-rail-link">Regional Rail Link</a> runs 55 daily trains each way. The project was the first to be approved by Infrastructure Australia, backed by A$3.8 billion in state and Commonwealth funding.

<h2>Patronage boom calls for more work</h2>

These upgrades, however, have become victims of their own success. Some lines have recorded a <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/2016/08/intercity-how-regional-rail-can-re-balance-population-growth-and-create-a-state-of-cities-in-victoria/">300% increase in patronage</a>. Similar increases are projected for the next decade.

Remarkably, within two years of opening, patronage growth has already <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/2016/08/intercity-how-regional-rail-can-re-balance-population-growth-and-create-a-state-of-cities-in-victoria/">reached capacity</a> on the inner part of the Regional Rail Link (which segregates metropolitan from country trains for travel to and from central Melbourne). There is little or no capacity for extra trains to be run in peak times.

Trains are becoming ever more crowded. Long-distance commuters have valued their ability to work, read or sleep on these trains, especially during their homeward journeys. They must now compete for seats with others from rapidly expanding western suburbs, which are yet to gain their own suburban train services.

A short-term fix would create longer trains of eight carriages instead of six. A medium-term fix would electrify and provide separate services to the part of the Geelong line that serves the new dormitory suburbs.

These changes need to be complemented by more frequent and better co-ordinated feeder bus services to stations. In addition, easily accessed large commuter carparks need to be built on vacant land on the Melbourne side of the major regional centres.

In the longer term, the answer lies in providing more multiple tracks to fully segregate suburban and regional trains in suburban areas. Providing robust double-line railways in each corridor will prevent the cascade effect that occurs when trains delay each other on single lines.

The completion of level-crossing removals will also allow higher operating speeds and safer operations. Trains will be able to move progressively to maximum speeds of 200kph where feasible rather than 160kph.

<h2>Regional cities must avoid past mistakes</h2>

These rail investments will further promote population growth in regional cities. Already, regionally developed services, more affordable housing stock and less frantic lifestyles are acting as attractors.

It is essential to integrate the planning of major regional transport projects with spatial planning to avoid the undesirable results of fragmented policy.

Some regional centres are repeating the worst mistakes of metropolitan low-density urban sprawl by expanding on greenfield sites far from town centres. <a href="http://soacconference.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Buxton3.pdf">Modelling of Victorian regional towns</a> has shown that they contain in-fill opportunities to at least double existing populations and provide a range of affordable housing options.

To maintain liveability for expected high population growth, heavy rail investment is vital. Carefully targeted regional rail investment can shrink distance, provide access to more jobs and better lifestyles, and contribute to wider housing choices.

This investment is a critical requirement for continued prosperity in Australia’s largest urban centres.

<hr>
This article was co-authored by Bill Russell of the <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/">Rail Futures Institute</a>, Melbourne.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81902/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">Find out more about what Victoria can do to overcome the commuter crush at <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/railway-remedies-cutting-the-crush-on-geelong-trains-tickets-36216041154">Railway Remedies: Cutting the Crush on Geelong Trains</a>, hosted by the RMIT Centre for Urban Research (CUR) and Deakin University at the Percy Baxter Theatre, Deakin Geelong campus, on Wednesday, August 9.

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-buxton-1381">Michael Buxton</a>, Professor of Environment and Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-how-regional-rail-can-help-ease-our-big-cities-commuter-crush-81902">original article</a>.
</body></html>

theconversation

This is how regional rail can help ease our big cities' commuter crush

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

Casual observers of transport investment in Melbourne could be forgiven for missing the bigger picture with the quick succession of recent announcements by the Minister for Public Transport over the past few weeks.

The series of announcements which began on February 16th dealt many of the technical components required to produce what the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project aims to achieve: a giant high-frequency rail line from two different ends of the city, right through the middle.

To date, the overwhelming majority of projects announced by the Victorian Government have been about shovels in the ground or manufacturing things; the 50 level crossing removal projects and the new dedicated train fleet that will start on the Pakenham/Cranbourne-Sunbury lines are the best examples.

Up until this point as well, the Victorian Government has been happy - and has effectively got away with it - to use quite an array of buzzwords from the rail world. TUAG (Turn Up And Go) services, High Capacity Metro Line (does that mean Metro as in the operator or does metro mean <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro">métropolitain</a>?), HCS (High Capacity Signalling) and so on.

What does this mean? Here's my take.

<h2>Connecting some of the dots</h2>

The announcement on 16th of February continued the shovels-in-the-ground theme, stating that platforms on the Pakenham-Cranbourne lines will be extended. I assume that a similar package will be announced at some point closer to the completion of the Metro tunnel (as the Sunbury line stations will need to be configured in the same way as the Pakenham/Cranbourne line is about to be).

Due to the nature of platform screen doors that you find in other metro systems around the world - the doors are in a fixed position and only open when a train is stopped in the right position at a platform - having a dedicated fleet of trains is going to allow the Melbourne Metro Tunnel stations (Arden, Parkville, Melbourne Central, Flinders Street and Domain) to have them.

I put a question to one of the Minister for Public Transport's aides: the Pakenham/Cranbourne line station platforms are set to be lengthened, however what about platform heights? Will platform heights be augmented to allow higher accessibility for wheelchairs/prams regardless of where a passenger is located on a station platform?

Existing platforms that are being extended will retain the same platform height and the new stations that are getting built as part of the level crossing removal projects will be built to the current standard: 1170mm above the rail head.

"The High-Capacity Metro Trains (HCMTs) will be built to a similar height as X'Trapolis trains, but it's worth noting that floor heights of a train vary in operation depending on the number of passengers on board", the Minister's aide said.

The design of the new HCMTs is still, presumably, being finalised - ditto for the platform extensions - however, we may see a more widespread roll out of the wheelchair ramps we see at City Loop stations now.

Pakenham/Cranbourne (and eventually Sunbury) line trains are about to be orphaned from the rest of the network, and despite platform clearances still required to cater for V/Line and Freight trains, there would appear to be a bit of wiggle room for the design of the new station platforms to match up - as best it can - with the new HCMTs, thus making it possible to completely roll out the wheelchair ramps to all stations on the line.

Because if trains are going to be running as frequently as the Victorian Government has said, minimising driver delays will be paramount and providing a uniform experience at each and every station for those who require the use of a wheelchair is the right thing to do.

<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/raised_platform.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Raised platform for wheelchairs at Melbourne Central. Image © Marcus Wong"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="305" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/raised_platform.jpg?itok=YkIV7nHq" title="Raised platform for wheelchairs at Melbourne Central. Image © Marcus Wong" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Raised platform for wheelchairs at Melbourne Central. Image © <a href="https://railgallery.wongm.com/city-loop/F111_7953.jpg">Marcus Wong</a></figcaption></figure>From the same announcement on the 16th of February, it was stated: "more than 70 kilometres of overhead power lines will be rebuilt, 20 substations will be built or upgraded, and a section of track in South Dandenong will be duplicated to boost reliability and support more services."

New and upgraded substations point to further sectorisation of Melbourne's rail network: it's likely a precursor to a voltage change in the overhead wiring in order to run the new, longer, trains operating on higher frequencies. This was also foreshadowed in the Melbourne Metro Tunnel business case document suite.

Will the Pakenham/Cranbourne-Sunbury line join the Brisbane, Perth and now Adelaide rail networks and switch to alternating current (25kV AC) or will we remain an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents">Edison acolyte</a> and stick with direct current, but at a higher voltage like the networks in Italy and Belgium? (Melbourne &amp; Sydney rail networks operate at 1500V DC; Italian and Belgian mainline networks use 3000V DC).

From a passenger's perspective, the voltage used in the traction system matters little, however it would be a marked, technical, change.

The most recent piece in the enormous jigsaw puzzle that is the Melbourne Metro + Level Crossing Removal + HCMT project was the Minister announcing on Tuesday, via her Facebook page, that bids for the rail systems package have been received.

<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="500" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FJacintaAllanMP%2Fvideos%2F1121614744615681%2F&amp;show_text=1&amp;width=560" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="100%"></iframe>

Up until this point, it's all been about physical things: the new trains, the extended platforms, the level crossing removals, the tunnel, the new substations, the new catenary. The rail systems package includes more physical things, however it's the train control and safety system embedded within the HCS - High Capacity Signalling - component where the quantum leap (in context of how we manage rail operations) will occur.

And with a $1 billion pricetag, perhaps now we'll finally get a new network command and control centre. After all, it's been on the cards for <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-ball-starts-rolling-on-new-train-control/2005/07/01/1119724809180">years</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrol#History">years</a>.

<h2>And some more thoughts</h2>

Maintaining a level of scepticism when jargon is thrown about by government is always healthy, and now two years on, all the components required to take two century-and-a-half year old rail corridors and blitz it into the realm of standard modern rail practice are all pointing in the right direction. Yet there are still some unknowns.

On the new power/traction components: will we start to see the roll out of line-side infrastructure to support storing energy generated by a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake#Conversion_to_electric_energy:_the_motor_as_a_generator">regenerative braking</a> system on the new trains?

As base-load power supplied to the rail network is predominantly supplied from coal power plants, this type of system is an economic plus as well as an environmental cost saving measure. The savings come from storing energy generated by trains braking on the line which can then be fed back in - less demand for power, in theory, reduces the overall power bill and it follows with less power required to operate the rail network, that's less coal burned - hence the environmental cost saving.

On intermodal integration: an unrelated announcement also recently made by the Minister for Public Transport was that bus operator contracts are-a-changing. Our first 'High Capacity Metro Line' can't just be fed by people parking cars at stations or riding a bike to a station, those people who live further than a comfortable walk away from a station need an alternative to driving to the station.

On the eastern side of this new High Capacity Metro Line, high-frequency bus routes exist in some places which interface well with rail services: the smartbus routes (which are sadly the exception, not the rule). Will we see more of these routes to the east and west of the city connecting with the new metro line and running on better frequencies to create a much wider, true, intermodal network?

How can this fit with an <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/first-home-owners-in-regional-victoria-get-a-boost-from-state-government-20170302-gupix6">emerging decentralisation agenda</a>? Specifically: the Monash National Employment Cluster is partially serviced by the High Capacity Metro Line (Springvale, Westall, Clayton and Huntingdale stations) but what of the 'last mile' into the precinct? Is the VPA factoring in a major bus route overhaul as part of <a href="https://vpa.vic.gov.au/project/monash-employment-cluster/">its planning work</a>?

On where the network will get its power from in future: back in January the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change (Lily D'Ambrosio) announced, to much surprise, that the Victorian Government will "voluntarily surrender renewable energy certificates matching the amount of electricity used by all of Melbourne's trams". In short, the power required to operate the tram network will come from renewable sources in future.

Is the same thing on the cards for the heavy rail network?
</body></html>

Melbourne's first 'High Capacity Metro Line'

<html><body>
<h2>COMMENT</h2>

Both the State and Federal Parliaments are back with their first sitting weeks for the year and today it's been reported the state opposition planning spokesperson, David Davis, is set to move a motion in the Legislative Council that would see the City of Stonnington take on shared control of planning for the Melbourne Metro project.

<blockquote>
Opposition planning minister David Davis, who will move the upper house motion, said it was inevitable that one day South Yarra and Melbourne Metro would need to be connected to meet growth in demand for public transport.

"It would be an historic blunder if the government was to design it in such a way as South Yarra could not be connected in the long term," Mr Davis said.

His motion would give the City of Stonnington power to ensure the tunnel's final design paves the way for a future South Yarra interchange.

"There needs to be a clear line in this to ensure that South Yarra, long term, is built," he said.
<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/liberals-make-another-attempt-to-include-south-yarra-station-in-melbourne-metro-20170207-gu7t9w"><cite>The Age - Liberals make another attempt to include South Yarra station in Melbourne Metro</cite></a>
</blockquote>

The primary reason, as has been reported elsewhere, for not building two new platforms at South Yarra to enable connectivity with Melbourne Metro and the existing station has been cost.  Many figures have been quoted (all of them more than $500 million) and they appear to be based on:

<ul>
<li>increased property acquisition in/around South Yarra: one of the most expensive places to buy land in Melbourne.</li>
	<li>the need for current tracks which take Pakenham/Cranbourne trains to cross over the Frankston line tracks in order to enter the tunnel (and therefore proceed to the new underground platforms at South Yarra).</li>
</ul>
The current track design that's been in the public domain for Melbourne Metro has the crossover occur by having the Pakenham/Cranbourne tracks enter the surface-to-tunnel dive structure at/near William Street and the South Yarra siding reserve.

This requires the new underground station platforms to be located further west, directly under properties to the south of Toorak Road and most importantly there'd likely not be any meaningful platform-to-platform connection, passengers looking to transfer would need to exit paid areas of the station, walk down Toorak road and then re-enter the paid areas of the station.  Not ideal at all.

<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/mm_sy_options_assessment_1.png" rel="gallery-all" title="New South Yarra underground platforms, Melbourne Metro options assessment 1"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="360" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mm_sy_options_assessment_1.png?itok=3mmf9ZK9" title="New South Yarra underground platforms, Melbourne Metro options assessment 1" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New South Yarra underground platforms, Melbourne Metro options assessment 1</figcaption></figure>The Melbourne Metro business case options assessment had an alternative layout at South Yarra which would have seen the platforms for the Sandringham line extended south under Toorak Road and the new underground platforms located directly beneath them.

 Less acquisition would be required south of Toorak Road (as much of the station platforms would be located under the reserve or existing rail corridor) and the connection from the surface to the tunnel would be made directly to the current Frankston track pair. 

This has the effect of requiring the crossover to be located further east, on the other side of Chapel Street which would have likely required property acquisition at the Jam Factory and / or a major reconfiguration of the Chapel Street bridge (and the adjoining retail properties which hang off both sides of the street where it crosses the rail corridor).

Option 2 is superior from a passenger perspective because it would directly link the two lines, presumably by escalator and lifts, that would not have been linked in the current scenario with no station at South Yarra - the Pakenham/Cranbourne and Sandringham lines.  (Pakenham/Cranbourne and Frankston connections can be made at Caulfield regardless of scenario).

<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/mm_sy_options_assess_2.png" rel="gallery-all" title="New South Yarra underground platforms, Melbourne Metro options assessment 2"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="390" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mm_sy_options_assess_2.png?itok=fzHXsmtr" title="New South Yarra underground platforms, Melbourne Metro options assessment 2" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New South Yarra underground platforms, Melbourne Metro options assessment 2</figcaption></figure>Former SKM, now independent transport planning, engineering and economics practitioner William McDougall delivered a report on the South Yarra Question in August last year.  The screenshots above and below have been taken from the report, currently sitting on the State Government's website (<a href="http://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/4889/MM257_Stonnington_Transport-planning_-William-McDougall.pdf">PDF</a>).

In his report, McDougall posits an alternative to the costly South Yarra crossover by moving it further out - to Caulfield.

<blockquote>
If it were possible to cross the tracks over elsewhere, substantial property and cost savings would result at South Yarra. With MMRA option B, assuming the existing rail reserve would remain unchanged east of Chapel Street, the following works could be avoided:

<ul>
<li>acquisition and removal of about 25 individual properties;</li>
	<li>widening of the rail reserve and construction of about 500 metres of double track; and</li>
	<li>two road overbridges (Chapel Street and Surrey Road) replaced with longer structures.</li>
</ul>
I expect that this might save of the order of $2-300 million (subject to engineering assessment and costing), excluding the cost of establishing the crossover elsewhere.
<cite>Effect of Melbourne Metro Project at South Yarra - Expert's Report Prepared by William McDougall, <a href="http://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/4889/MM257_Stonnington_Transport-planning_-William-McDougall.pdf">page 28</a></cite>
</blockquote>

The report includes a diagram how moving the crossover to Caulfield could work.

<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/william_mc_dougall_caulfield_crossover.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Potential cost-saving crossover option at Caulfield - William McDougall"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="487" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/william_mc_dougall_caulfield_crossover.png?itok=lP9JEz02" title="Potential cost-saving crossover option at Caulfield - William McDougall" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Potential cost-saving crossover option at Caulfield - William McDougall</figcaption></figure>Regardless of how the Melbourne Metro authority might implement a new set of platforms at South Yarra to enable connectivity with the station, we're now a long way down the garden path.  Early works have started, calls for tenders for the major tunnelling works have begun. 

You can imagine the state government doesn't want to cop the egg-on-face if it capitulated and went ahead with a re-design - which I'd like to point out, the scope change appears to be limited only to the south-eastern end of the project; re-working the construction schedule to include inevitable delays at the South Yarra end whilst continuing with the body of work elsewhere as planned could be possible (and palatable).

As McDougall notes in his report, his assumptions need further testing. Should we delay one part of the Melbourne Metro project and further explore options, assuming the public is happy with a higher pricetag?

<h2>Here, have another spanner to throw into the works</h2>

Governments of both colours are quite happy to pursue freeway expansion projects - just look at the Monash FWY project to widen it around the interchange with Eastlink; a widening project that's happening less than a decade of the most recent one.

The combination of level crossing removals on the Dandenong and Watergardens/Sunbury corridors with the Melbourne Metro project will result in passenger carrying capacity improvements from South East to West/North West and vice versa: the inner-city will be better connected, commuters from the middle-ring and outer suburbs will receive a frequency increase: all good.

But Hazelwood happened.  And more to the point, it's sharpened the state government's focus on the area.  

Just yesterday <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-07/minister-suggests-funding-possible-to-fix-gippsland-rail-issues/8246758">the ABC reported</a> the Federal Transport Minister promised to work with his Victorian counterpart to improve Gippsland's V/Line passenger services; they're reportedly 'the slowest and most unreliable in the state'.  Gippsland V/Line services are entirely dependent on the Pakenham line - the very same line that is set to see frequency increases and be diverted through the city.

(Although the current Melbourne Metro / South Yarra portal design allows for services to connect existing tracks which run from South Yarra through Richmond and Flinders Street).

The Federal Minister's comments in the ABC report relate to the Gippsland Rail Needs Study, which highlights infrastructure changes that would be required to increase services both within the Valley to begin a "La Trobe Valley metro" service - similar to the announced Bendigo Metro - and connecting the region better with Melbourne.

Outside Melbourne the report highlights how single track sections should be duplicated as far as Traralgon and calls for fully upgrading both tracks to allow for 160kph services to run in both directions (the Bracks/Brumby era Regional Fast Rail project only saw partial upgrades on the Gippsland (and Bendigo) line).

The biggest ticket on the list however, naturally deals with train congestion within Melbourne.  

<blockquote>
The central issue is that the rail infrastructure serving Gippsland and southeast Melbourne remains essentially the same double track that reached Dandenong in 1891 and the mixed double and single track beyond Dandenong that was implemented to support briquette traffic from the Latrobe Valley in the 1950s.

The 2005- 2006 Regional Fast Rail project undertook partial upgrading of the track as far as Traralgon and the new VLocity trains enabled service frequency to be enhanced (see 3.3, above). However neither planning nor investment in added track capacity has occurred since then. Meanwhile, billions have been spent in adding and widening freeways serving the region. 
<a href="http://www.wellington.vic.gov.au/files/b85845e6-2a84-4cda-9ebd-a6cf010a6e00/Gippsland-Rail-Needs-Study-Report.pdf"><cite>Gippsland Rail Needs Study - page 36</cite></a>
</blockquote>

Quadruplication of the track between South Yarra and Dandenong would provide V/Line &amp; freight services (and new express services on the metro network) with clear paths to enter/exit the metro area quickly, reducing travel times both outside metro Melbourne and within.

And yes, note: South Yarra - where the current Melbourne Metro project will orphan a track pair by diverting metro services in a different direction - to Dandenong, which includes the area seeing the most resistance to the Herald-Sun dubbed 'skyrail' project between Caulfield and Oakleigh.  

That small section of the wider rail corridor is where it is at its most narrow, and the diagrams on the level crossing removal authority site don't inspire much confidence that quadruplication could occur without massive property acquisition.

<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/area-1_03.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Elevated structure diagram around Carnegie - Level Crossing Removal Authority"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="282" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/area-1_03.jpg?itok=yyoGFOT6" title="Elevated structure diagram around Carnegie - Level Crossing Removal Authority" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Elevated structure diagram around Carnegie - <a href="http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/crossings/poath-road-hughesdale">Level Crossing Removal Authority</a></figcaption></figure>Something will have to give sooner or later.  

A South Yarra station could possibly &amp; negatively impact a future project to add another track pair between South Yarra &amp; Caulfield (most likely a tunnel for express services) - this would be needed because having six tracks merge into four between South Yarra and Caulfield is a recipe for disruption and flies in the face of the main aim: capacity increases.  

Likewise, quadruplication with large-scale property acquisition between Caulfield and Oakleigh would be unpalatable for either flavour of politics and therefore a new opportunity could arise by sending a new track pair from Grange Road down the Dandenong Road median all the way to Eastlink and then back to the Dandenong corridor in future. This also would have the added benefit of being able to add rail services to Chadstone S.C. and Monash University.

As a migrant from the south-of-the-river to north-of-the-river, I've been fully indoctrinated(!) and am a big supporter of focusing the city's growth to the west; however as the renewed focus on the La Trobe Valley after the announcement of Hazelwood's closure shows, south-of-the-river is still going to require careful rail planning and investment if it's to be a win-win for people both in the growing city and regional areas.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:South_Yarra_railway_station_entrance.jpg">wikipedia</a>
</body></html>

The South Yarra station circus: old and new hoops to jump through

<html><body>
New York City is doing amazing things for bicycles and Melbourne could learn a thing or two. New York offers a good example for Melbourne of a city that, against the odds, is taking bicycles seriously as a transport mode.

Since the early 2000’s the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn have laid down infrastructure signalling the arrival of the humble bike as a serious transport option for New Yorkers. In a city famous for its traffic, planners have managed to carve out a well designed and connected network that provides safe and attractive options for travel by bike.

<h2>Protected bicycle routes</h2>

Separated, <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-protected-bike-lanes.pdf">parking-protected</a> and off-road routes have been laid out with deliberate intent to provide safe, connected routes to travellers wishing to make trips to myriad origins and destinations – just like the transport network offered to cars. In Manhattan, many of these routes take advantage of the grid pattern of the street network. Almost any trip can be made using only a handful of turns.

Planners took the view that not every route needed to be a protected route, but that the protected routes form a kind of ‘bicycle highway’ network with unprotected painted and shared-space routes connecting the first and last kilometre. Even famously bike friendly <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@52.3698282,4.8980569,14.56z/data=!5m1!1e3?hl=en">Amsterdam</a> has a lot more shared space infrastructure than one might expect.

Since the start of the 2000’s, there has been a <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-cycling-risk.pdf">significant decrease</a> in real risk of serious injury or death on New York streets for bicycle riders. The cause of this decrease is most likely related to higher cycling rates (the ‘safety in numbers’ effect) hand-in-hand with the rollout of safer bicycle infrastructure.

<h2>Unique design</h2>

The design of the protected lanes in New York are also relatively unique – but they seem to work. Unlike the style of <a href="http://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8093015,144.9646709,3a,75y,302.13h,57.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swVtOCL9wpQi4eqhg0yFLlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e3?hl=en">protected lanes favoured in Melbourne</a>, New York style lanes utilise paint much more than concrete. Concrete islands are constructed near intersections to demark the start of a section of protected bike lane, but from then on paint, space, and parked cars do most of the separation. Added bonuses of the islands are that they provide a narrowing of pedestrian crossing distances, and provide locations for essential tree planting.

Key criticisms some detractors make of Melbourne’s Latrobe Street ‘Copenhagen lanes’ are that they reduce parking, but that they also can be difficult for motorists with disabilities due to the concrete barrier making entering/exiting a vehicle with a wheelchair difficult. New York Style lanes may offer a design solution to these perceived problems for new protected routes. How transferable this design would be may is up for debate.

Many of these routes are placed on roads that are wide and one-way. Would a New York style lane work on St Kilda Road and would it offer a cheaper and easier solution to implement?

<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/ny_style.png" rel="gallery-all" title="New York style protected lanes. Image: James Ramsey"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="439" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ny_style.png?itok=YYCK4bHG" title="New York style protected lanes. Image: James Ramsey" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New York style protected lanes. Image: James Ramsey</figcaption></figure><h2>Trial and trial again</h2>

New York’s planners are not afraid of testing ideas, and if they don’t work – changing them or trying them somewhere else.

Bicycle advocates, urbanists, and road safety experts love protected bike lanes but they are often loathed by some who see a perceived disadvantage to cars (e.g. in Sydney). They can be <a href="http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/52/all_year_bikelane_2011_12_30_bk">politically explosive</a> but New York’s planners have shown that the way to demonstrate that they work, that they improve transport efficiency and that they do not impact motor traffic is to build up evidence by testing and trialing, and collecting data to show that negative impacts do not eventuate.

New York planners test out new interventions by using temporary measures like movable planter boxes and paint and study how traffic is impacted over trial periods. There are numerous examples in New York of trials of new pieces of infrastructure to see if they work and to build up community acceptance.

The most famous example is the pedestrianisation of large parts of Times Square – including creating a protected bike lane through the previously chaotic junction.

This is starting to happen in Melbourne, the <a href="http://www.connectstonnington.vic.gov.au/grevilleandking">City of Stonnington’s pop-up trials</a> on Greville, King and Porter Streets showed that testing ideas on our streets can be done. The City of Yarra has also had success with its trial of a plaza in <a href="http://www.yoursayyarra.com.au/jonas-street-pop-up-plaza-trial">Jonas Street.</a> If you look back Melbourne does have a history of trying these sorts of things (Swanston Street got a <a href="https://www.killyourdarlings.com.au/2016/09/imagine-a-city-swanston-st-party/">makeover</a> for a weekend in the 1982!).

Testing out new protected bike routes in Melbourne using temporary measures like planter boxes could help determine the best place to construct new protected bicycle routes missing from the current network. An example could be a bi-directional route along Flinders Street from Docklands to Fitzroy Gardens, which if successful, could be implemented as tested or could prove the demand is there to provide permanent single-direction protected lanes on both sides of the road.

Another example would be the use of temporary measures like planter boxes and street tables and chairs to trial a pedestrianisation of Elizabeth Street from Flinders Street to Flinders Lane.

<h2>Data and statistics</h2>

NYC Department of Transportation collects a <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtml">lot of data</a>. Winning the war of words using data was a crucial way planners in New York brought about the huge array of positive changes to streets since the year 2000.

In Infrastructure Victoria’s 30 Year Strategy (released last week), improving and standarising data capture and analysis on walking and cycling was a prominent recommendation to “enable the development of high-quality investment proposals and better promotion of walking and cycling, including by providing information on route choice” (See the <a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/30-year-strategy/">30 Year Strategy</a>, page 124).

This is a critical and overdue step and will hopefully be one of the key roles of the newly established <a href="http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/cycling-and-walking/active-transport-victoria">Active Transport Victoria.</a>

<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/prospect_park_lane.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Prospect Park bike lane, Brooklyn. Two way tracks like this are common in New York (and on London's cycle superhighways as well). Image: James Ramsey"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="433" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/prospect_park_lane.png?itok=GoqPEI48" title="Prospect Park bike lane, Brooklyn. Two way tracks like this are common in New York (and on London's cycle superhighways as well). Image: James Ramsey" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Prospect Park bike lane, Brooklyn. Two way tracks like this are common in New York (and on London's cycle superhighways as well). Image: James Ramsey</figcaption></figure><h2>Conclusion</h2>

New York, that city renowned for traffic problems and <a href="https://youtu.be/c412hqucHKw?t=15">this</a>, is taking bicycles seriously as a transport mode. Melbourne needs to start doing the same.

Like London with its bicycle super-highways, New York is laying down a network of protected lanes with its own local flavour. The city is not afraid to trial changes with temporary measures, build evidence for interventions and to prove the worth of new projects and street designs.

Admittedly, New York’s network of safe cycling infrastructure is still developing, and there are frequently gaps and areas where it’s not perfect. But New York is making huge strides in the direction of becoming a seriously bicycle friendly city.

Melbourne should look to New York’s example as a city once known for infamously forbidding streets now making its roads safer for bikes. If they can do it there, they can do it anywhere.

<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-ramsey-8ab58649">James Ramsey</a> is a transport planning consultant based in Melbourne at global engineering and professional services consultancy <a href="http://www.jacobs.com">Jacobs</a>.
</body></html>

jramsey

Melbhattan: Bicycles are on the rise in New York and Melbourne should take note

<html><body>
Melbourne’s tram network may hold the key to providing the dense network of high frequency rapid transport that would provide world class connectivity in the inner-city and CBD.

Melbourne and New York are very different cities. Drawing too close a parallel between any two cities can be a folly; however New York and Melbourne share some near similarities where it counts. One of the key similarities is that both cities share a principal dense inner central business district which is served by primarily radial public transport. Around this CBD are some relatively dense inner suburbs, and further out are large expanses of suburban sprawl.

This post will look at some comparisons between New York and Melbourne’s public transport and it will make the case for the continued consolidation and success of Melbourne’s CBD and inner areas -championing a kind of ‘Melbhattan’ with upgraded tram routes functioning as its rapid transport system.

<h2>Density</h2>

As you’d expect New York is way denser than inner Melbourne. Melbourne and New York’s four densest suburbs are shown in the table below. Melbourne’s CBD is almost a fifth less dense than Yorkville, New York’s most dense neighbourhood. In fact, all of the top densest suburbs in Melbourne are pretty close to one fifth less dense than their New York counterparts.

Not listed is the Manhattan average population density which is around 28,000 residents per km2, which is a slightly fairer comparison to Melbourne’s CBD, although Manhattan is around 10 times the size as the CBD of Melbourne.

<table cellpadding="7" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<caption align="bottom">Sources: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_districts_by_population_density">New York</a>, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3218.02012-13?OpenDocument">Melbourne</a>.</caption>
	<colgroup>
<col>
<col>
<col>
<col>
</colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th height="5">New York</th>
			<th>Residents per km2
</th>
			<th>Melbourne</th>
			<th>Residents per km2
</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="6">Yorkville (Manhattan)</td>
			<td align="center">60,349</td>
			<td>Melbourne</td>
			<td>12,379</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td height="6">Manhattan Community Board 8</td>
			<td align="center">42,312</td>
			<td>Carlton</td>
			<td>8,973</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td height="6">Manhattan Community Board 7</td>
			<td align="center">37,970</td>
			<td>Fitzroy</td>
			<td>7,859</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td height="5">Manhattan Community Board 3</td>
			<td align="center">36,054</td>
			<td>St Kilda East</td>
			<td>7,024</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
When we compare job density between Manhattan - which accounts for around two thirds of all jobs in New York City - and job density in Melbourne’s CBD (assumed to be SA2 areas: Melbourne, Docklands, and Southbank), Melbourne is denser with around 31,000 jobs km2 compared to Manhattan’s 26,500. This is an interesting result. Higher job density in Melbourne’s CBD might explain its lower resident population as commercial space competes with and crowds out residential land uses. Traditionally this has been the norm. Melbourne’s CBD has historically been a centre of business with low populations up until changes in policy around the late 1980s.

<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/ny_from_midtown.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Manhattan is super-dense and super-sized compared to Melbourne's CBD. Image: James Ramsey"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="351" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ny_from_midtown.png?itok=lF7Ra_hO" title="Manhattan is super-dense and super-sized compared to Melbourne's CBD. Image: James Ramsey" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Manhattan is super-dense and super-sized compared to Melbourne's CBD. Image: James Ramsey</figcaption></figure><h2>Heavy rail compared</h2>

Melbourne compares relatively strongly with New York when you compare built rail infrastructure. Manhattan has 17 subway lines connecting the island to the rest of New York City. It has a further six regional rail lines connecting it to New Jersey, Long Island, and beyond. In comparison, Melbourne’s CBD has a converging network of 10 metropolitan rail lines and five regional V/line routes. Whilst currently lower capacity than the subway in New York, Melbourne’s metropolitan rail network has the potential to benefit significantly with the rollout of high capacity signalling, permitting subway-like frequencies.

Melbourne’s rail network is not a ‘subway style’ network. Manhattan’s subway is a rapid transit system, facilitating high capacity transport not only into Manhattan, but within the island. Melbourne’s metropolitan train network does not function this way. Melbourne’s rail network is a radial suburban rail network. The Melbourne Metro tunnel (once completed), the City Loop underground stations, and future changes to the operational function of the network will make the metropolitan rail network more like a ‘metro’ in the CBD area, but its function outside of the CBD will not change significantly.

<h2>Melbourne’s trams could be its own version of rapid transit</h2>

Melbourne’s tram network could function like the subway does in New York. Unlike New York (anymore), Melbourne has trams. Currently Melbourne’s tram network operates almost exclusively as a streetcar network. In other words, trams share road space with other vehicles on the street, i.e. private cars. The tram route 96 is being upgraded to light-rail standard and will be the first end to end light rail in Melbourne. Upgrading Melbourne’s trams to light rail provides an opportunity to provide a high frequency light rail based ‘metro’, in the same way Manhattan’s subway provides a high level of connectivity through high frequencies, and segregated right-of-way. This network would be characterised by faster trams, higher frequencies, and fewer stops (stops could instead be mini ‘stations’, like the subway). The key to achieving this network is in providing the priority to trams on the road and at stop lights. That means, fully segregated tram rights-of-way and full call-ahead traffic light green waves.  

<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/mel_nyc_tram_subway.png" rel="gallery-all" title="New York's subway &amp; Melbourne's tram networks side-by-side. Source: Google Maps"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="222" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mel_nyc_tram_subway.png?itok=EdI7fMKW" title="New York's subway &amp; Melbourne's tram networks side-by-side. Source: Google Maps" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New York's subway &amp; Melbourne's tram networks side-by-side. Source: Google Maps</figcaption></figure>Should all of Melbourne’s tram routes be upgraded to function this way? Having a fully light-rail based network would provide a significant boost to the capacity and connectivity of the tram network. It would transform its operation from a slow, streetcar system to something approaching a rapid transit network. But not all routes would necessarily need to be upgraded. If only a subset of routes were fully upgraded, say, routes 11, 16, 19, 55, 57, 75, 96, and 109 – a sub-network of high frequency routes would be created – facilitating a kind of separate, ‘mini-metro’. Working out the sharing of sections of route with slower trams would however be a challenge and may require shifting some routes to other streets.

There is a case for keeping some tram routes as streetcars. Trams are great street activators, activating retail and hospitality precincts through providing the density of passenger traffic and slowing car traffic down to make a street more walkable. Unlike underground rail, trams can activate an entire strip, rather than just a station precinct. In areas where this is a priority – say, strip shopping streets like Bridge Road in Richmond – a ‘metro’ style tram route could be made to run at slower speeds, with more traditional stopping patterns. But outside of these areas where activation opportunities are lower, faster speeds and more station-style stops would be essential to ensure the speed and reliability of service of a ‘metro’ style light rail.

Go on a journey/read more: <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbournes-development-by-tram-the-59">Melbourne's development by tram</a>.

The kind of connectivity that could result from a light-rail based ‘metro’ would be like the connectivity of Manhattan’s subway network. Manhattan’s subway is one of the reasons that the New York is a successful, vibrant, and dynamic place. Only with the subway are the densities of jobs and population possible in Manhattan that have allowed this success. Melbourne’s CBD and inner suburbs are successful in spite of relatively poorer connectivity – but its success is undoubtedly due to what connectivity it does have via the rail and tram networks.

<h2>A future Melbhattan</h2>

This article is really only talking about inner Melbourne. Melbourne is a sprawling metropolis. The middle and outer suburbs have a different problem that cannot be addressed the same way. In fact, the car-dependent middle and outer suburbs will never be the domain of high public transport usage – except where fast reliable bus services enable connectivity to the rail network for trips to the inner suburbs.

Melbourne should look at its current advantages, that being it has a strong inner core which is extremely well connected via public transport – like Manhattan – which will define its success in the 21st century much more than its suburbs will. Consolidation of densities in the CBD and the inner and middle rings of the city is vital to improving accessibility to jobs and services.

The polycentric city concept followed by places like Sydney is a folly. Australian cities developed outwards, and Sydney’s CBD is better connected to the rest of the city via public transport than anywhere else. Artificially creating mini CBDs in the suburbs which are meant to compete with the main CBD is a mistake. Sydney’s CBD still commands the best real estate, holds the best location, and offers the best agglomeration benefits than the satellite CBDs of North Sydney and Chatswood. Parramatta could be different, as it effectively is the CBD of another city altogether – western Sydney.

Melbourne shouldn’t be afraid of a future Melbhattan. It should celebrate its success, and look to places like New York to build the city that that New York built around this time last century. 

<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-ramsey-8ab58649">James Ramsey</a> is a transport planning consultant based in Melbourne at global engineering and professional services consultancy <a href="http://www.jacobs.com">Jacobs</a>   Stay tuned for more on 'Melbhattan', a look at the cycling infrastructure in New York is up next.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fearless_craig/3454448873/in/photolist-6gfXik-gxWWZE-p5sn4C-8KqUJf-67zdYb-2KV1-p4Kp53-68AWHZ-q1EZq5-cht7nf-pZ9WA7-q1n4xD-qeJEiM-pJa7xH-c5BgL7-fyfbk-p4MDx6-2KVa-NSzre-5qpJGU-7S4q7X-2KUL-99aaa3-oG2LEu-93LLjs-hGtfcF-8QEinp-di53Be-q2VDHr-prxghL-fgcV24-d1VoMA-6roqdF-9MxUd5-jQkWUK-4s51xe-EyNys-q2f66a-9egWiE-89es27-3omfu3-dz5Az6-di52W9-5VL85Y-di59km-hvt25A-pJUvTN-pm69xK-EyN6Z-7fict3">flickr</a>
</body></html>

Melbhattan: How Melbourne’s tram network could be its version of New York’s subway network

<html><body>
The Minister for Public Transport, Jacinta Allan, has held a re-opening of St Albans and Ginifer stations ceremony this morning with trains now running on the new grade separated alignment.

In both cases, the rail line was lowered beneath the road grade. Before the metro services were extended to Watergardens (and subsequently Sunbury), St Albans used to be the terminus and had a third, terminating, platform. This legacy terminating and stabling infrastructure has now been removed.

Likewise at Ginifer, the new station has been rebuilt to front Furlong Road. Previously the platforms were located approximately 100-150 metres from Furlong Road.

The new Ginifer station entrance is now a mere 200 metre walk from the Sunshine Hospital site which will see major investment over the coming years when the Joan Kirner Womens and Childrens hospital is built on the existing site.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tixfpFg0nTE" width="100%"></iframe>

Public Transport Users Association spokesperson, Daniel Bowen, visited both stations on Cup Day and has <a href="http://www.danielbowen.com/2016/11/02/new-ginifer-st-albans-stations/">written a blog post</a> on the history behind the area's level crossing removals. The following images are Daniel's and have been republished with permission.

Like the stations between Caulfield and Moorabbin that were recently re-built, work is still ongoing however train services are now running once more and basic station facilities are now open.

<h2>Ginifer</h2>

<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/ginifer_1.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="336" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ginifer_1.png?itok=wMyBdS93" title="Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen</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/ginifer_2.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="383" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ginifer_2.png?itok=FgwiusvE" title="Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen</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/ginifer_3.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Ginifer station from the concourse. Image © Daniel Bowen"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="360" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ginifer_3.png?itok=3BHHKvhr" title="Ginifer station from the concourse. Image © Daniel Bowen" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Ginifer station from the concourse. Image © Daniel Bowen</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/ginifer_4.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="291" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ginifer_4.png?itok=dNl9xTkm" title="Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Ginifer station. Image © Daniel Bowen</figcaption></figure><h2>St Albans</h2>

<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/st_abans_1.png" rel="gallery-all" title="St Albans station. Image © Daniel Bowen"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="363" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/st_abans_1.png?itok=NCL824kw" title="St Albans station. Image © Daniel Bowen" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>St Albans station. Image © Daniel Bowen</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/st_abans_2.png" rel="gallery-all" title="St Albans station. Image © Daniel Bowen"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="367" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/st_abans_2.png?itok=HHXkc7HN" title="St Albans station. Image © Daniel Bowen" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>St Albans station. Image © Daniel Bowen</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/st_abans_3.png" rel="gallery-all" title="The almost-complete St Albans station concourse. Image © Daniel Bowen"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="360" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/st_abans_3.png?itok=p-RUprtI" title="The almost-complete St Albans station concourse. Image © Daniel Bowen" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The almost-complete St Albans station concourse. Image © Daniel Bowen</figcaption></figure>To see more images, see <a href="http://www.danielbowen.com/2016/11/02/new-ginifer-st-albans-stations/">Daniel Bower's blog</a>.

Main Road (St Albans Station) will close on Friday so the old tracks can be removed and the road will be resurfaced. The road is due to re-open on the 28th of November.

The Minister for Public Transport also announced the next construction 'blitz' is due to start on Friday this week with services on the entire Belgrave branch from Ringwood to be replaced by buses as the Bayswater level crossing removals kick up a gear.

Scoresby Road will be closed from the 2nd (today) until the 19th of November. Mountain Highway will close from the 20th of November until the 23rd of December.
</body></html>

The new St Albans and Ginifer stations - in pictures

<html><body>
The route 11 tram not so long ago used to be known as the route 112 which ran from West Preston to St Kilda. The old 112 route was split in two (routes 11 and 12) and route 11 now runs from West Preston and terminates at Victoria Harbour in Docklands.

Route 11 is the primary public transport mode on Brunswick Street in Fitzroy and along St Georges Road through Fitzroy North, Northcote, Thornbury and Preston; this is the region we're looking at in this article.

Similar to <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbournes-development-by-tram-the-96">the 96</a>, route 11 traverses more than one council outside central Melbourne - the Cities of Yarra and Darebin respectively - and has a large, but inconsistently placed, amount of development-friendly zones along the tram corridor.

<h2>The numbers</h2>

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Aspect</th>
			<th scope="col">Number of projects</th>
			<th scope="col">Number of dwellings</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Residential projects: Planning Assessment</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">667</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Residential projects: Approved</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">337</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Residential projects: Under Construction</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">127</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>TOTAL</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">18</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1,131</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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/3343_tram11.gif" rel="gallery-all" title="Linear route 11 map. Yarra Trams"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="2284" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/3343_tram11.gif?itok=wUvWWgB8" title="Linear route 11 map. Yarra Trams" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Linear route 11 map. Yarra Trams</figcaption></figure>​

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Tram route 11</th>
			<th scope="col">Further information</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Timetabled weekday peak frequency</td>
			<td>6 minutes (10 trams per hour)</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Timetabled weekday off-peak frequency</td>
			<td>10-12 minutes (5-6 trams per hour)</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Timetabled weekend daytime frequency</td>
			<td>10 minutes (6 trams per hour)</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Timetabled night-time frequency</td>
			<td>20 minutes (3 trams per hour); 30 minutes/2 trams per hour (Sunday nights) 24/7 operation Friday/Saturday nights</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Raised-platform stops?</td>
			<td>
			Mainly in the City of Melbourne. Many on St Georges Road corridor in City of Darebin, elsewhere limited.
			</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Where do the trams go to sleep?</td>
			<td>
<a href="http://vicsig.net/index.php?page=trams&amp;depot=preston">Preston Depot</a> (Miller Street, Preston)</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Primary tram class that operates on the route.</td>
			<td>
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://vicsig.net/trams/class/E/1">E</a> (low-floor, 3 section, Bombardiér Flexity)</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Annual patronage and rank</td>
			<td>12,300,000 trips annually (4th busiest). <a href="http://www.yarratrams.com.au/about-us/who-we-are/facts-figures/">Source</a>***</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
*** Routes 11 and 12 are the former route 112.

<h2>Brunswick St / St Georges Road (City of Yarra)</h2>

Of all the northern parts of City of Yarra, Brunswick St, the road most synonymous with the new town of Fitzroy, is the most cherished and it also the strip which has the largest, consistent, application of the development-friendly C1Z. Crossing over Alexandra parade, the zoning becomes more consistent with development restrictions, save for an enclave of commercial zoning near Scotchmer Street.

Unlike on route 96 - where most of the development pipeline is located out of the city of Yarra - on route 11, most of the projects (11) are located south of Alexandra Avenue.

<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/2656queens.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="329" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/2656queens.jpg?itok=KeCPeiST" title="26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North" width="580"></a>

<figcaption><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/26-56-queens-parade-fitzroy-north">26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North</a></figcaption></figure>While located north of Alexandra Parade, the project shown above has the largest amount of dwellings, weighing in at a whopping 476 dwellings compared to an average of 39 dwellings per project in the rest of the route 11 corridor.

<h2>St Georges Road (City of Darebin)</h2>

As the route 11 tram cross into the City of Darebin, not only does the road corridor become far more tram friendly (the tracks are separated from the car lanes) but so does the zoning compared to the northern extremes of the City of Yarra which is dominated by Neighbourhood Residentail Zone.

St Georges Road through Northcote, Thornbury and Preston have had RGZ and C1Z liberally applied as well as a large amount of GRZ is present to either side of the tram corridor in Thornbury.

This section of the route, from the Merri Creek boundary with the City of Yarra to the Preston depot and workshops, route 11 is one of three very closely spaced radial lines. To the east lie the South Morang train line and the easternmost of Melbourne's northerly tram routes, the 86.

Route 86 - High Street - is most definitely the hotspot du jour when it comes to the numbers, but St Georges Road and route 11 shouldn't be written off because when it comes to individual project scale, there's a lot consistency.

<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/02_page-images-02.png" rel="gallery-all" title="The Hutton, Thornbury"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="334" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/02_page-images-02.png?itok=S9FiupX5" title="The Hutton, Thornbury" width="580"></a>

<figcaption><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/buildings/the-hutton-481-st-georges-road-thornbury">The Hutton, Thornbury</a></figcaption></figure>Route 11 eventually turns west off St Georges Road and then northward once more onto Gilbert Road however no projects are registering in this area at this time. There are two projects just north of the St Georges Road and Miller Street intersection and they are present in the project list below.

<h2>Future directions</h2>

At the recent Federal election, this tram route made it into the news thanks to the local ALP member, David Feeney, finding himself in a spot of bother with a property in the area and out of the blue there was a juicy loin of pork put on the electorate's table by way of a promise to extend the 11 tram somewhat uselessly about 500 metres down Gilbert Road.

Never let simple principles like connecting modes (eg. extending the tram to Reservoir Station) get in the way of good old fashioned pork barrelling!

Given the proximity to Nicholson Street through Fitzroy/Fitzroy North, much of what I wrote in the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbournes-development-by-tram-the-96">route 96 piece</a> stands for route 11: Metro 2 - when (if) it happens and wherever the Fitzroy station is located - will have a significant impact on route 11.

Trips from this inner north region to the western end of the CBD would greatly have their travel times reduced on the train, thus opening up more capacity to all existing tram routes which connect with a future Metro 2 cross-town rail line.

<h2>Navigation</h2>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbournes-development-by-tram-the-96">Anti-clockwise: the 96 East Brunswick to St Kilda Beach</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbournes-development-by-tram-the-86">Clockwise: the 86 Bundoora RMIT to Waterfront City Docklands</a></li>
</ul>
</body></html>

Urban Affairs

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Urban Affairs

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News