Presentation to VPELA Seminar 05/03/2019 The : 50 Billion Reasons Why (or Why Not)?

Peter Tesdorpf - Rail Futures Institute

1 What is Rail Futures?

Rail Futures Institute is an independent non-partisan group.

Formed to advocate cost-effective rail and intermodal solutions for public transport and freight problems based on sound commercial, economic and social reasoning.

Rail Futures members include experienced rail professionals, engineers, urban planners and economists.

2 Successful Outcomes

• InterCity Regional Rail Plan - blueprint for Victorian regional rail to 2040. • Government announcements to date for airport rail align substantially with RFI’s AIRTRAIN proposal. • Government’s , Ballarat, Gippsland and other line upgrades align well with RFI recommendations. • Many RFI InterCity proposals reflected in Victorian Coalition regional rail policy.

3 4 5 6 7 WHY WE NEED THE RAIL PLAN

• Unprecedented population growth not seen since the 1850s Gold Rush. • Highest growth rate of Western cities. • Rapid urban densification occurring in inner and middle suburbs • Extensive outer urban growth areas lacking high quality public transport • Melbourne facing a transport crisis – roads, trains, trams near capacity • Car dependency levels becoming unsustainable • Our trams among the world’s slowest – operating well below their potential • We have a land use plan but no transport plan – as mandated by the Transport Integration Act. 8 Growth has outpaced transport network (1) Original radial train and tram network has not kept pace with Melbourne’s growth…..started falling behind from the late 1950s. The network was good for a city of 2-3 million, but not for now and the future, as these figures illustrate:

• 88% of the area and 92% of the population of Melbourne’s inner area (where there is a partial grid network) is covered by high capacity (rail) public transport.

• 41% of the area and 54% of the population of Melbourne’s middle area (which has a limited grid network) is covered by high capacity (rail) public transport.

• Just 4% of the area and 24% of the population of Melbourne’s outer area (which has no grid network) is covered by high capacity public transport...Yet this area contains 44% of Melbourne’s population.

9 Growth has outpaced transport network (2) The enlarging CBD means the tram and rail network needs reconfiguring to provide access to the new parts. The Polycentric city policy won’t be workable unless the NEICs, principal major activity centres and are linked by rail. The polycentric city concept will fail without high quality PT grid connections. Huge growth in the outer suburbs growth corridors (about 1m more people expected in Melbourne’s west alone) not matched with effective transport: • More than 40% of interface LGA residents do not live near public transport and 75% are completely car dependent. • Many spend 2 hours a day getting to and from work. Implications for family cohesion. Densification in inner and middle suburbs not matched by public transport planning. Will dramatically increase demand on the tram network which is the world’s biggest but also the slowest. Trams spend 17% of their time stopped at traffic lights.

10 FROM RADIAL TO GRID The keystone of the Melbourne Rail Plan is to transform the current radial network into a connected cross-city grid network. A well structured grid network with friendly interchanges and frequent service levels will maximise the range of places one can reach with just one transfer and be an attractive alternative to a car trip. The Melbourne Rail Plan comprises: 1. The Train Plan (heavy rail) 2. The Tram Plan 3. The Medium Capacity Transit (MCT) and Light Rail Plan supported by: 4. The Bus Network 5. Active transport (walking and cycling)

11 12 The TRAIN PLAN RFI Metro Strategy

RF URBAN RAIL STRATEGY plans for (cont)

• 5 Cross suburban tram routesFIVE NEW LINES By 2024: MetroVictoria 1 Gardens- Footscray – Elsternwick RS, - North Melbourne – West Melbourne RS - Richmond - South Yarra,

Parkville – StateFootscray Library – Moonee Ponds, – Town Hall – Anzac - Caulfield Doncaster Hill - Caulfield RS By 2027: AirTrainKew ––MoorabbinS. Cross RS – Sunshine – Melbourne Airport

By 2030:• Metro6 Smartbus routes 2 - Newport – Fishermans Bend – S. Cross - Bundoora RMIT - South Morang Flagstaff – ParkvilleRowville – Caulfield, – Fitzroy – Croxton Middle Brighton - Blackburn Frankston – Melbourne Airport, By 2035: South AltonaEast – Mordialloc FastLine - Southern Cross – Caulfield – Chadstone –

Monash – DandenongChelsea – Airport West– Pakenham – (Gippsland) By 2039: Glen Waverley – Wantirna South – Knox City

13 14 The TRAIN PLAN

EIGHT EXTENSIONS OF ELECTRIFICATION 2022 to 2030 - Southern Cross via Sunshine to BLACK FOREST ROAD - Deer Park to MELTON - Cranbourne to CLYDE - Upfield to ROXBURGH PARK - Frankston to BAXTER - Werribee to BLACK FOREST ROAD - Craigieburn to WALLAN - Sunbury to CLARKEFIELD

15 The TRAINSi PLAN

• 21 NEW stations • Untangling the • 6 Cross-CBD rail groups • 16 further level crossings removed • Duplication of 4 single line bottlenecks • Train / tram interchanges at 43 stations • Minimum 10 minute turn up and go frequencies on all main rail corridors • 206 new Metro trains by 2037

16 The TRAM PLAN Melbourne’s Tram Network “The Jewel in the CROWN” Trams carry 86 % of total train patronage ! • 13 extensions of existing tram lines • Enlarged CBD Tram Network • NEW CBD Route travel options • Three Cross-Suburban tram routes • Supplementary peak inner suburbs routes • 480 new low floor large trams by 2034 • 1000 more fully DDA compliant tram stops

17 18 What is MCT? • An intermediate step between street- based trams and heavy rail. • Typical cost around ⅓rd of heavy rail. • Can be various technologies such as: • Light Rail (LRT) • Bus (BRT) • Light Metro (e.g. Paris Metro, London Docklands) • Large guided tram-type buses • Hybrid electric/battery power • Not necessarily “one size fits all”

19 MCT in Melbourne • Ideal application for high quality mass transit for non-radial high usage corridors but not requiring the capacity of traditional heavy rail • Can play a key role in changing land use patterns • Proven attraction for land value uplift and investment along key corridors • Improves urban amenity, liveability and access. • Integrates seamlessly with other modes at natural transfer points as part of a grid network • Can be located in freeway or wide boulevard medians, also installed using elevated structures or in short underground sections • SmartBus a logical transition to change travel behaviour and prove up potential demand

20 Potential MCT Fleet Types

London Docklands Railway 21 Potential MCT Fleet Types

Sheffield, UK – Tram/train capable of 100 km/h 22 Potential MCT Fleet Types

Trackless Tram in Zhuzhou, Hunan, China 23 Potential MCT Fleet Types

G-Link – Gold Coast Light Rail, Queensland 24 Potential MCT Fleet Types

Light Rail Vehicles in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 25 Integrating Light Rail into urban form

26 Proposed MCT Corridors

The Melbourne Rail Plan Proposes 10 MCT Corridors: ONE RADIAL CORRIDOR: • MELBOURNE CBD - Park RS - Bulleen - DONCASTER HILL

THREE MAJOR ORBITAL CORRIDORS: • MELBOURNE AIRPORT - Taylors Lakes - Deer Park RS – DERRIMUT • MELBOURNE AIRPORT - Broadmeadows - Bundoora – Latrobe University – Heidelberg - Doncaster - Box Hill – Burwood - • RINGWOOD RS - Knox City - Rowville - Dandenong RS - Keysborough - MENTONE RS

27 Proposed MCT Corridors

SIX MAJOR CROSS SUBURBAN CORRIDORS: • CAULFIELD RS - Chadstone SC - Monash University - Springvale RS - KEYSBOROUGH • ELSTERNWICK RS - Ormond - Huntingdale - Monash University - ROWVILLE • SUNSHINE - Braybrook - Maidstone - Footscray RS - Kingsville - ALTONA RS • NEWPORT RS - Brooklyn - Sunshine RS - Ginifer RS - Cairnlea – BRIMBANK CENTRAL • WILLIAMS LANDING RS - Point Cook - East Werribee NEIC - Hoppers Crossing RS - TARNEIT RS. • WILLIAMS LANDING RS - Truganina - SAYERS ROAD RS.

28 29 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors The SRL announcement is bold and visionary and signals a shift in emphasis from road to rail-based solutions. RFI supports the key principles on which the SRL is premised, namely: • Moving Melbourne’s rail network from a pure radial system towards a more balanced cross-city network. • Enabling a wider range of journeys by public transport instead of by car. • Supporting the Plan Melbourne polycentric city model and distribution of jobs to the suburbs. • Linking key economic clusters, activity centres and education precincts. • Making more jobs and job choices accessible to more people. • Facilitating regional rail connections to airport and key clusters. It may also help reduce ongoing outer growth sprawl by facilitating residential densification along the route, through appropriate planning policies.

30 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors The questions that need exploring however are: • Is heavy rail the most appropriate solution compared to other technologies (MCT/Light Rail)? • What are the comparative costs and benefits? • Which options provide the greatest range of travel options? • Does the comparative speed difference between heavy and MCT/light rail matter? • Where does SRL fit in the broader transport plan? (It’s a mega project / grand idea without an overall context as required by the Transport Integration Act).

31 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors Coverage and Travel Options: Rail Futures’ proposed MCT corridors (excluding the Doncaster corridor which is radial) total 223 km in length, compared to 90 km for the SRL. It is expected that around 196 km of MCT will be on the surface or elevated, and about 27 km underground. There are 15 points (stations) at which one can board the SRL, including the two end points (Cheltenham and Werribee). Rail Futures’ proposed MCT corridors (excluding the Doncaster corridor) include over 120 stops based on current plans (8 times the SRL), enabling a much greater range of trip choices.

32 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors

The proposed 10 MCT corridors link all of Melbourne’s radial rail lines including an additional three lines compared to the SRL: • Sandringham (at Elsternwick) • Williamstown/Werribee (at Newport) • Altona (at Altona) The MCT corridors serve all existing railway stations that SRL will except: • Fawkner (but links with a proposed new station at Campbellfield) • Reservoir (but links with Keon Park) • Cheltenham (but links with Mentone) • Glen Waverley (but links with Mount Waverley)

33 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors

The proposed MCT routes collectively serve: • Over 25 significant shopping centres • 9 university and TAFE campuses • Many large activity centres • Five of the seven NEICs • 23 Railway stations • Melbourne Airport • Several health precincts

Overall, the MCT network is more comprehensive, enabling a more detailed grid pattern and journey combinations. For example, in south-east Melbourne there are two east-west corridors and two north-south corridors.

34 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors

MCT / Light Rail Advantages

Light Rail / MCT solutions can potentially deliver greater benefits than heavy rail for less cost and with speedier implementation.

Early implementation is important: Melbourne’s transport tasks needs to be met sooner rather than later.

Light Rail can handle from around 3,000 to 13,000 passengers per hour per direction. Much higher operating speeds than buses. (Melbourne bus patronage is declining, mainly due to poor service levels.)

MCT technology used on other orbital lines overseas. 9 other Australian cities, 40 in the USA, 9 in China and many others are planning and/or building MCT / Light Rail.

35 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors

MCT / Light Rail Advantages • Can climb steeper gradients and negotiate tighter curves than heavy rail, so routes are more flexible and require less land than heavy rail. • Has stations which are much smaller in scale than heavy rail, therefore MCT/Light Rail can be more readily “inserted” into the urban fabric and activates and revitalises places. • Easier to board and disembark: less walking in and out compared to large underground stations. • Good for elderly and disabled passengers, with abundant large doors and full low floor access. • Smaller train lengths but more frequent.

36 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors Speed: Heavy Rail is capable of faster speeds than MCT / Light Rail, but whether this matters depends on whether most riders will use SRL for long trips or shorter trips - this needs careful analysis.

Recent commentary by others suggests SRL should have more stations than currently planned. This might be needed to achieve viable patronage levels. But adding more stops reduces the speed advantage of heavy rail and each new station is very expensive - suggesting MCT / Light Rail may be a better solution.

Connectivity: MCT / Light Rail typically run at higher frequencies than heavy rail trains would on the SRL, providing more efficient connectivity with other PT services.

37 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors Cost: • Typically, light rail systems on the surface presently cost between $60 million and $100 million per route km, excluding rolling stock. • MCT underground sections could cost between $150 million and $250 million per route km, depending upon ground conditions and station siting. • Taking the most conservative upper figure, the proposed 196 km of MCT surface corridor (excluding Doncaster radial) could be delivered for around $20 billion. • The proposed 27 km of mainly underground route (generally from Latrobe University to Monash University via Heidelberg, Doncaster, Box Hill and Burwood) could cost up to $7 billion. • Add around $4 billion for rolling stock, including depots • Overall estimated cost for the 223 km MCT network is around $31 billion. • This compares with $50 billion for the 90 km SRL. .

38 Comparison: Suburban Rail Loop v MCT Corridors

Given Melbourne’s massive geographical spread, a single orbital corridor cannot alone provide an adequate public transport solution capable of making a significant dent in overall car dependency.

This is a key reason why Rail Futures is recommending multiple corridors using alternative and much less costly technologies to heavy rail.

This way, more routes can be built for less cost than the SRL.

39 The SRL is NOT a Substitute for It has been suggested that the SRL will obviate the need for further major investment in the radial heavy rail network, based on the notion it will avoid the need for commuters to travel into the CBD and back out again on another line to undertake cross-suburban journeys. The reality is that, except for journeys by train where transit through the CBD is both convenient and logical, cross-suburban journeys are overwhelmingly by private car, and a very small percentage by bus. On the other hand, MM2 provides critically important south-west to north cross-metropolitan connectivity, joining rapid growth areas in the western and northern suburbs with inner job-rich areas in Fishermans Bend, the CBD, Parkville and Fitzroy.

40 CONCLUDING COMMENTS

In assessing which approach is better - SRL heavy rail v Rail Futures MCT corridors - the key question is: Which has the greatest potential to contribute to the transformation of Melbourne’s transit system from a radial to a grid network, enable a much greater proportion of trips to be made by public transport instead of car, deliver increased accessibility and reduce car dependence?

Whichever option is chosen, two things are ESSENTIAL: 1. An appropriate suite of funding mechanisms such as value capture, congestion pricing, special levies etc. 2. Complementary detailed land use planning to ensure integrated land use and transport outcomes along the corridors.

41 RAIL FUTURES INSTITUTE P.O. Box 1257 Carlton 3053

Media Enquiries to 0408 005 558 www.railfutures.org.au

42