EXPERT EVIDENCE REGARDING NORTH EAST LINK ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS STATEMENT

Final Report 15 July 2019

Expertise & Qualifications NAME DATE SIGNATURE Prepared by Knowles Tivendale 15 July 2019

Address PO BOX 8101, DANDENONG VIC 3175

Qualifications Bachelor of Urban & Regional Planning, University of New England Master of Transport, Monash University Currently sessional lecturer in • Traffic Planning (Monash University) • Transport Planning (Monash University) • Transport & Mobility (La Trobe University) Areas of Expertise Urban & Regional Planning, Statutory Planning, Strategic Planning, Transport Planning, Transit Network Planning, Transit Operations, Pedestrian Planning, Bicycle Network Planning, Activity Centre Planning, Public Realm Planning, Economics, Business Case Development, Planning Scheme development Other Contributors to Mapping has been completed by Lachlan Burke, an Associate at Movement & this evidence Place Consulting. Instructions La Trobe University have asked me to consider the following questions: 1. What transport problem is North East Link aiming to solve? 2. What can be done to mitigate the transport problem in advance of NEL being constructed? 3. What needs to be done to maintain efficient movement around La Trobe NEIC during and post construction of NEL? 4. What best practice approaches to the analysis and modelling need to be improved to ensure the optimum outcomes for the region are understood and achieved? Tests or Experiments NIL

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

This Expert Witness Statement was Written By: Knowles Tivendale MPIA Managing Director, Movement & Place Pty Ltd PO BOX 8101 DANDENONG VIC 3175

Trading As: Movement & Place Consulting ACN: 625 377 595, ABN: 85 375 284 892 PO BOX 8101, DANDENONG VIC 3175 www.movementandplace.com.au

This document may contain confidential and legally privileged information, neither of which are intended to be waived, and must be used only for its intended purpose. Movement & Place Consulting does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document.

i

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. La Trobe University has requested a statement of expert evidence regarding transport planning in relation to the North East Link (NEL) Environmental Effects Statement (EES).

1.2. I have reviewed the Transport & Traffic Impact Assessment (TTIA) and the NEL Project plans.

1.3. My findings focus on trying to understand the problem that the NEL Project is seeking to address. I have found that there is significant focus on symptoms of the problem, but very little discussion of the cause of the symptoms.

1.4. Disproportionate effort has been put into designing detail of one modal solution, without sufficient analysis of other modes in the corridor and how they contribute to the problem or could be applied to reduce the severity of congestion.

1.5. The actual problem that is causing traffic congestion in the region is a very poorly designed public transport network in Melbourne’s north east and the lack of investment in this network to match population growth over the last 40 years.

1.6. This public transport is causing significantly elevated levels of car ownership and car use in the region, by people who live in the region and those who need to travel to the region. The elevated levels of car use are generating congestion throughout the region.

1.7. Levels of congestion have escalated as Melbourne’s metropolitan population grows, and economic connections between the north east and eastern regions have increased.

1.8. Melbourne’s population has doubled over the last 50 years, but the transport network in Melbourne’s north east has barely evolved. The number of bus routes crossing the Yarra River on Chandler Highway, Burke Road, Bulleen Road and Manningham Road has not changed since at least 1980 (Department of Transport, 2019a & Melway Publishing, 1980).

1.9. Not expanding the public transport network and connections across the Yarra River in particular is now causing severe congestion in the area as the La Trobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster (NEIC) attracts students and staff from a very wide area of Melbourne.

1.10. The North East Link will help to reduce congestion when it is finished in eight years’ time. However, the construction of NEL will exacerbate traffic congestion in the region until it is finished in 2027.

1.11. This analysis concludes: There are several new bus routes and improvements to existing routes that can be implemented to reduce traffic congestion immediately and minimise the negative impacts of NEL construction activities on existing levels of service for road users.

1.12. To mitigate construction impacts Road Replacement Bus Services should be provided during the NEL construction phase. These routes will be more successful at diverting drivers from areas of congestion if they are established 18-24 months prior to construction impacts commencing.

1.13. The environmental sustainability of the project must be considered in relation to alternative options to mitigate traffic congestion in the area which is a by-product of the abnormally high rate of car ownership and use. The NEL Project documents, EES and supporting documents lack adequate consideration of many transport improvement options that could mitigate the problem more ii

efficiently, effectively, equitably and swiftly. This is of critical importance to the IAC in completing its role. Also, it would be very difficult to judge the effectives of NEL from an environmental perspective without understanding the alternative solutions on a comparable basis.

1.14. To ensure IAC and NEL project team are able to meet the requirements of the Public Administration Act it is necessary for the EES to include additional evidence (such as evaluation of the public transport network), analysis and transparent explanation of the analysis outcomes.

1.15. The modelling assumptions have unexplained flaws and biases including an increase the value of travel time by 1.55% per annum for commercial vehicles and car travel compared to a reduction in the value of time by 0.2% per annum for public transport users.

1.16. No explanation is given for the differing approaches to value of time for the different market segments. Given the higher socio-economic demographic living in the Banyule and Manningham areas, and the existing reliance on the bus network for access from Manningham to the CBD, it does not seem logical.

1.17. Given that public transport use in the north east corridor is much more oriented to CBD bound travel (rather than cross River movements) it follows that public transport users in Melbourne’s north east region would more likely be travelling to the CBD. This is where the highest productivity jobs are located, producing 64% higher value per hour of work than the metropolitan average (Kelly, J & Donegan, P, 2014). It would therefore be more reasonable to assume that the value of time for public transport users is more likely to increase than the value of time for car users.

1.18. Best practice transport planning and transport project design requires a deep understanding of the problems and a holistic assessment of a full suite of options to resolve the problems. Neither of these have been demonstrated by the NEL EES or supporting documentation.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary ...... ii 2. Introduction ...... 1 3. North East Link Overview ...... 4 4. Overview of the Core Problem and Symptoms ...... 5 5. Construction Impacts ...... 19 6. Mitigating Construction Impacts with Kingsbury Drive Improvements ...... 22 7. Mitigating Construction Impacts with Bus Service improvements – Short Term ... 24 8. Road Replacement Bus Services ...... 26 9. Long Term Bus Network Improvements can make NEL Environmentally Sustainable ...... 26 10. Cycling & Pedestrian Trail Networks ...... 29 11. Adequacy of the EES ...... 31 12. Modelling Assumptions & Outputs ...... 38 13. Conclusion ...... 39 14. Recommendations ...... 40 Table Of Acronyms ...... 43 References ...... 43 Appendix A ...... 44

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Framework ...... 2 Figure 2 – Clause 18.02-2R – Extract from Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) ...... 3 Figure 3 – Lack of fast public transport between Box Hill and La Trobe NEIC – Extract from EES ...... 6 Figure 4 – Private Vehicle (PV) access to La Trobe NEIC ...... 7 Figure 5 – Public Transport (PT) Accessibility to La Trobe NEIC ...... 8 Figure 6 – Customer Desire for North-South Connectivity – Extract from EES ...... 9 Figure 7 – Existing Public Transport Map ...... 9 Figure 8 – Public transport journey times are too long – Extract from EES ...... 11 Figure 9 – Approximate location of La Trobe University staff and students ...... 12 Figure 10 – All public transport providing direct connection to La Trobe University ...... 13 Figure 11 – Public Transport Routes that cross the Yarra River ...... 14 iv

Figure 12 – Comparison of Routes that directly serve La Trobe University or Monash University ...... 15 Figure 13 – Map of Route 548 ...... 16 Figure 14 – Recommended Routes 609 & 548 ...... 17 Figure 15 – Comparative Travel Times – Indirect Bus Network from Yallambie ...... 18 Figure 16 – Comparative Travel Times – Indirect Bus Network from Greensborough ...... 18 Figure 17 – The EES recognises that construction poses a high risk to public transport – Extract from EES ...... 19 Figure 18 – Failure to assess construction impacts on public transport – Extract from EES .. 20 Figure 19 – Routes 901 & 902 affected by Fitzsimons Lane ...... 21 Figure 20 – Failure to assess construction impacts on walking and cycling in a holistic manner – Extract from EES ...... 22 Figure 21 – Potential Cross Section for Kingsbury Drive ...... 23 Figure 22 – Public transport usage in the North-east – Quote from EES ...... 24 Figure 23 – Failure to improve public transport connectivity in the north-east is at odds with expected growth in the NEIC – Extract from EES ...... 27 Figure 24 – Community Desire for Public Transport Improvements in the project corridor – Extract from EES ...... 28 Figure 25 – Shared Paths & Trails proposed by NEL – Extract from EES ...... 30 Figure 26 – Map of Public Transport – Extract from EES ...... 31 Figure 27 – Route 301 ...... 32 Figure 28 – Route 350 ...... 33 Figure 29 – Route 382 ...... 33 Figure 30 – Route 510 ...... 34 Figure 31 – Route 517 ...... 34 Figure 32 – Route 566 ...... 35 Figure 33 – Route 567 ...... 35 Figure 34 – Illustration of Braess’ Paradox ...... 44

v

Final Report 15 July 2019

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. This expert evidence is provided at the request of La Trobe University (LTU).

2.2. This report assesses the exhibited North East Link (NEL) Environment Effects Statement (EES) and supporting documents.

2.3. The Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) has the responsibility to:

2.3.1. conduct the inquiry regarding the NEL EES, and report to the Minister;

2.3.2. conduct hearings relating to the approval instruments including the Planning and Environment Act 1987; and

2.3.3. consider the works approval under the Environment Protection Act 1990.

2.4. LTU formally supports the NEL Project and has posed a number of questions regarding the:

2.4.1. problems to be addressed by the NEL Project;

2.4.2. ability of the project to resolve these problems;

2.4.3. options to mitigate construction impacts; and

2.4.4. best practice approaches that can ensure optimal outcomes for the La Trobe NEIC.

2.5. Paragraph 31(b) of the IAC Terms of Reference (TOR) states that the IAC’s report to the Minister must contain the IAC’s findings regarding the capacity of the NEL Project to achieve acceptable environmental outcomes, having regard to a range of factors including best practice and the principles and objectives of ecologically sustainable development.

2.6. This task requires IAC (amongst other things) to understand the:

2.6.1. best practice approaches to transport project development; and

2.6.2. environmental outcomes that arise from various transport modes and project decisions.

2.7. The key environmental outcomes relate directly to the land required for the project (to facilitate movement of the vehicles) and the impact of the vehicles using the project (such as emissions, noise and urban barriers).

2.8. All these factors have very different values dependant on the modes of transport that are being proposed in the corridor. For example:

2.8.1. buses have higher carrying capacity than cars and are more space efficient

2.8.2. railways and freeways tend to create urban barriers that are difficult to cross and segregate communities

2.8.3. cars require more space and energy (and produce greater emissions) than most other transport modes

2.9. It is essential that in evaluating the environmental outcomes of the project the IAC should have regard to how other modes that could:

1 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

2.9.1. offer some assistance to reduce the overall size and scale of the project during design;

2.9.2. mitigate the impacts of the project during construction; and

2.9.3. ensure the project benefits last longer, by smoothing out demand over time.

2.10. A best practice approach to transport project options identification, design and evaluation includes application of the:

2.10.1. Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP) Guidelines; and

2.10.2. Victorian Project Gateway Review Process; and

2.10.3. Transport System Objectives and Decision Making Principles in Divisions 2 and 3 of the Transport Integration Act 2010 (TI Act); and

2.10.4. Objectives of Planning in Victoria listed in S.4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act).

2.11. A key component of both the ATAP Guidelines and Gateway process requires project proponents to fully investigate and understand the problems the project is expected to solve and test alternative solutions (including a wide range of responses such as policy, operational, governance and infrastructure changes).

2.12. The ATAP Framework states three stages prior to formulating a business case for any initiatives as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Framework

2 Final Report 15 July 2019

2.13. NELA should consider the underlying problem more holistically and take account of the role that the under-developed public transport network plays in generating higher levels of demand for car ownership and increased car use in the region.

2.14. Both the Transport System Objectives and the Objectives of Planning in Victoria also require adequate consideration of all transport modes to meet their intent. Furthermore, the Transport System Objective include specific statements that should guide the selection of initial options to be considered. These include:

2.14.1. promoting forms of transport and the use of forms of energy and transport technologies which have the least impact on the natural environment; (S.10(c))

2.14.2. reducing the need for private motor vehicle transport and the extent of travel (S.11(2)(c))

2.15. Several clauses within the State Planning Policy Framework require a holistic approach to planning transport networks and major transport projects, specifically:

2.15.1. Clause 18-01-1S includes a strategy to “Improve transport links that strengthen the connections to Melbourne and adjoining regions”.

2.15.2. Clause 18-01-2S includes strategies to “Incorporate the provision of public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure in all major new state and local government road projects” and “Ensure the design, construction and management of all transport modes reduces environmental impacts”. (emphasis added)

2.15.3. Clause 18-02-2S has the objective to increasing use of public transport and includes strategies to:

2.15.3.1. “Maintain and strengthen passenger transport networks” and

2.15.3.2. “Connect activity centres, job rich areas and outer suburban areas through high- quality public transport” and

2.15.3.3. “Plan for bus services to meet the need for local travel”.

2.15.4. Clause 18-02-2R includes a range of relevant strategies shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Clause 18.02-2R – Extract from Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP)

3 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

2.15.5. Clause 18.02-3S has the objective of managing “the road system to achieve integration, choice and balance by developing an efficient and safe network and making the most of existing infrastructure” and includes a strategy to “upgrade the road network to provide for higher standards of on road public transport”

2.16. It is estimated that the NEL Project will cost around $16 Billion.

2.17. There are 6.5 Million people living in Victoria (ABS, 31 December 2018).

2.18. Each person (man, woman and child) in Victoria will therefore on average need to pay $2,600 to construct the NEL Project. It follows that, planning for the Project needs to be completed properly. There is significant risk that this cost will be a burden on society if the investment is planned hastily or costs could be avoided.

2.19. It is not apparent that any investigation into alternative modes or policy measures has been undertaken with respect to the NEL Project.

2.20. It is imperative that the IAC consider how a more holistic and integrated approach to various transport modes in the region could mitigate many of the impacts of North East Link including construction impacts and the size and scale of development.

2.21. The Project needs to include analysis of alternative strategies to solve the problem specifically through developing and then modelling a range of different public transport networks each designed to meet the regional travel needs of the community.

2.22. The IAC should recommend that the Project proponent consider alternative modal options that minimise environmental impacts and report on the analysis of these options in a revised EES

3. NORTH EAST LINK OVERVIEW

3.1. The NEL Project supports the La Trobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster (NEIC) to increase its potential economic value to the Victorian economy.

3.2. Adding lane capacity to the corridor, particularly the amount of lane capacity that the NEL proposes, is likely to reduce congestion on much of the existing road network.

3.3. However, the benefits of this reduced congestion from an environmental perspective will be eroded by induced traffic (drivers that choose to drive because the road is now less congested) if some road space is not reallocated. Clarity is required regarding how the benefits resulting from the congestion relief will be used.

3.4. The IAC should require the EES to state clearly what environmental benefits will be gained from the spare road space through alternative uses, or whether it will just be left to fill up with traffic again.

3.5. The EES lacks attention to many transport improvement options that could mitigate the problem more efficiently, effectively, equitably and swiftly. This is of critical importance to the IAC in completing its role. It would be very difficult to judge how effective NEL is from an environmental perspective without understanding the alternative solutions from comparable standpoint.

3.6. The benefits of the NEL Project will also be eroded if the additional traffic it attracts create additional congestion on roads in the network. This is explained by Braess’ Paradox and is one of the biggest risks to undermining the project benefits.

4 Final Report 15 July 2019

3.7. There is no mention of Braess’ Paradox in the NEL EES and supporting documents and what efforts have been made to evaluate its impact in this case or avoid the paradox from occurring.

3.8. Braess’ Paradox is briefly explained in Appendix A of this report.

3.9. Nor is there any mention of the Downs-Thomson Paradox (Downs, 1962) and the fact that “just adding capacity to congested networks tends not to alleviate congestion beyond the short term” (Productivity Commission, 2017)

3.10. The Downs-Thomson Paradox is also referred to a Triple Convergence whereby the result of adding network capacity to a single mode (without also improving other modes) results in a more rapid erosion of the project benefits because:

3.10.1. people travelling outside the peak re-time their trips and make them in the peak; and

3.10.2. people travelling on different route alignments change their route selection to the new facility; and

3.10.3. people travelling on alternate modes switch to the new facility.

3.11. Triple convergence works in the government’s favour when improving less-popular modes, but works against the government investment when improving a dominant mode. This is the situation in the NEL Project.

3.12. The IAC should not endorse the EES until it includes an adequate examination of the impacts of Braess’ Paradox and Downs-Thomson Paradox on the project benefit streams.

3.13. The EES Technical Report A (TTIA) erroneously refers to the La Trobe NEIC as a “proposed” NEIC (such as pages 36, 78 and 96). The La Trobe NEIC was designated as one of the first tranche and is specifically referred to as such in Plan Melbourne. It is unclear what the NEL Project team might have inferred about the importance of the NEIC, when thinking it was just a “proposed” NEIC. The IAC should require these errors to be fixed and ensure that the NEL Project team have not mistakenly underestimated the importance of the La Trobe NEIC and its role in Victoria’s economic future.

3.14. The lack of attention provided to the existing activity within the region and alternative solutions to the problem raises a question about how well the problem is understood. The IAC should not endorse the EES until the transport problems in north east Melbourne are explained with appropriate depth including the recognition and differentiation between symptoms and causes.

4. OVERVIEW OF THE CORE PROBLEM AND SYMPTOMS

4.1. The EES documents identify existing problems or rather the symptoms of some very specific problems. One specific problem is the high reliance on car travel in Melbourne’s North-East (page 88 of the TTIA). This is a direct result of a lack of reliable and fast public transport services as shown in Figures 6-19 & 6-20 of the TTIA copied to Figure 3 below.

5 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

Figure 3 – Lack of fast public transport between Box Hill and La Trobe NEIC – Extract from EES

4.2. The EES documents clearly show that a lack of good regional and inter-regional public transport services is causing an overly high reliance on cars in the region.

4.3. This high reliance on cars for personal transport in the region contributes significantly to the congestion experienced in the NEL corridor and around La Trobe NEIC.

4.4. This reason for this high reliance on cars for transport in the region is highlighted in Figure 4 below.

6 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 4 – Private Vehicle (PV) access to La Trobe NEIC

Source: ARUP Modelling for LTU

4.5. The car travel time to La Trobe NEIC enables most people in Melbourne to access the area within 90 minutes travel time.

4.6. The public transport travel time to La Trobe NEIC is shown in Figure 5 overleaf.

7 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

Figure 5 – Public Transport (PT) Accessibility to La Trobe NEIC

Source: ARUP Modelling for LTU

4.7. The logical explanation for lower than average patronage is that the current public transport network is not meeting customer needs. Potential reasons for this include:

4.7.1. lack of network connectivity (journeys take a long time because there is no direct connection between obvious origins and destinations); and

4.7.2. public transport services are unattractive in terms of service quality (including frequency, journey time reliability and transfer penalties), for example even though the SmartBus has bus lanes from Doncaster all the way to Manningham Road Bridge, there are no express buses, which makes every journey slower (because the timetable has to be written as if the bus stops very often). Then to actually get to La Trobe University a passenger needs to wait at Heidelberg with minimal protection from the weather for up to 30 minutes for their connecting service on Route 551.

4.8. Based on the evidence presented in the EES TTIA, it would certainly appear that lack of network connectivity is a barrier. For example, Figure 6 below shows that there is a strong demand for North- South connectivity between the La Trobe NEIC and middle-inner Eastern Melbourne areas. The data shows travel demands extend along the Burke Road corridor further south than Caulfield.

8 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 6 – Customer Desire for North-South Connectivity – Extract from EES

4.9. However, there is no single public transport route that connects journeys along Rosanna Road to Burke Road. Further, there isn’t a single bus route that connects through from north of Heidelberg to the south or connects the short distance from Heidelberg to the Yarra River at Burke Road as shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7 – Existing Public Transport Map

9 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

4.10. To travel directly from Rosanna Road, Rosanna to Burke Road south of the Yarra River requires a passenger to transfer between three bus routes (Routes 513, 546 & 548).

4.11. The public transport network design in Melbourne’s north east region is much worse than other parts of metropolitan Melbourne. It significantly increases travel time for passengers and reduces the service quality on offer.

4.12. The public transport network in the NEL corridor has not evolved to provide any real alternative to car travel for inter-regional trips across the Yarra River. For example when either of the Bell-Banksia Link or the Greensborough Highway duplication projects were completed, there was not even one additional bus route provided to make use of the new corridors, nor were routes straightened to take advantage of the new corridors (Melway, 1980 & Department of Transport, 2019a).

4.13. Data within the EES and supporting documents show that the lack of a quality public transport network directly causes higher reliance on private vehicles for these trips, and causes congestion in the corridor. The NEL Project documents highlight this issue, but immediately move on to other matters, without recognising the important insight they have made. For example, the very next topic in the document relates to growth in traffic volumes from 1995-2011. It would be more insightful to track that growth against population growth and other factors such as the growth (or decline) in the public transport service levels per capita, then perform a regression analysis to determine which factors are most significant in explaining the traffic growth.

4.14. The IAC has needed to provide special bus services to get people to the Veneto Club hearing venue. Sadly the buses won’t still be running when the next event is on at the Veneto Club, so more people will be forced to drive, some will not be able to attend, and some will be coerced into be the designated drivers.

4.15. The Veneto Club has existed in Bulleen Road since 1973, and 3,000 people attended its opening. Over 45 years later, there are no public transport services operating past the venue, despite it being located on a key arterial road in the region. The whole transport problem in the north east region stems from a similar lack of public transport network and services.

4.16. Put simply, in any other region of Melbourne, a better public transport network is provided, and some people use it, thereby reducing traffic congestion on the road networks.

4.17. It cannot be said that the people in the north east are different. It cannot be said that they had a great public transport system once and did not use it. The fact is the north east region has never had a public transport network of the kind that almost every other region in Melbourne enjoys particularly when it comes to crossing the Yarra River (MMTB, 1967).

4.18. The EES (and the project as a whole) needs to address this issue urgently, because the metropolitan wide data reported in the EES TTIA shows that reliance on private vehicles would reduce if a quality public transport network was provided.

4.19. The EES TTIA recognises that long journey times are contributing to the current problem. Figure 6- 18 and Figure 6-20 of the report both make the point in regard to public transport journey times in the area and to/from La Trobe University as shown in Figure 8 below.

10 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 8 – Public transport journey times are too long – Extract from EES

4.20. This has a significant impact on people trying to access education, employment and services. Many of these people do not even want to own or use a car, but they are forced to own one, because the public transport network is so poorly designed for their needs.

4.21. La Trobe University alone has 3,000 staff and students who live in the NEL Study Area south of the Yarra River as shown in Figure 9 below. For many of these staff and students, catching public transport to La Trobe University takes up to four times longer than driving a car.

11 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

Figure 9 – Approximate location of La Trobe University staff and students

4.22. Even more students live to the east of Greensborough Highway where public transport access to campus is equally onerous. The vast majority of all these people (east of Greensborough Highway and south of the Yarra River) are driving to campus because the public transport option would take four times longer than driving.

4.23. The only reason the public transport network in the region comes with such a travel time disadvantage, is that the network and service levels in the region have changed in only minor ways while Melbourne has grown from a city of 2.5 million people to more than 5 million (ABS, 2019).

4.24. In essence, this is the problem that NEL is trying to solve. The north east region has lacked public transport connections to Melbourne’s east and has a very insular design to transport routes – that focusses on movement to the north of the Yarra River.

4.25. This is illustrated by a map of all public transport routes providing a direct connection to La Trobe University shown in Figure 10 below.

12 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 10 – All public transport providing direct connection to La Trobe University

4.26. This highlights that only one route serves an area south of the Yarra River and it does not connect to the train line. To explore this issue further, it is worth considering a comparison with a 5km stretch of the Yarra River from the Eastern Freeway in Clifton Hill to Burnley. This section of the river has:

4.26.1. six road bridges (not including Macphersons Bridge); and

4.26.2. two railway bridges catering for 4 train lines; and

4.26.3. four tram routes; and

4.26.4. 12 long distance bus routes.

13 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

4.27. This should be compared with the next 12 km of the Yarra River from Clifton Hill to Fitzsimons Lane in Eltham. Despite being almost 2.5 times longer than the previous section it has:

4.27.1. four road bridges (not including the Eastern Freeway); and

4.27.2. zero railway bridges; and

4.27.3. zero tram routes; and

4.27.4. 3 long distance bus routes; and

4.27.5. 2 short distance bus routes (one of which has only 5 services per day).

4.28. This comparison is shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11 – Public Transport Routes that cross the Yarra River

4.29. This shows that only one public transport route from La Trobe University provides access across the Yarra River. It also shows very large gaps in coverage several kilometres wide that result in over 90% of the area not being served by any connection between Melbourne’s east and north east.

4.30. Very clearly, the observed transport problem in Melbourne’s north east, is caused by a transport network problem that relates to lack of river crossings. Specifically the lack of public transport river crossings. This is very different to the public transport provision for the Monash NEIC which has an octopus like shape that connects with six train lines, often at multiple stations on each as shown in Figure 12 below.

14 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 12 – Comparison of Routes that directly serve La Trobe University or Monash University

4.31. The lack of public transport services is typified by examples such as Route 548 that connects Mont Park and La Trobe University to Deepdene. It is the only bus route crossing the Yarra River on Burke Road and terminates just 3km south of the river. Thereby not delivering passengers to key regional destinations including Camberwell or the heart of the Kew schools area. In the north it does not connect to Greensborough, despite being a key route on the Burke Road-Greensborough Highway corridor. A map of most of Route 548 is shown in Figure 13 below, it can also be found on the Banyule Local Area Map:

15 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

Figure 13 – Map of Route 548

4.32. These public transport network deficiencies contribute to an increase in the number of parents driving their children to school, and a greater number of students at Swinburne, Deakin and La Trobe Universities are ‘forced’ to cross the Yarra in cars rather than on public transport.

4.33. Route 548 was also addressed in the 2010 Bus Network Review (Department of Transport, 2010). This review recommended that the route be extended through the Kew Schools area to Victoria Gardens in Burnley and realigned to be more direct though Heidelberg as shown on in Figure 14 below.

16 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 14 – Recommended Routes 609 & 548

4.34. This recommendation would have created two much more viable public transport routes and reduced traffic congestion on Burke Road and Chandler Highway crossings of the Yarra River.

4.35. In addition to the core problem of access across the Yarra River, there is a secondary compounding problem of travel across the Greensborough Highway corridor. Traffic across the corridor requires time in each traffic signal cycle such that a reasonable travel time is provided for all vehicles whether they are travelling north-south or east-west (or a combination).

17 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

4.36. Complicating east-west travel is the fact that the public transport network does not adequately serve La Trobe University or Charles La Trobe College from locations that are on the eastern side of Greensborough Highway. This prompts many parents to drive children to school, and many tertiary students and staff to drive when they would prefer to catch public transport.

4.37. For example a typical 6.8km journey from Yallambie to La Trobe University would take 43 minutes by bus compared to a car journey of 10-18 minutes – without taking into account any walking time to/from bus stops or transfer penalties for the change between services. (PTV Timetable API & GoogleMaps). This is illustrated in Figure 15 below.

Figure 15 – Comparative Travel Times – Indirect Bus Network from Yallambie

4.38. A similar network problem can be observed for a 6.8km journey from Greensborough to La Trobe University which takes at least 35 minutes by bus compared with 10-22 minutes in a car. This is shown in Figure 16 below.

Figure 16 – Comparative Travel Times – Indirect Bus Network from Greensborough

4.39. The main reason for this long journey time by public transport, is a lack of direct services to the places that people want to travel to. This is illustrated and discussed extensively in the 2008 Bus Network Service Reviews for Banyule/Nillumbik.

4.40. In Banyule and Nillumbik, the major bus routes were found to be (unconventionally) highly indirect, travelling on average, 55% longer than the direct road alignment between destinations (Department of Transport & Booz Allen Hamilton, 2008). This issue with the bus network in the region has not been resolved in the last decade since it was identified, and solutions were recommended.

18 Final Report 15 July 2019

4.41. The travel time differences (between car and public transport) for such short trips are exacerbated by the need to transfer between services and take circuitous travel paths. It is not possible to outline every combination or permutation and the impact they have on car use, but on average it can be said that the EES is correct in stating that the public transport network in Melbourne’s north east is lacking and as a result public transport mode share is 5% lower than the rest of Melbourne.

4.42. The symptoms of this problem in Melbourne’s north east include:

4.42.1. high levels of car ownership (including forced ownership); and

4.42.2. high levels of reliance on private cars compared to similar areas of Melbourne; and

4.42.3. traffic congestion

4.43. This is a critical point to be considered when considering the IAC’s role analysing the environmental sustainability of the project in accordance with paragraph 31(b) of the TOR.

4.44. Without addressing the underlying core problem of the public transport network, the environmental sustainability of the NEL Project and the EES outcomes cannot be assured, as the underlying problem that is causing the symptoms will continue to exist.

4.45. The NEL Project and EES documents provide analysis of treatments that address the symptoms but lack meaningful solutions that directly address the core problem facing transport in Melbourne’s north east. Specifically that of a public transport network that is vastly under-developed compared to other parts of Melbourne.

4.46. The NEL Project and EES documentation should outline how the overall project will create value from the predicted reduced traffic volumes on arterial roads to improve public transport networks and travel times. The NEL documentation does not contain adequate detail of these actions, or how the improved customer outcomes (for all road users) would be achieved.

5. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

5.1. The NEL Project will have a major impact on the communities that surround it, and the associated transport system during construction.

5.2. The impact of construction on public transport passengers across the region has the potential to be severe and is listed in the TTIA as a ‘high risk’ as shown in Figure 17 below.

Figure 17 – The EES recognises that construction poses a high risk to public transport – Extract from EES

5.3. A clear understanding of what these impacts are – and how they will be mitigated – is vital.

5.4. The EES Documentation barely addresses the impacts of construction activities on public transport. It focusses only on Watsonia Station car park, and the Doncaster Park and Ride. This is completely inadequate with regard to assisting the community understand the project impacts and does not assist the IAC to consider the environmental impacts of the project in a robust way.

19 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

5.5. This view of the paucity of the public transport analysis in the EES and supporting documents is shared by NELA’s own peer review of the TTIA – which uses implicitly critical language to describe the analysis completed to date as shown in Figure 18 below.

Figure 18 – Failure to assess construction impacts on public transport – Extract from EES

5.6. The first impact of the project on public transport service levels (specifically travel times and reliability) has already been foreshadowed – with a 600m long bus lane due to be removed from Fitzsimons Lane well in advance of construction starting.

5.7. This bus lane is critical to reliability of services on two key bus routes in Melbourne. Routes 901 and 902 are the longest of the flagship SmartBus Routes, and the impact of traffic congestion on Fitzsimons Lane ricochets along the entire length of both routes from Airport West and Melbourne Airport to Chelsea and Frankston. The length of these two routes is highlighted in Figure 19 below.

5.8. Removal of the bus lane is expected to add 6 minutes to peak period bus journeys through the area. This will reduce patronage on both those routes and increase traffic congestion as the people currently on the bus choose to drive instead. It is estimated that just this one bus lane removal will cost the government around $200,000 in additional bus and driver costs per annum (based on a two hour peak period and no penalty rates for drivers).

5.9. In addition the removal of the bus lane is likely to make that stretch of Fitzsimons Lane less safe for all road users, based on several studies by Monash University which found that bus lanes across Melbourne had made arterial roads safer due to the greater separation of fast moving traffic from the kerb, vulnerable road users and wayside infrastructure. (Goh & Currie et al, 2014)

20 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 19 – Routes 901 & 902 affected by Fitzsimons Lane

5.10. The construction impacts on public transport including the operational cost to government have not been adequately addressed in the EES and supporting documentation. For example within the discussion about rebuilding Doncaster Road bridge over the Eastern Freeway the TTIA states that the 400 metre additional distance that buses would need to travel is “not significant”. This is not the case.

5.11. There are 3,302 in-service bus trips to and from the Doncaster Park & Ride each week and even more out-of-service trips. The NEL construction impacts cause 68,000 additional kilometres to be added to the in-service bus network (to achieve a negative passenger outcome). This distance travelled (by itself) adds almost $100,000 to the cost of operating the bus network each year. This alone is 2% of the State budget for bus improvements over the forward estimates (Victorian Government, 2019).

5.12. Operating the buses for the additional 3 minutes that the TTIA estimates will be added to the 3,302 services per week is an additional burden to government. This estimate totals around $500,000 per annum or equivalent to 10% of the State budget for bus improvements over the forward estimates (Victorian Government, 2019).

21 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

5.13. The additional 3 minutes of travel time caused by the construction impact also has a negative impact on the community estimated to be around $1.5M in passenger time costs per annum.

5.14. Lastly, the additional three minutes of bus travel time (for no benefit) would cause some passengers to switch to driving, further increasing traffic congestion on the regional road network. A rough estimate of this number would be 500 passengers per day switching to driving (if all else remained equal).

5.15. Overall the inadequate analysis of construction impacts on public transport, when those impacts would soak up more than 10% of the State budget for public transport improvements is a significant oversight that needs to be addressed.

5.16. The IAC should require the EES to include adequate analysis of public transport impacts prior to it being endorsed.

5.17. The lack of adequate detail of the impact of construction upon public transport operations is further evidence that public transport has not been considered in an adequate way within the NEL Project or EES and supporting documents.

5.18. With regard to walking and cycling, there is no holistic description of the impact of construction, with discussions instead limited to discussion of specific closures. NELA’s own peer review of the EES TTIA again highlights these shortcomings as highlighted in Figure 20 below.

Figure 20 – Failure to assess construction impacts on walking and cycling in a holistic manner – Extract from EES

5.19. This failure to detail the construction impacts of a long term transport project is a significant risk to government in terms of financial impacts on operational services, environmental impacts and traffic congestion impacts during construction.

5.20. The IAC should require the EES to improve analysis of active transport impacts from construction prior to it being endorsed.

6. MITIGATING CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS WITH KINGSBURY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS

6.1. One potential way to mitigate the impacts of construction activities on public transport and traffic congestion is to offset the impacts through other improvements nearby that maintain free flow conditions for private vehicles and or public transport. Kingsbury Drive provides one such option worth considering.

6.2. Kingsbury Drive is currently a two lane road (single lane in each direction) connecting Waiora Road in Macleod with Plenty Road in Bundoora. This road has several bus routes crossing it and could be the future more efficient home of the main bus interchange at La Trobe University.

6.3. Kingsbury Drive is used by some as an effective alternative to connect from Thomastown (on the Northern Metropolitan Ring Road) to Heidelberg and Bulleen (across the Yarra River) when there is traffic congestion along Greensborough Highway.

6.4. Within Plan Melbourne, Policy 4.1.3 refers to strengthening the city’s boulevards (such as Plenty Road and Kingsbury Drive). Within the La Trobe NEIC, Kingsbury Drive has long been considered

22 Final Report 15 July 2019

a key corridor for movement to and from La Trobe University that also provides for some limited through movement functions.

6.5. La Trobe University’s 2014 Campus Master Plan highlights the importance of managing Kingsbury Drive to reduce the barrier it creates on campus.

6.6. Given the construction activities that will impact on traffic in Greensborough Highway and congestion that will result, Kingsbury Drive would be a useful alternative for many drivers, and diversion of some traffic through that route during construction would ease the traffic congestion that would otherwise occur in the corridor.

6.7. To make this alternative route viable and effective at reducing traffic congestion in Greensborough Highway, Kingsbury Drive will need to be duplicated to a four lane road (two lanes each direction) prior to the main NEL construction interruptions commencing.

6.8. Kingsbury Drive would then have double the capacity, catering for 1,900 vehicles in each direction per hour (Delbosc & Young, 2018). This would provide significant traffic congestion relief to the Greensborough Highway corridor during construction of the NEL Project.

6.9. Early works of the NEL Project should therefore include duplication of Kingsbury Drive from Ring Road to Waiora Road with a total of four lanes (two lanes in each direction divided by a median).

6.10. The design of Kingsbury Drive should also include the Strategic Cycling Corridor identified by State government as being required for the area. This will further assist to mitigate the impacts of NEL construction on traffic congestion. A potential concept for the road cross section is shown in Figure 21 below:

Figure 21 – Potential Cross Section for Kingsbury Drive

6.11. The EES modelling shows that traffic on Kingsbury Drive increases slightly to around 14,000-19,000 vehicles in each direction per day. This means that the road cross section may need to include four general traffic lanes once NEL is opened.

6.12. A better outcome for the region and the NEL Project would be for the capacity of the two additional lanes on Kingsbury Drive to be converted to high-occupancy vehicle lanes (bus lanes) once the NEL is open. This will increase the effectiveness and reliability of public transport in the region and ensure that Kingsbury Drive does not compete with NEL for longer distance through movements.

6.13. The final road cross section for Kingsbury Drive should have the two additional lanes converted to bus lanes as suggested by the EES and supporting documents. This will facilitate efficient and reliable movement for all modes (including bicycle riders, buses and cars) through the La Trobe NEIC.

23 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

6.14. Management of Kingsbury Drive is currently not orientated to achieving the best outcomes for the La Trobe NEIC. The road physically divides the La Trobe University Campus and has a significant negative impact on the La Trobe NEIC community, including known safety impacts.

6.15. Development of the La Trobe Sports Park puts these plans into action with specific design elements aimed at reducing the negative impacts of Kingsbury Drive and minimising the barrier it creates.

6.16. The NEL Project team should work with LTU to agree a design, funding mechanism and future ownership for Kingsbury Drive as a boulevard that contributes positively to the NEL Project (by mitigating construction impacts) and the long term amenity of the La Trobe University campus.

6.17. Despite the strategic importance to the NEIC and relevance to the problem being addressed by the NEL project, the EES and supporting documents do not adequately address plans to introduce a Boulevard treatment to Kingsbury Drive (including in the modelling assumptions). The EES should address the impact of reducing the speed limit, providing bus lanes and improving pedestrian amenity and bicycle rider safety on Kingsbury Drive.

6.18. The IAC should require the NEL EES to make best use of the Kingsbury Drive corridor as a relief route during the NEL construction phase and support this with construction of a boulevard treatment along the corridor in advance of NEL construction commencing.

7. MITIGATING CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS WITH BUS SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS – SHORT TERM

7.1. It is stark that no material action has been proposed by NEL Project that would help to alleviate the traffic congestion within the next decade prior to the opening of NEL.

7.2. The lack of good regional and inter-regional public transport services contributes to traffic congestion in the corridor and the La Trobe NEIC. This is explicitly recognised within the EES TTIA as shown in Figure 22 below.

Figure 22 – Public transport usage in the North-east – Quote from EES

7.3. Indeed the use of public transport in Melbourne’s North-East is low compared to the rest of Melbourne. This is not because there is some radical difference in the population of Melbourne’s north east. It is a direct result of the public transport network not meeting the transport needs of the community in the north east as well as it does in other parts of Melbourne.

7.4. For example, in other parts of Melbourne there are direct bus services that cross barriers like the Monash Freeway and link all the way to major destinations on either side.

7.5. A comparison can be made to a bus route serving Monash University from Syndal Station. Route 703 in Mount Waverley does more than just link Syndal Station to Monash University. It links Blackburn Station (on the Belgrave/Lilydale Lines) to Syndal Station (on the Glen Waverley Line) to Monash University to Clayton Station (Cranbourne, Dandenong & Pakenham Lines) to Bentleigh Station (Frankston Line) to Brighton (Sandringham Line).

24 Final Report 15 July 2019

7.6. Bus Route 703 also includes additional express services to get students between Blackburn Station and Monash University quickly in the peak.

7.7. The equivalent routes in La Trobe NEIC are

7.7.1. Route 561 which connects Pascoe Vale Station (Craigieburn Line) to Coburg Station (Upfield Line) to Reservoir (Mernda Line) to Macleod (Hurstbridge Line); and

7.7.2. Route 551 which only connects La Trobe University to Heidelberg Station (Hurstbridge Line), and then breaks the mould by not connecting to Melbourne’s east.

7.8. Route 551 should at least connect through to Box Hill Station (Belgrave/Lilydale Line) and include express services. To mirror the other examples the route should actually connect to Monash University and Clayton Station (Cranbourne, Dandenong & Pakenham Lines) via Deakin University and Mount Waverley Station (Glen Waverley Line).

7.9. It should be noted by the IAC that university students, employees and visitors have a much higher propensity to use public transport due in part to their income and the relative cost of parking. Coupled with an excellent public transport network this explains the very high proportion of people catching public transport to work or study at Monash University.

7.10. By contrast Figure 8 above shows that La Trobe University has a higher proportion of people driving. In simple terms this difference is due entirely to the public transport network and service levels not meeting the needs of the La Trobe NEIC community.

7.11. La Trobe University has also surveyed potential students who decline an offer to study at LTU. The top three reasons for declining offers all related to transport and access, specifically public transport travel time. This highlights how the regional public transport network is putting growth in the La Trobe NEIC at risk.

7.12. Urgent improvements to the bus network and service levels are required. These are essential to ensuring that the region can cope through the construction phases of the project.

7.13. These north east links are not difficult to define and are not expensive to provide. They have been defined and costing has been discussed with government. Three examples that could be implemented rapidly are express routes from La Trobe NEIC to:

7.13.1. Box Hill via Heidelberg, Bulleen and Doncaster; and

7.13.2. Monash University Caulfield Campus via Heidelberg, Camberwell and Glen Iris; and

7.13.3. Swinburne University Glenferrie Campus via Ivanhoe and Alphington.

7.14. These routes would significantly improve public transport connections across the Chandler Highway, Burke Road and Manningham Street bridges and provide long distance connections that will reduce traffic congestion in the NEL corridor and Study Area.

7.15. The IAC should consider how these north east link additions to the public transport network can assist the NEL Project to mitigate the construction impacts that will arise from the project. Timing of introduction of the services should also be considered given that it takes 18-24 months for the public to become familiar with new public transport services, and for patronage demand to reach a plateau.

25 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

8. ROAD REPLACEMENT BUS SERVICES

8.1. When various agencies (such as the Level Crossing Removal Project or Yarra Trams) need to interrupt a transport network for upgrades or improvements they provide an alternative service to cater for some of the travel demand. Typically these are in the form of “Rail Replacement Buses”.

8.2. The NEL will have a significant impact on travel through the region during construction.

8.3. The NEL EES and supporting documents should specify the Road Replacement Bus Services that will be provided to supplement the transport capacity of the corridor during NEL construction.

8.4. Given the construction timeframe involved, many benefits of the NEL could be eroded by almost a decade of stagnation while businesses and others avoid travelling to or through the region.

8.5. Critical to avoiding this stagnation is the implementation of a robust network of specific bus routes that provide for travel needs within the corridor.

8.6. Car drivers in the NEL corridor should be provided with an adequately planned network of Road Replacement Bus Services that meet their travel needs throughout the construction period. Car drivers should have the same access to high quality replacement services just like train or tram passengers receive when construction is affecting the level of service they normally receive.

8.7. Like the LXRP and Yarra Trams, NELA and the EES documentation should provide a detailed assessment of what Road Replacement Bus Services will best meet the needs of car drivers during the construction period. These Road Replacement Bus Services should operate express where possible and link to key destinations that the car drivers are currently going to.

8.8. Obviously not every car driver will use the Road Replacement Bus Service (just as 30% of rail commuters switch to driving when their train service is interrupted).

8.9. Every driver that does use the Road Replacement Bus Service will result in one less car getting in the way of everybody else (particularly the freight vehicles) during the construction impact period.

8.10. The IAC should make clear recommendations about the way Road Replacement Bus Services can assist to mitigate the construction impacts on traffic congestion and improve the environmental sustainability of the NEL Project.

9. LONG TERM BUS NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS CAN MAKE NEL ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE

9.1. Growth in the La Trobe area will be significant as shown in Figure 7 below, which highlights how the lack of material improvements to public transport connectivity in the area is at odds with the scale of growth north and south along the Burke Road-Greensborough Highway corridor

26 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 23 – Failure to improve public transport connectivity in the north-east is at odds with expected growth in the NEIC – Extract from EES

9.2. The EES TTIA notes on page 191 that “The growth in public transport usage is also lower in the north-east (85 per cent) when compared with metropolitan Melbourne (112 per cent)”.

9.3. This is the critical problem that the NEL is trying to address. The lower growth in public transport patronage implies higher growth in car use, and more congestion. The EES and supporting documents seem to invite the reader to ponder: if only there was something that could be done to improve public transport performance.

9.4. There are some things that can be done, and the NEL Project includes a significant one in the Eastern Freeway Busway. It is incongruous that the Busway features significantly, but the same solution is not applied to solve the same problem when it comes to travel demand from north to south across the Yarra River.

9.5. At this point it is worth noting that the Eastern Freeway opened fewer than 50 years ago without a bus lane and by 1980 only five bus routes were using it (Melway, 1980). Now there are 13 bus routes using the Eastern Freeway bus lanes (Department of Transport, 2019a).

9.6. Once the NEL is open, the community has an explicit expectation that the transport corridor will be used for all kinds of transport. This is highlighted in the community consultation feedback in the EES, shown in Figure 24 below.

27 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

Figure 24 – Community Desire for Public Transport Improvements in the project corridor – Extract from EES

9.7. To assess the environmental sustainability of the project the EES and supporting documents need to consider a long term bus network and how it would serve the NEL corridor, more specifically how it would use the new infrastructure being planned (including the busway and tunnels).

9.8. This is mainly because without a clear service plan, the infrastructure design risks increase significantly, with the chance that specific vehicle movements (existing or future desired movements) become difficult or impossible to achieve or retrofit.

9.9. The Eastern Freeway has proven how a single lane of that road can provide a backbone of public transport services that now carry 15,000 people into the CBD each weekday and over 11,000 over a weekend. (City of Manningham, 2016 & PTV, 2015).

9.10. The EES TTIA states that “Doncaster Busway would improve travel times for Doncaster Area Rapid Transit (DART) users by up to 30 per cent along the Eastern Freeway”. Applying a typical elasticity of -0.3 to this statement a typical transport modeller would estimate that will generate up to an additional 1,500 bus passengers each weekday, removing up to 1,300 vehicles from the traffic congestion at the Hoddle Street end of the freeway.

9.11. Given that the current bus lane on the Eastern Freeway caters for 60 buses an hour in the peak, and buses departing from Doncaster Park & Ride in the morning peak toward the CBD have an average of 50 passengers, the morning peak bus lane could be catering for 3,000 passengers in the peak hour.

9.12. If the Doncaster bus services did not exist, these 3,000 people would quickly stop using the bus and start driving. Traffic congestion on the Eastern Freeway would get much worse and additional lanes of general traffic flow would be required to maintain the existing conditions.

9.13. It can be predicted that in 50 years’ time, the same will be said for the freeway connection between Bundoora and Bulleen. A lane on the freeway will be required for buses, because without such a bus lane the entire freeway might need to be duplicated.

9.14. The NEL Project needs to be planned with this future in mind, such that the infrastructure is not difficult to retrofit with higher capacity modes that will be needed in the long term future. This is the only way to ensure Melbourne’s long term planning legacy continues to underpin our economic prosperity.

9.15. This need for adequate design consideration also has very direct impacts on the current process and Project designs. For example:

9.15.1. Bus Route 350 must be able to access the busway from Chandler Highway. Express running of Route 350 is a key aspect of this connection between La Trobe NEIC and Melbourne CBD. Of the visitors coming to La Trobe University by public transport, 30% of them use Route 350 (La Trobe University, 2018).

28 Final Report 15 July 2019

9.15.2. Existing Doncaster Area bus routes need to be able to access the busway at Thompsons Road.

9.15.3. An express bus route from La Trobe NEIC via Heidelberg will also be beneficial and should be able to access the busway from NEL lanes at Thompsons Road, having accesses the NEL to proceed further north.

9.15.4. The existing bus Routes 303, 318, 684 and 906 must be able to enter and exit the busway from the freeway south of Doncaster Road, without having to exit the freeway.

9.16. This continuous flow is essential to the travel time on the routes and is critical to maintaining the high market share they attract. Every minute that these buses are delayed trying to access the busway will result in additional passengers switching to driving and increasing traffic congestion on the road network.

9.17. It seems that the connections to Chandler Highway and Thompsons Road have been assured in the reference design, but it is important that the IAC reaffirm the importance of these connections being direct and fast. The design of the busway will affect every road user in the corridor, because if the busway is not efficient and fast then passengers will switch back to driving and traffic congestion will increase.

9.18. The direct connections from the proposed busway onto North East Link and the Eastern Freeway south of Doncaster Road do not seem to have been included in the reference design. Thousands of people rely on these services every week, and the speed of the service is a critical element that has attracted them away from driving. Not including a direct connection from the busway to the Eastern Freeway is a critical project risk. The IAC should direct the Project proponent to include a direct connection from the busway onto the Eastern Freeway south of Doncaster Road.

9.19. A link from the busway to the North East Link is not required today, but could easily be required in future. The IAC should direct the Project proponent to ensure the road and interchange design does not preclude a future direct connection between the busway and the North East Link southern portal.

9.20. It is noted that the EES and supporting documents mention bus priority lanes as if they will be provided on some regional roads, but there seems to be no commitment or design of these important infrastructure items.

10. CYCLING & PEDESTRIAN TRAIL NETWORKS

10.1. The EES and supporting documents offers some improvements to trail networks, as discussed in section 9.7 of the TTIA as shown in Figure 25 below.

29 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

Figure 25 – Shared Paths & Trails proposed by NEL – Extract from EES

10.2. Improved trail networks (for bicycle riders and pedestrians) are important to supporting the La Trobe NEIC to reach its full potential.

10.3. It is unclear why the NEL Project (which is trying to fix transport problems in Melbourne’s north east) needs to focus such a significant amount of resources on improving the path that already exists between Burke Road and Hoddle Street. If it is just because the existing path is being swallowed up by the expanded freeway then this is hardly an improvement.

10.4. Traffic congestion in the north east region would be more impacted by new shared trails that are constructed within the north east region. Specifically, trail connections to La Trobe University will be well utilised if a network can be provided. This is because a very high proportion of staff and students live within a distance that is suitable for bicycle riding and the desire for a safe and reliable alternative to car use is very high amongst the student cohort.

10.5. The statements about completing the Banyule Shared Trail and the introduction of a new north-south path along the NEL are welcomed. However, the EES and supporting documents do not articulate when these will be built, and the project timing does not seem to take advantage of the potential mode shift to active transport that could reduce congestion during the NEL construction period.

10.6. The NEL documentation should detail the specific shared trail improvements that will be installed prior to commencement of the project and those that will remain following completion of the project. This should include commuter bicycle rider paths, recreational shared trails and specific links to improve access to local schools and regional attractors such as links that connect:

10.6.1. the Main Yarra Trail to La Trobe University;

10.6.2. Yallambie to Macleod Station and La Trobe University across the construction corridor;

30 Final Report 15 July 2019

10.6.3. Bulleen via Heidelberg to La Trobe University;

10.6.4. Templestowe via Heidelberg to La Trobe University; and

10.6.5. Greensborough via Watsonia to La Trobe University.

10.7. These paths should be installed early in the works process, to help mitigate the construction impacts of the NEL Project. The IAC should specifically require these paths to be included in the pre- construction activities as a way of mitigating the impact of construction on traffic congestion.

11. ADEQUACY OF THE EES

11.1. In seeking to solve any transport problem, it is insufficient (and is in no-way considered to be best practice) to only consider one mode as the ‘silver bullet’ answer.

11.2. The NEL Project and supporting documents are highly focussed on a single mode investment in the Greensborough Highway corridor.

11.3. There is very limited information in the EES and supporting documents related to the bus network and its current function or performance with regard to meeting the communities’ needs or providing environmentally sustainable transport options for the region. The main reference to the existing public transport services is a relatively unintelligible map shown in Figure 26 below.

Figure 26 – Map of Public Transport – Extract from EES

11.4. What the map above does show clearly is how the tram and train lines spread over all of Melbourne with gaping holes between Bulleen and Viewbank, & Doncaster and Yallambie. Unlike other areas of Melbourne (such as Doncaster) the gaps in tram network are not filled by bus routes. Again this illustrates the key problem in the area related to the existing conditions of the public transport network.

31 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

11.5. The lack of discussion is despite maps and data within the EES documents showing that the current bus network and service levels are not meeting community needs and are leading to a higher rate of car dependant trips.

11.6. Table 6-15 in the EES TTIA as shown below highlights the patronage on a random set of bus routes. It does not highlight the service levels on those routes, so provides no insight as to their levels of productivity (boardings per service kilometre). This is inadequate for the IAC’s needs with regards to the TOR. Given that the data readily exists, the Project proponent to provide full details regarding all routes and their service levels and productivity prior to the EES being endorsed.

11.7. Alarmingly there are a number of routes that have been left out of the table including very important routes in the region such as Routes 301, 350, 382, 510, 517, 566 & 567. These are shown on the pages that follow.

Figure 27 – Route 301

11.8. Route 301 operates between Reservoir and La Trobe University every 10 minutes on weekdays during the university term. It is a specific service that reduces congestion in the NEL corridor. It provides a test bed of people who have recently switched from driving in the NEL Study Area to catching public transport.

11.9. The absence of any discussion about Route 301 is a critical deficiency in the EES and supporting documents. It highlights that the problems causing traffic congestion have not been adequately understood, and the environmental sustainability elements of the project have not been adequately investigated. The IAC should require NELA to survey and study the passengers on Route 301 in order to understand why they are not driving to campus and whether they are reducing congestion in the NEL corridor. If properly designed this analysis will provide critical insights on how to improve other services in the area and reduce traffic congestion during the NEL construction phases.

32 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 28 – Route 350

11.10. Route 350 provides the only express public transport service from the CBD to La Trobe University. It formerly operated express in the peak direction from the Eastern Freeway to La Trobe University (express outbound in the morning and inbound from La Trobe University in the afternoon). This was discontinued as more people wanted to get on the service at intermediate stops. This is in contrast to the approach taken on Route 703 in eastern Melbourne, where a similar problem arose, and Government simply added additional services to maintain some express services.

11.11. The IAC should ensure that Route 350 is able to maintain a fast connection between the CBD and La Trobe University including recommending a trial of additional full express services on the route that would only stop at Parliament Station, Johnson Street (in Hoddle Street) and La Trobe University.

Figure 29 – Route 382

33 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

11.12. Route 382 is one of the better long distance bus routes in the north east region. It is likely that a study of passengers on this route would yield useful insights regarding how services should be planned to meet customer needs.

Figure 30 – Route 510

11.13. Route 510 is a very strong performing route. This is not surprising as it is relatively straight, easy to understand and long enough to traverse several barriers such as Darebin Creek, Merri Creek and Moonee Ponds Creek, and it links places that would otherwise be difficult to travel between by public transport.

Figure 31 – Route 517

11.14. Route 517 penetrates local areas and gets passengers to key destinations. People wanting to reach Northland Shopping Centre benefit in this case whereas people wanting to get to La Trobe University cannot make their trip easily.

34 Final Report 15 July 2019

Figure 32 – Route 566

11.15. Route 566 is one of the least direct routes in Melbourne. The map above shows only Route 566 from one end to the other. Travelling 2.5km as the crow flies on this route can take 45 minutes.

Figure 33 – Route 567

11.16. Route 567 is a short north-south route that includes westerly approaches which duplicate other routes. The 2010 Bus Service Review recommended that this route be merged with Route 609 to cross the Yarra River on Chandler Highway into Kew.

35 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

11.17. Table 6-15 of the EES TTIA also includes errors and inaccuracies such as the incorrect destinations for Route 561 (should be Pascoe Vale to Macleod) and confusion about Route 513 (every second service operates via Greensborough).

11.18. The inclusion of Route 609 in the list is a misleading inclusion, given that the Route 609 timetable has only five services per weekday – of which, zero services make a full journey from one end of the route to the other. Including such a route in the same table as others that provide ten time the level of service (such as Routes 250, 270, 508) is misleading. Even more so while leaving out other very important routes in the region.

11.19. The daily patronage for Route 609 within the TTIA highlights how a poorly designed route with almost no service can still attract passengers – because there is no other public transport option linking Fairfield to the areas south of the Yarra. This is a key insight that has not been adequately explored in the EES and supporting documents.

11.20. The 2010 Bayside/Kingston & Boroondara/Glen Eira/Stonnington Bus Service Review recommended that Route 609 be extended to Camberwell in the south and Northland with consideration given to extending the route to La Trobe University as shown in Figure 14 earlier in this report.

11.21. The outcome of any recent robust analysis of Route 609 and traffic congestion in the area would be to add services to the route and make the Route 609 destinations more meaningful (such as Swinburne University and La Trobe University). Government and the NEL Project team could then evaluate over an 18-24 month period the extent of traffic congestion reduction that can be achieved through provision of a basic (or perhaps a high quality) level of public transport service.

11.22. The IAC should make such a finding, and recommend a two year pilot improvement to the public transport services in the region. This is the only way of truly understanding the problem (an outdated public transport network) and its symptoms (traffic congestion across the Yarra River).

11.23. The EES and supporting project documents need much more detail on public transport, bicycle and pedestrian trails and local place improvements that will result from the traffic congestion relief over the longer term.

11.24. The EES fails to adequately address the issue of traffic congestion in the region:

11.24.1. already causing a significant drain on the regional economy (i.e. small scale solutions are required now); and

11.24.2. getting much worse during the NEL construction period (high efficiency solutions will be required to mitigate construction impacts); and

11.24.3. not being addressed at a regional level by further entrenching forced car ownership.

11.25. The format used in a number of the figures within the EES TTIA means that before and after analysis must be done ‘by eye’. It is not clear why a map of differences has not been included so that the reader is not left to deduce the impacts of the project for themselves.

11.26. Given that the impact (changes to the North-East) of the project is critical in deducing whether it actually meets its stated goals and objectives, this oversight seems extremely puzzling. The IAC should specifically require all data sets to clearly show the differences between scenarios on one map (not two side by side) and provide these for public comment before the EES can be endorsed.

11.27. The EES lacks sufficient detail and easy to understand information in a number of critical areas (such as the impact of construction on traffic and public transport). Many of these critical gaps are noted in the EES peer review, but have not been addressed in the final document, leaving stakeholders uninformed. To ensure the IAC and NELA are able to meet their legislative requirements the

36 Final Report 15 July 2019

information in the EES should be revised and provided back to the community for a full review once it is complete.

11.28. The EES does not detail the specific bus network and service improvements that will be applied during the construction phases of the project. This should include a ‘Road Replacement Bus Network’, similar to the ‘rail replacement bus services’ provided during level crossing removal projects.

11.29. The analysis of the NEL project impact on public transport seems to have been undertaken at a high level and glossed over in the EES and supporting documents. This is inadequate for the IAC and the community to meet the requirements of the TOR and should be rectified with additional information about the analysis undertaken, the assumptions and processes used to obtain the data.

11.30. The discussion regarding impact of NEL construction on walking and cycling is also inadequate and should focus more on providing new paths early in order to divert car drivers to other modes where- ever possible.

11.31. The EES does not provide detail of specific shared trail improvements that will be installed prior to commencement of the project and those that will remain following completion of the project.

11.32. There is a lack of strategic justification for the project in terms of the degree to which it meets the complex transport needs of the area with a single ‘silver-bullet’ approach, which is not supported by Victoria’s legislative settings related to transport and urban planning such as Section 11(2) of the TIA which states (emphasis added in bold): Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), transport and land use should be effectively integrated so as to improve accessibility and transport efficiency with a focus on— (a) maximising access to residences, employment, markets, services and recreation; (b) planning and developing the transport system more effectively; (c) reducing the need for private motor vehicle transport and the extent of travel; (d) facilitating better access to, and greater mobility within, local communities.

11.33. The NEL documentation does not provide detail on specific permanent bus network and service improvements that will be applied prior to commencement or following completion of the project in order to meet the objectives of Planning or the Transport System Objectives in Victoria. The IAC should require this to be adequately completed prior to being able to endorse the ESS or report on the environmental sustainability of the NEL Project.

11.34. The current EES document does not recognise that public transport usage could be increased at least to the rate it observes in similar parts of Melbourne if the network and service levels are improved.

11.35. There has been no attempt in the NEL EES or supporting documentation to highlight what public transport options would help to solve the problem in the short term and provide congestion relief during construction. Nor has there been any analysis of whether transit network and service improvements could delay the need for State expenditure on NEL.

11.36. This is a significant oversight that does not seem to meet the requirements set out in various State legislation including the Transport Integration Act 2010 (TI Act) and the Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines. Disproportionate effort has been put into designing detail of one modal solution, without sufficient analysis of other modes in the corridor and how they contribute to the problem or could be applied to reduce the severity of congestion.

11.37. It would be reasonable to expect the government agencies involved to test 4-6 different bus networks, with a variety of frequency and speed improvements that could be achieved with bus priority. This

37 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

number of scenarios for the bus network should have already been completed as part of the options testing phase of the project. The IAC should require six high-quality bus networks to be developed and tested using the fully modelling process to ascertain the extent to which a bus network revision would assist in providing short and medium term traffic congestion relief.

12. MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS & OUTPUTS

12.1. The TTIA highlights that the modelling has assumed a ‘business as usual’ future (page 59) and no allowance has been made for changing technologies (not even for transport network companies such as Uber).

12.2. It must be presumed that the modelling has assumed similar car ownership rates in the region in future. It is worth noting that this would not account for the fact that as the urban area densifies, the car ownership (motorisation) rate goes down.

12.3. Measured in cars owned per 100 people, the motorisation rate in areas of moderate density is significantly lower (40-50 cars per 100 people) than areas of low density (60-70 cars per 100 people).

12.4. The resident populations in Banyule, Manningham and Whitehorse are growing and becoming more dense. This will over time, lead to a significant lowering of car ownership rates which does not seem to be accounted for in the modelling.

12.5. If so, the modelling is likely to be over estimating car ownership and use in future years.

12.6. The modelling assumptions do not seem to take into account various public transport improvements that are either committed or likely to be committed before the NEL project is opened, including:

12.6.1. Suburban Rail Loop (stated as not being included in the TTIA appendices)

12.6.2. new express bus routes that have been discussed with government including NELA as a way to reduce current levels of traffic congestion

12.6.3. new bus routes on Melbourne’s northern fringe announced in the 2019 State Budget, specifically the routes below:

12.6.3.1. a new bus service linking Mernda and Craigieburn station;

12.6.3.2. a new bus service connecting Donnybrook to Craigieburn; and

12.6.3.3. an express service from Eltham to the city during Hurstbridge line works.

12.7. The modelling assumptions increase the value of travel time by 1.55% per annum for commercial vehicles and car travel (page C-24). By comparison the public transport users’ value of time has been reduced by 0.2% per annum (page C-23). It is not made clear why the NEL Project would introduce this bias into the modelling.

12.8. It should be noted that in this region bus users include a significant number of commuters to high productivity employment in Melbourne’s CBD (like train commuters in any other region of Melbourne).

12.9. Melbourne’s CBD alone accounts for over 4% of the entire Australian economy in GDP terms, and workers in the CBD in 2014 were producing $87 per hour, much higher than the metropolitan average of $53 per hour (Kelly, J & Donegan, P, 2014). The share of travel to Melbourne CBD that is made by car trips has fallen by 25% since 2001 and is now well below 40% of all trips while public transport

38 Final Report 15 July 2019

accounts for well over 50% of all trips to Melbourne CBD (City of Melbourne, 2019). Clearly the higher value, more productive employees in Melbourne CBD like catching public transport.

12.10. Given that public transport use in the north east corridor is much more oriented to CBD bound travel (rather than cross River movements) it follows that public transport users in Melbourne’s north east region would more likely be travelling to the CBD. This is where the highest productivity jobs are located, producing 64% higher value per hour of work than the metropolitan average. It would therefore be more reasonable to assume that the value of time for public transport users is much more likely to increase than the value of time for car users.

12.11. The IAC should pay careful attention to the modelling assumptions related to public transport and ensure they reflect the actual circumstances in this region (as it is different to the other areas of Melbourne).

12.12. The model outputs show the mode split between public transport and car use remaining static (TTIA page 3). This is surprising given that very few public transport improvements within the region have been included in the model. This highlights the underlying demand for public transport services that would increase if and improved network and increased service levels are provided.

12.13. However, over the same time period the modelling showed that across metropolitan Melbourne the mode share would change by 5% with the proportion of trips by car reducing to 73% and trips by public transport increasing to 14%.

12.14. This highlights that the NEL Project would further entrench car dependence in the north east Melbourne region. This mode share has significant economic consequences for the north east region – as the additional financial burden of households that are forced to own and operate more cars than they typically would like, weighs down the regional economy.

12.15. The current EES document does not recognise that public transport usage could be increased at least to the rate of use seen in similar parts of Melbourne if the network and service levels are improved.

12.16. This is a significant oversight that does not seem to comply with various State policies and strategies that support the investigation of all transport mode options when considering how to solve transport issues. These seem to have been disregarded with disproportionate effort put into designing detail of one mode option without sufficient analysis or detailed design regarding the other mode or policy options.

12.17. The IAC is encouraged to find that modelling assumptions should be revised, and that additional model runs should be conducted to estimate the impact of a much better public transport network serving the region including new express routes between key destinations and higher service frequencies. This is essential to ensure the environmental sustainability of the NEL Project can be properly considered.

13. CONCLUSION

13.1. The NEL EES and supporting documents do not seem to grasp the transport problem that is facing the north east of Melbourne. Rather the documents seek to address the symptoms of the problem without treating the underlying issues.

13.2. The public transport network in Melbourne’s north east is very poorly developed. Network planning and service levels have not kept pace with development and land use changes over the past four decades.

13.3. The NEL Project should provide a holistic transport solution to the problems including all modes, and particularly improving the public transport services to match those in other regions of Melbourne.

39 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

13.4. There are many impacts of the NEL Project construction that need to be mitigated much better than is provided for in the EES and supporting documents. From a traffic congestion perspective some clear examples of mitigation efforts include:

13.4.1. duplication of Kingsbury Drive from Ring Road to Waiora Road in Bundoora;

13.4.2. immediate provision of express bus routes in three corridors from La Trobe University to Box Hill, Monash University (Caulfield) and Swinburne University (Glenferrie). This is time critical as it will be more effective if the service is well established prior to works commencing on the project;

13.4.3. provision of active transport improvements in advance of construction in the core of the NEL corridor, to help defray the travel demand onto active modes;

13.4.4. provision of Road Replacement Bus Services to meet the needs of car drivers who will face lane shutdowns during the construction period; and

13.4.5. inclusion of direct access from NEL and Eastern Freeway south of Doncaster Road onto the proposed Busway.

13.5. A key performance metric for the project should be to improve the mode share of trips in the region being made on public transport to be the same or better than the mode share across the rest of metropolitan Melbourne.

13.6. The EES and supporting documents do not seem to provide enough information or detail about various issues to enable a robust consideration of the evidence.

14. RECOMMENDATIONS

14.1. It is recommended that the IAC require:

14.1.1. The project proponent to consider the underlying problem more holistically and take account of the role that the under-developed public transport network plays in generating higher levels of demand for car ownership and increased car use in the region.

14.1.2. Analysis related to the problem identification, transport objectives, goals, options generation and assessment to be made publicly available as part of the EES deliberations.

14.1.3. The Project proponent to analyse alternative modal options that minimise environmental impacts and report on the analysis of these options in a revised EES.

14.1.4. The Project proponent to analyse alternative strategies to solve the problem specifically through modelling of six different holistic public transport networks that significantly increase the quantum of services per capita in a way that meets the travel needs of Melbourne’s north east community.

14.1.5. The EES to state clearly what environmental benefits will be gained from the spare road space through alternative uses, or whether it will just be left to fill up with traffic again.

14.1.6. The Project proponent to update the EES to include an adequate examination of the impacts of Braess’ Paradox and Downs-Thomson Paradox on the project benefit streams. It is also critically important that when reporting to the Minister the IAC highlight the potential for Braess’ Paradox to make the whole network worse as a result of the NEL project.

40 Final Report 15 July 2019

14.1.7. Erroneous references in the EES to La Trobe NEIC being “proposed” to be fixed as it is specifically referred to in Plan Melbourne (2017).

14.1.8. The EES to include analysis that shows deeper understanding of the transport problems in north east Melbourne, such that they are explained with appropriate depth including the recognition and differentiation between symptoms and causes.

14.1.9. The EES to provide more detailed analysis of the NEL construction impacts on public transport and develop additional mitigation actions prior to the EES being endorsed.

14.1.10. The EES to provide more detailed analysis of the impacts of NEL construction on active transport corridors including development of additional mitigation actions prior to the EES being endorsed.

14.1.11. The NEL EES to make best use of the Kingsbury Drive corridor as a relief route during the NEL construction phase and support this with construction of a boulevard treatment along the corridor in advance of NEL construction commencing.

14.1.12. Road Replacement Bus Services be designed and provided from day one of lane closures occurring in the corridor to mitigate the construction impacts on traffic congestion and improve the environmental sustainability of the NEL Project’s construction phase.

14.1.13. The NEL Project to include a direct connection from the busway onto the Eastern Freeway south of Doncaster Road, by grade separating movements of buses that currently do not call in at Doncaster Park and Ride directly from the busway onto the Freeway.

14.1.14. The Project proponent to ensure the road and interchange design does not preclude a future direct connection between the busway and the North East Link southern portal.

14.1.15. Additional shared trails to be included in the pre-construction activities as a way of mitigating the impact of construction on traffic congestion.

14.1.16. The Project proponent to provide full details regarding all routes and their service levels and productivity prior to the EES being endorsed.

14.1.17. NELA to survey and study the passengers on Route 301 in order to understand why they are not driving to campus and whether they are reducing congestion in the NEL corridor. If properly designed this analysis will provide critical insights on how to improve other services in the area and reduce traffic congestion during the NEL construction phases.

14.1.18. A two year pilot improvement to the public transport services in the region including Routes 301, 513, 517, 551, 548, & 609 in order to truly understand the problem posed by the region’s outdated public transport network and its symptoms (traffic congestion across the Yarra River).

14.1.19. That NEL ensure Route 350 is able to maintain a fast connection between the CBD and La Trobe University including a trial of additional full express services on the route that would only stop at Parliament Station, Johnson Street (in Hoddle Street) and La Trobe University during the NEL construction period.

14.1.20. All data sets to clearly show the differences between scenarios on one map (not two side by side) and provide these for public comment before the EES can be endorsed.

14.1.21. The information in the EES to be revised and provided back to the community for a full review once it is complete.

41 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

14.1.22. Plans for the bus network improvements to be adequately completed prior to being able to endorse the ESS or report on the environmental sustainability of the NEL Project.

14.1.23. That modelling assumptions should be revised, and that additional model runs should be conducted to estimate the impact of a much better public transport network serving the region including new express routes between key destinations and higher service frequencies.

42 Final Report 15 July 2019

Table Of Acronyms

CBD: Central Business District DART: Doncaster Area Rapid Transit EES: Environment Effects Statement IAC: Inquiry and Advisory Committee LTU: La Trobe University LXRP: Level Crossing Removal Project – The agency responsible for removing level crossings NEIC: National Employment & Innovation Cluster NEL: North East Link P&E Act: Planning and Environment Act 1987 PTV: Public Transport Victoria TI Act: Transport Integration Act 2010 TOR: Terms of Reference TTIA: North East Link Environment Effects Statement Technical Report A – Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment VPP: Victoria Planning Provisions – the Policy and Strategic settings that guide development in Victoria

References

Afimeimounga, H. et al. 2005, The Downs-Thomson Paradox: Existence, Uniqueness and Stability of User Equilibria, Queuing Systems Volume 49 Issue 3-4, pp321-334 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2019, Historical Population time series. Booz & Company, 2018, Metropolitan Bus Service Review – Banyule and Nillumbik, published by the Victorian Government Department of Transport City of Manningham, 2016, Manningham Bus Network Review City of Melbourne, 2019, Draft Transport Strategy 2030 Delbosc, A & Young, W, 2018, Traffic Engineering & Management 7th Edition, Monash Institute of Transport Studies Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development & Cities, 2018, Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP) Guidelines Booz & Company, 2010, Metropolitan Bus Service Review: Bayside/Kingston & Boroondara/Glen Eira/Stonnington, published by the Victorian Government Department of Transport Department of Transport (Public Transport Victoria), 2015, Bus Patronage data reported in the Manningham Bus Network Review Department of Transport (Public Transport Victoria), 2019a, Public Transport Local Area Maps Department of Transport (Public Transport Victoria), 2019b, Public Transport Timetables Downs, A, 1962, The law of peak-hour expressway congestion, Traffic Quarterly 16 (1962) 393–409

43 Expert Evidence regarding North East Link Environmental Effects Statement

Goh, K, Currie, G, Sarvi M and Logan, D (2014) 'Bus Accident Analysis of Routes With/Without Bus Priority' ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION Volume 65, April 2014, Pages 18-27 Kelly, J & Donegan, P, 2014, Mapping Australia’s economy: Cities as engines of prosperity, Grattan Institute La Trobe University, 2018, How we are travelling (journey to campus survey) La Trobe University, 2014, Campus Master Plan Melbourne Metropolitan Tramways Board (MMTB), 1967, Map of Melbourne’s Bus & Tram Routes and timetable of first and last, Sunday and all-night services. Melway Publishing, 1980, Melway Edition 13, Melway Publishing Productivity Commission 2017, Funding and Investment for Better Roads, Shifting the Dial: 5 year Productivity Review, Supporting Paper No. 9, Canberra Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning, 2015, Plan Melbourne, Victorian Government Victorian Government, 2004, Public Administration Act 2004 Victorian Government, 2010, Transport Integration Act 2010 Victorian Government, 2019, State Budget 2019

Appendix A

A Wikipedia link to Braess’ Paradox provides a more substantial explanation of this phenomena proven in 1968. This Braess’ Paradox Video explains how the paradox affects road networks such as the one in the Melbourne’s north east. An illustration of Braess’ Paradox is shown in Figure 34 below.

Figure 34 – Illustration of Braess’ Paradox

In essence, before a link is constructed between A and B, the vehicles travelling from start to end split themselves evenly across the upper and lower links. They take the same amount of time to complete their journey. When a super-fast connection is built between A and B, every driver decides to use it (because it provides the fastest potential travel time), but once everyone decides to use that link all cars are stuck in traffic on the slow links around the fast link, and everyone gets a slower travel time. Braess’ Paradox has been proven many times, most famously with the removal of an entire segment of freeway in Seoul, South Korea and the closure of parts of Broadway in New York, USA. In both instances the level of traffic congestion in the whole area reduced, and travel speeds for everyone improved. In both cases there were significant environmental benefits ranging from reduced urban heat island to increased local economic activity. It is of critical importance that the IAC ensure that the EES has considered Braess’ Paradox. It is also critically important that when reporting to the Minister the IAC highlight the potential for Braess’ Paradox to make the whole network worse as a result of the NEL project.

44