I .... _ .. HI E
I MELBOURNE DOCKLANDS STRATEGIC OPTIONS I I CONSULTANTS' REPORT No. I 8.2.2.2b I I ATransport Overview I I I I I I I I I I
I DOCK LANDS I TASK FORCE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
711.5 00107583 I 099451 DOC Melbourne docklands strategic strategic options : options cr consultants' report b I I I I
.1 1 J N~mlilr~l~iil~ilir I I M0045879
I DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT: A TRANSPORT OVERVIEW I CONTENTS I PAGE I PREFACE Infrastructure Library i I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii 1. INTRODUCTION 1
I 1.1 Docklands: A Transport Resource 1 1.2 The Area as a Development Resource 3 I 2. DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 4 2.1 Development Proposals and Implications for I Authority Activities s 2.2 Infrastructure Proposals 6 2.3 Cost 8 I 2.4 Programming 8 2.5 Advanced Transport Services 9 I 3. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY STRATEGIES 10
3.1 Improving Inter-Modal Freight Transfers 10 'I 3.2 Port/Rail Strategy 12 3.3 Port Land Use 12 ..,..,--~~ -.- ~. lic Transport Corporation Freight Strategies 16 " , 1\ . '- " / ' I .../ / ,,,. ;.l..\"o'-' I , ex i'.'O ~ / / .,",. \ .. , . /::,.... ! /./ 3 • lI<.~ Fast Freight· Train/National Freight (0 2 3 JANID9 . . Corporation 16 I \ . .4. South Dynon Freight Yard 16 Webb Dock Line 17 Fast Track/Parcels 18
I 3.5 Roads Infrastructure 18
I 4. CONCLUSION 20
II APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Olympic Games Bid 1996 - Transport Operations I Plan Appendix 2 - Options for the Spencer street Railyards. I Appendix 3 - Transportation Infrastructure staging and costing I Appendix 4 - Infrastructure Costs by stage and by Authority I Appendix 5 - Consideration of Alternative Schemes and I Options S.l.VicRoads comments on Docklands Arterial ·Road Network - Scheme A.
I S.2.Proposed Moveable Span Road/Rail Bridge
I Appendix 6 - Alternatives to the Construction of F and G Appleton Dock. I 6.1.Alternatives to the Development of New Berths at F and G Appleton Dock.
6.2.PMA response to the "Alternatives to the I Development of New Berths into F and G Appleton Dock".
I Appendix 7 - Transport Infrastructure Program I
I / I -I I I I I I ,I I I I II i I PREFACE
I The Docklands Task Force established a number of Working Groups to consider specific aspects of the strategic development of the I Docklands. This Report has been prepared by the Docklands Task Force Transport Working Group, and is the result of extensive I contributions made by the various representatives:- Geoff Spring (Chairman) Ministry of Transport Marion Van Rooden Ministry of Transport I Peter Farrell Ministry of Transport Leigh Mackay Port of Melbourne Authority Mike Houston Public Transport Corporation I Bruce Van Every Vic Roads Andrew Smale Docklands Task Force Ian Hunt Docklands Task Force I Jim Holdsworth Docklands Task Force The Working Group also acknowledges with gratitude the I assistance of the following officers:- Geoff Frankish Docklands Task Force Brian Negus Ministry of Transport I Rod Simpson Ministry of Transport Maurice James Port of Melbourne Authority John Leahy Port of Melbourne Authority I Peter Greig Vic Roads Gordon Lynas TraceY,Brunstrom & Hammond Pty Ltd '
I The Docklands infrastructure proposals described in the'Report have emerged from an iterative process involving the Docklands Task Force (DTF) , Ministry of Transport, Public Transport I Corporation, Port of Melbourne Authority and vic Roads. The process involved weekly meetings of the Working Group at which various infrastructure proposals were considered and modified, I deleted or adopted. DTF planners also met regularly with individual representatives of the Transport Authorities.
Specific proposals were developed by the DTF planners for the I purpose of meaningful discussion. The final iteration is not to be seen as a firm proposal, but as the latest thinking on a I range of possible scenarios. The Working Group has concluded that the infrastructure proposals represent a workable framework within which further detailed planning should occur. This does not imply agreement or I endorsement by either the Transport Authorities or the Ministry of Transport to individual infrastructure proposals but is an accepta~ce of the general strategy underpinning the I infrastructure proposals. I
I , I I' ii I DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT: A TRANSPORT OVERVIEW
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. As the hub of the distribution of goods and people, the Docklands I area is of great economic importance to the state and the nation ..
2. The development opportunities afforded by Docklands need to be I balanced against the transport authorities requirements for land in undertaking the transport task efficiently.
3. The transport infrastructure proposals generally represent a I workable framework within which further detailed planning should occur. Concerns remain about the following issues: I · Docklands' impact on PMA berth requirements. In particular the impact on the PMA's ability to meet the Olympics program. Over the long term, F and G Appleton Dock maybe required in order to I protect the Port's future growth prospects especially in the well serviced swanson/Appleton Dock area. The PMA is currently preparing a Land Use Plan which will address issues relating to I the Ports long term requirements. · The consistency with the Central Area Traffic strategy of the proposed Footscray Rd duplication under the platform which I . bridges the Spencer st rail yards. · Preliminary cost .estimates of the infrastructure proposals total approximately $2,200 million over 20-30 years. The I infrastructure proposals have been developed without consideration of their cost. In the next phase of planning further detailed financial and economic analysis will be I required.
· Of the $2,200 million referred to above, more that $770 million I is for works that would normally not be considered as part of the Transport Agencies Business Plans, and only $160 million is included in Agencies current 3-year Business Plans. The I remaining $1,260 million is for works that would be undertaken in the longer term by the Transport Agencies, but are outside the planning timeframe of the Agencies forward look capital programs, and in some cases, outside the Docklands planning I timeframe. As a result, the Agencies Business Plans will be significantly altered should they be required to absorb I Docklands infrastructure costs. . 4. In relation to the development of Docklands generally, further work needs to focus on the following issues:
I · PMA berth requirements · the duplication of Footscray Rd under the platform. · the alignment of the Western By-Pass extension to the I West Gate Freeway. · the appropriate means of extending the CAD and developing the Spencer st Multi-Modal Interchange. I · cost-benefit analysis of the infrastructure proposals I II iii I 5. In relation to the Olympics program, stage 1 of Docklands, an examination of program statements for Olympics infrastructure has identified that the following projects cannot be achieved within the olympics timeframe, principally because of the need for I public review processes: I · Olympic Village - victoria Dock South (5 months over-run) · Media Centre (4 months over-run) I · Tram service on Collins st. extension (3 months over-run) I I I I I I
I I / I I I I I I I I , I I I DOCKIANDS DEVELOPMENT: A TRANSPORT OVERVIEW
I 1. INTRODUCTION
Proposals to redevelop the Greater Docklands present I exciting opportunities both from an urban development and from a transport viewpoint. The extension of the Central Activities District (CAD) over the Spencer Street railyards to Victoria Harbour, proposals for waterside recreational I activities and residential areas as well as commercial and high-tech industrial developments could bring to fruition recent urban planning objectives that Melbourne embrace its I waterfront location. Melbourne's image of a city bound by rail lines to the south and west may change as I opportunities for waterside activities are taken up. From a transport perspective, the development of the Greater Docklands area facilitates the rationalisation of under utilised land and air space assets, possibly ahead of I ichedule, with potential benefits to taxpayers, users and the Victorian economy. It also provides opportunities to bring together new and innovative transport technology such I 'as the Very Fast Train (VFT) and-the Rapid Transit Link (RTL) with the Government's objective of redeveloping Spencer Street station to provide a 21st Century multi-modal I interchange. In addition it brings into focus the re structuring of the port and rail freight planning and the need to improve freight handing efficiency through I integrated intermodal freight transfers. In sum, the Greater Docklands development should result in superior transport facilities, be they for the I transportation of people or the carriage and distribution'of goods, with significant benefits for the Victorian economy. I The purpose of this paper is to develop an overview of proposals for the redevelopment of Greater Docklands from a transport viewpoint. This paper will highlight the strategic importance of the area and examine the development I proposals in the context of the Port of Melbourne Authority's (PMA) and Public Transport Corporation's (PTC) Business Plans and Vic Roads' Central Area Transport I Strategy. The paper will also comment on transport infrastructure proposals developed by the Docklands Task Force (DTF). A detailed description of the evolution of the infrastructure proposals and alternative options considered I is given in the Appendices. I 1.1 Docklands: A Transport Resource The Docklands is an area of prime economic importance to the State of Victoria and to the nation insofar ,as I it is the hub of the distribution system of goods and people. Spencer Street Station and the South Dynon freight railyards, together with Flinders Street Station, are the centre of rail based distribution of I goods and people throughout the metropolitan area, statewide and interstate. At the centre of the populous south-eastern triangle of Australia, its c.. I potential is perhaps not yet fully realised. • 2 I
This central function will be significantly enhanced by I the VFT which, if it proceeds, will locate its terminus at Spencer Street Station, and the proposed RTL which could bring the Melbourne Airport to within 15-20 I minutes travel time of the Central Business District (CBD). I In addition, the westwards growth of the CAD and the development of the Multi-Modal Interchange, providing easy passenger transfers between PTC rail, bus and tram services, privately operated coach services, taxis as I well as superior passenger facilities, will see Spencer Street Station take on increasing importance in the transit of workers, shoppers, tourists and leisure I seekers. But it is the importance of the area as dock lands, i.e. a port, that underpins its role in the victorian I and Australian economies. The Port of Melbourne is the largest container port in the southern hemisphere handling 695,000 TEUs (Twenty foot Equivalent Units) in I 1988/89, a 12.3% increase over the record level of 1987/88, or 40% of all containers handled in Australia. I Its success as a port and the size of its business is clearly linked to Victoria's role as the industrial heartland of the nation. Victoria's, and the nation's, continued economic prosperity is clearly linked to the I efficiency of the Port as a distribution node.
The Federal Government has recognised this with its I emphasis on waterfront and other transport based micro economic reforms. The Victorian Government's Economic Strategy also recognises the central importance of the I Port in Victoria's economic growth. Considerable emphasis has already been placed by Transport Authorities on improving the transport of I goods to the Port by both road and rail. Some $25 million will be spent on the first stage of a $100 million program to upgrade the South Dynon freight I terminal in order to increase its container handling capacity from the current level of 120,000 TEU's per annum to around 700,000 TEUs per annum by 2000. The PTC I and the PMA are currently finalising a port/rail. transfer strategy which rationalises existing infrastructure and will better integrate port/rail services. In addition, the PMA and'the PTC are I cooperating in the examination of the capacity of electronic data interchange system to expedite I intermodal freight transfers. with the economic policies of both Federal and State governments focussing on the need to improve our export I- position, the efficiency of port/rail/road distribution systems becomes crucial. The development of Greater Docklands should be planned in a way which enhances the area's capacity to meet government economic I expectations. I 3 I 1.2 The Area as a Development Resource
I Changes in transport and communications technologies have meant that while transport activity in the Docklands area can be expected to continue to expand, I existing facilities are often under-utilised and as new practices are adopted, the requirement for land may be altered and new facilities may be required. Some land I currently occupied for rail or port purposes is now, or will become, available for other types of land uses.
The opportunities provided by such changes have been I taken up with the decision to locate the Olympics Village on Victoria Dock and South Wharf and to locate the Olympics Media Centre on an extension of Collins I Street ov~r the Spencer Str~et yards. While the 'Olympics have provided the impetus for examining the redevelopment potential of the whole Docklands area, it I is now recognised that the area should be a priority development project for the opportunities it offers in giving a new water based image to the city and in realising a large number of community and economic I objectives.
It is sobering to consider the dimensions of the I Project. The Greater Docklands study Area, shown on Map 1, is an area of 22 square kilometres, encompassing the entire Port, the Spencer Street, North Melbourne. and I South Dynon railyards and the Port Melbourne/South Melbourne Technology Precinct as well as some adjoining non-transport oriented uses.
I Port and rail operations will continue as significant activities in the Docklands area, however former port and rail land will become available for development. I The DTF estimate that some 250 hectares may be released for development over approximately 20 to 30 years. The Docklands development will be the largest and most I ambitious of all Government redevelopment projects. An issue which must be addressed is whether the land is more valuable to the'State as port and rail land or as I development land. Land surplus to the PMA's or the PTC's requirements could become available for
redevelopment, however, the importance of the area to I I the Victorian and national economies should ensure that the desire to redevelop the land does not jeopardise the role of Transport Authorities in performing the transport task, particularly as the future prosperity I of the Port is affected. Rather, a balance between redevelopment and transport infrastructure is required.
I An assessment of the land use requirements of the Port which is cognisant of developments in freight handling technologies and practices and which accommodates the I expectations of trade growth within a long term timeframe is required. The PMA's Land Use Plan currently under preparation will address these issues I (see section 3.3). HOBSONS BAY
MAP 1
- - - Study Area Boundary
DOCKLANDS STUDY AREA .'.IM31f·!:'i'~·t4..1*,i.)u!J. Poin' G.llib"ItItf o 2 I ! I Uomel,.. [ ,I I 4 I Redevelopment of the area also needs to be considered in the context of a depressed commercial property I market with several years supply of office space, high vacancy rates, and the range of alternative Government sponsored redevelopment projects. Can the market I sustain the redevelopment of Jolimont and Docklands, as well as Southbank and Flinders street Station? I The PTC and the DTF have engaged Price Waterhouse to examine the range of Government and private sector development projects and to develop a predictive model of the property market to help inform Government I decision making in this' area. As the major land holder, Transport has a particular interest in this question. For example, if Docklands is to take I precedence over Jolimont then this may have a significant impact on the need to develop and fund maintenance depots to replace Jolimont, on the vacation I of the Jolimont yards by the PTCand its timing and consequently, on the PTC's need for capital.
I 2 • .~CKLANDS DIDlELOPMENT PROPOSAI.s
It has become clear that the redevelopment of the Docklands I area offers such great opportunities to achieve a range of objectives for Melbourne and Victoria, and that the development will proceed regardless of the success of the I bid for the Olympics. Clearly, a successful Olympics bid would provide a substantial impetus t9 redevelopment. The issue will essentially become one of timing rather than I whether a development should proceed. The Olympics program represents Stage 1 of a 20 to 30 year development timeframe for Docklands. The timing of I subsequent stages is approximately: stage 2: 2000-2005/10 II and stage 3:2005/10-2015/20.
The timing of the stages will vary according to factors I including the following: · Melbourne's success as an Olympics candidate · the availability of funds for infrastructure works I · take-up by the private sector and the state of the economy. I Following sections describe: · Development proposals. These will have a significant impact on the Ministry of Transport as the major land I user.
Infrastructure proposals. The DTF has proposed a series I of infrastructure options over recent months. This section outlines current proposals and identifies a number of Ministry of Transport concerns.
I · DTF proposals to exploit the economic potential of I' I 5 transport as an industry sector through the concept of I "Advanced transport services". 'In addition, there is discussion of the cost and programming I implications of the infrastructure proposals. 2.1 Development Proposals and Implications for I Authority Activities Planning for the Olympic Games requires the PMA and its tenants to vacate North Wharf, South Wharf (berths 14 I 19) and victoria Dock (berths 1-15). The site vacated will be redeveloped as the Olympic Village and is ultimately destined as waterside residential accommodation. I {- The Olympics Media Centre may be located on an extension of Collins Street to be constructed over the I Spencer Street raily.rds. This will require the relocation of PTC's Fast Track operation and the APM facility. (Details of the Olympics Transport Operations I Plan can be found at Appendix 1). Stage 1 proposals may also see the construction of the Spencer Street Station Multi-Modal Interchange, whilst I Stage 2 may see the possible extension of· other city streets over the rail yards. Seven options have been identified for the MMI by two sets of c~nsultants: . I Connell wagner1 and Prof. David Yencken. The options range from undergrounding the rail tracks from Flinders Street Station through to the north of Spencer Street Station, to relocating the tracks to the west and I undergrounding them, to leaving the tracks in their current location and extending Collins, Lonsdale and Latrobe Streets by bridges and constructing a "deck" I for the MMI. (The full list of options as identified by Prof. I Yencken is given at Appendix 2). Most of the options are probably not viable on the basis that they are either too costly or do not release I sufficient development land to offset the cost of construction. Only the two last identified options are considered viable by Yencken. Prof. Yencken's\ report I concludes that the bridging option is the most viable. This is also the only viable option within the Olympic I timeframe.
I 1. Connell Wagner (1989) Grade Separation of Rail Facilities' on the Western Boundary of the Melbourne CAD, prepared for the I Victorian Government Major Projects unit. 2. Prof. D. Yencken (1990) Spencer st Yards Study, prepared for I the Ministry of Transport. I' 6 I The DTF has engaged Connell Wagner and Daryl Jackson to re-examine the most viable options, reviewing operational I requirements, identifying MMI facilities and their layout, revising cost estimates and examining urban design I implications. Subsequent stages of the Docklands development may require the PMA to vacate additional port land: namely, 16-17 and I 20-24 victoria Dock, 12-14 South Wharf and to forego the extension of Appleton Dock to provide new berths (F and G) •
I It is proposed that the Olympics site and the area north of 16-24 victoria Dock and east of Appleton Dock will become the core of the Docklands redevelopment providing I new opportunities for residential, commercial, technological, industrial and recreational developments. I As can be seen from_ the foregoing, the development proposals have the greatest effect on the activities of the PMA and the PTC as major land users. The PMA may be required to vacate operational berths before the I .expiration of their economic lives and the PTC is required to relocate business activities. The cost implications are I discussed in section 2.3. 2.2 Infrastructure Proposals I Opening up the Docklands for development requires considerable investment in transport infrastructure. A range of proposals has been considered by the Transport Working Group. The main elements of the transport I infrastructure plan prepared by the DTF for discussion are:- I the extension of the Western By-Pass from Footscray Road to the West Gate Freeway; I the duplication of Footscray Road through the CAD extension under a platform which bridges the Spencer Street railyards;
I the construction of a road over Footscray Rd Duplication with separated north and south bound I carriageways on the platform; realignment of o~d Footscray Road: I (a) grade separation north of Swanson Dock to allow for two additional berths and ~irect road and rail connection between Swanson Dock I and the rail freight network; (b) realigning the section west of the Spencer Street yards so that running from;TOrth to I south it will run west of the Charles Grimes Bridge; I I 7 I extension of one or more of Collins, Bourke, Lonsdale and Latrobe streets to Footscray Road (Bourke street I may be in~errupted by the Spencer Street Multi-Modal Interchange depending on which option for the I redevelopment of the station is adopted); construction of a north-south arterial road providing access from Footscray Road to Lorimer street for local I port traffic and also providing direct local access between the Docklands core area and the south of the Yarra;
I removal of the Webb Dock line from its current alignment and relocation to the west of the new north I south arterial road; extension of Hawke Street into the MFP core; and I deletion of Dudley Street west of Adderley street as an arterial road. I In addition, Docklands redevelopment requires: relocation by the PTC of the APM facility to spotswood and of the PTC Fast Track/Parcels facility to the south I of Dynon Road, either north of the rail reversing loop or into the reversing loop; I no extension of PMA activities into F and G Appleton Docks;
PMA expansion to focus on Swanson and Webb Docks and I Yarra Wharves. (Refer Map 2). I A schedule of all infrastructure proposals and details of sequencing is given in Appendix 3.
These proposals have resulted from an iterative process I involving the DTF, MoT, PMA, PTC and .Vic Roads. During this process a range of alternative schemes were considered, some aspects of which were subsequently I dropped, some of which have been adopted in the final proposal. Details can be found in Appendix 5. I In general terms, the Transport Working Group concluded that the proposals represent a workable framework within. which further detailed planning should occur. However there are some concerns about the consistency of the I proposed Footscray Road duplication under the platform with the Central Area Traffic Strategy (CATS) and with the proposal to contain the PMA to its existing berths at I Appleton Dock. In the short term the extension of F and G Appleton Dock may be required to ensure that the PMA can .meet its commitment to vacate the-Olympic Village site. I In the long term it may be required to protect the Ports future growth prospects. I ",-~...r.. . " ..... I:
8 I It should be noted that there may be workable alternatives to some of the specific infrastructure proposals . I considered, which further examination or financial analysis may indicate are more viable.
I 2.3 Cost Estimates of costs prepared by the agencies are indicative I at this stage. Nonetheless it is clear that transport infrastructure costs will be significant. Preliminary advice is that the cost of the transport infrastructure proposals could be approximately $2,200. million based on I costs identifiable to this date. Preliminary cost estimates and a schedule of costs over I the Docklands development's three stages are given in Appendices 3 and 4. I The cost of the infrastructure proposals referred to above includes $770 million for works that would normally not be considered as part of the Transport Agencies Business .1 Plans. Only $160 million is included in Agencies current 3-year Business Plans. The remaining $1,260 million is for works that would be undertaken in the longer term by the Transport Agencies, but are outside the planning timeframe I of the Agencies forward look capital programs, and in some cases, outside the Docklands planning timeframe. As a result, the Agencies Business Plans will be significantly I altered should they be required to absorb Docklands infrastructure costs. Further consideration should also be given to the I development of a formula for apportioning costs associated with projects that are brought forward. It may be appropriate that Authorities be compensated for the I replacement of a facility whose economic life has not expired when the facility is required to be prematurely I vacated. Considerably more work needs to be undertaken in identifying and refining infrastructure costs. To date cost has not been a constraining factor in consideration I of the infrastructure proposals, and further detailed financial and economic analysis is now required. I 2.4 Programming The PTC, DTF and the Government's Major Projects unit I commissioned Tracey, Brunstrom and Hammond to develop a program statement for the Docklands development with emphasis on stage 1, the Olympics. The purpose of the program was to highlight any difficulties in meeting I targets for the construction of facilities or the vacation of facilities and to recommend possible solutions. I The report indicated that the following projects could not be achieved within the current Olympics timeframe: I Olympic Village - Victoria Dock South (5 months over I run) I 9 I Media Centre (4 months over-run) Tram Service on Collins St. extension (3 months over I run) The over-runs are principally the result of the need I for thePMA and VicRoads to undertake pUblic review processes. I options identified by Tracey, Brunstrom and Hammond for rectifying the over-runs are: 1. Bring forward both PMA and VicRoads pUblic review I processes and reduce their scope. 2. Change the Olympic Village siting to avoid the need I for victoria Dock South. Consideration should also be given to resiting the Media Centre to avoid the I need to construct major road structures. 3. Reduce the civil engineering content in the scope of work for victoria Dock South and apply' rapid I construction techniques. They conclude that target programmes should be shortened to 70% of their present durations. Normal I construction delays can thereby be accommodated without jeopardising the Olympic facilities. Transport Authorities, MoT, MPU and DTF will examine I· options for reducing the program so that over-runs can be eliminated and allowable delays built into the progra~. To the extent that pUblic revi~w processes I are involved, the Department of Planning and Urban Growth will need to be consulted. I, The full Tracey, ,Brunstrom and Hammond report can be found at Appendix 7. I 2.5 Advanced Transport Services As part of its submission to Multi-Function Polis Australian Research, the Committee for Melbourne I identified a range of economic development opportunities which are intended to build on Melbourne's competitive strengths and by harnessing I international investment, to capture their prospects as growth industries. One of these areas is the concept, of advanced transport services.
I The concept takes its basis from Me~bourne's, and particularly Dockland's, role as the country's I transport hub and involves the following: the restructuring of Melbourne's ports facilities; integrated global fast freight systems; I Docklands transport infrastructure; advanced ,transport research and development. The first three of these components involve programs ·1 already underway. II I 10 Work being undertaken on the Port Land Use Plan, I improving freight efficiency through improved inter modal transfers and the use of electronic data interchange, proposals for a National Rail Freight Corporation and the proposal for a Melbourne-Sydney I Fast Freight Train as well as the Spencer Street Multi Modal Interchange, a Rapid Transit Link between the CBD and Melbourne Airport, and associated developments, are I all part of the concept of advanced transport services. These initiatives will be progressed with or without a I Docklands development. The fourth component of advanced transport research and development involves: I electrical data communications and protocol to service automated freight systems; I sensing and control technologies to service existing and new network systems; I planning solutions for new forms of transport; new mateiials to meet the demands in urban rapid. I transit systems and aerospace. The extent to which these opportunities can provide the economic prospects anticipated has yet to be examined I in detail. 3. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY STRATEGIES I The key. Transport Authorities·active in the Docklands area, the PHA and the PTC, are pursuing individual strategies to improve their business performance and their efficiency in I the transport task. This important work will be described in more detail in subsequent sections, but it is perhaps the area of inter-agency co-operation, particularly in the area I of freight handling, which holds the greatest prospect for productivity improvement. I 3.1 Improvinq Inter-Modal Freiqht Transfers3 Both the PHA and the PTC are pursuing computer based freight information systems, which will have the I capacity to be integrated and, 'with developments in the formulation of a port rail strategy, could lead to I significant improvements in inter-modal transfers.
I 3. This section draws heavily on a paper prepared by Mr. B. Negus, Ministry of Transport "Freight Efficiency in the Port of Melbourne, Improved Inter-Modal Transf~rs and the Application of I Advanced Technologies" (23 April 1990). I Ii 11 I A PMA exercise showed that there are over 30 organisation types exchanging 107 paper documents during the cargo flow I process. The inherent delays result in enormous cargo delays throughout the transport system.
I The PMA has set up a project team to complete a cost benefit analysis on the development of an electronic data interchange (EDI) based port community system, the benefits I of which would include improved document transfer and handling through paperless trading, reduced handling times and the ability to add container handling and transfers to I the system. An EDI based system has enormous capacity to improve the speed of freight handling and will bring with it benefits of I improved throughput and increased productivity. The PTC is currently developing a container Handling and I Inventory Control System to facilitate and improve container handling within the South Dynon rail yard. The system will provide the ability to track containers through the PTC system and also to take care of invoicing and contact with I external clients. Vic Roads is currently investigating implementation, and I considering a trial, of a computerised tagging system which may be used on vehicles for the following purposes: I information on road network performance; identification of vehicles in the fleet for I security purposes; selective control of vehicles for.a number of I purposes including possible toll facilities; monitoring of speed and other operating I characteristics; and enforcement.
At this stage no direct linkage has been considered between I the vic Roads initiative and the others, though linkages are developing between the PTC and PMA initiatives. Nonetheless, it appears that integrated systems could enable I the speedy assignment of a container on a specific ship to a particular train or truck, reducing paper and eliminating delays, facilitating speedy movement of containers from back I up areas and reducing truck queues within the Port. This will lead to considerable improvements in the productivity of existing facilities but.is unlikely to lead I to reduced land requirements given predictions for PMA trade growth.
-I The development of such a system is some distance off. Its potential needs to be further explored and the willing co operation of all potential users including trucking I companies, freight forwarders etc needs to be enlisted. I I 12 I This work will be advanced with the recent acceptance by Telecom of a brief to prepare specifications for a I business plan for the integration of the transport authorities freight handling information systems. The costs of establishing such a system are likely to be I substantial but its economic benefits are also likely to be significant. I 3.2 Port/Rail strategy Another combined PHA/PTC initiative is the development of a Port/Rail strategy, the purpose of which is to I enhance the capacity of the rail system to efficiently distribute containers given PMA's expectations for continued growth in port trade and the Governments I objective to carry more of such freight on rail.
Current Port/Rail ~ccess is via the Webb Dock rail line I and a number of specific ,sidings into Appleton ~nd Swanson Docks. A PMA/PTe working party has agreed that the specific sidings should pe removed and activity concentrated on a centralised major Port/Rail facility I to service these docks located at the South Dynon, freight terminal north of Footscray Road. The mode of container transfer could ,be truck or Internal Transfer I Vehicles (lTV). A direct road connection is being investigated. Provision would be made by the PMA for an additional major port/rail facility south of Footscray I Road for development over the longer term when the South Dynon terminal reaches capacity. I 3.3 Port Land Use study The Port of Melbourne Authority is the major land user in the Greater Docklands Study Area with some 625 I hectares of vested crown land (excluding water area) and 10 hectares of freehold land. This land is utilised for port purposes and is home to the largest I container and general cargo port in the southern hemisphere, and significant dry and liquid bulk port facilities. Total throughput in 1988-89 was 25 million I revenue tonnes. The port services the large Melbourne metropolitan population, the industrial and agricultural sectors and I acts as a trans shipment port for Tasmania, South Australia and New Zealand. In 1988-89 international trade accounted for 70% of total trade, the balance I being coastal trade. containerisation h~s increased the size and shape of berths (with a trade off of increased productivity). I containerised cargo accounts for 64% of total trade but dedicated container vessels account for only 25% of I ship visits. This means that a wide variety of berths are required I to accommodate the other 75% of ships - specialist dry II
13 I and liquid bulk vessels, vessels !with both container I and general cargo, roll on, roll off vessels, separate coastal and international trade berths and so on. A long term Land Use Plan project (20 years plus) for I all Victorian ports, including the Port of Melbourne, commenced in January and is due for completion before the end of 1990. This plan will address the following I issues: Trade growth - How much growth must be planned I for over the next 20 years? Productivity - How will enterprise employment Improvements and improved terminal operation I improve the productivity of existing facilities to handle growth? And over what period? I What impact will new technology (eg EDI) have? . Land Transport - What impact will a national rail I freight strategy have? How effective will Truck Management I Project initiatives be? Port Pricing - Proposal to shift charges from goods to Ships and berth operators I (user pays principle). How much influence will they have on ensuring more efficient turn I around of ships? Community concern - We need to develop a long term I over·hazardous solution to hazardous chemical chemicals storage (eg. Coode Island) which addresses those concerns. Eight I per cent of trade is handled as bulk liquid (3-2 million revenue tonnes in 1988/89). I Trade Allocation - Is it economically efficient for the state and the importer/exporter to centralise I certain trades in certain ports rather than have competition between Victorian ports? If so, I what trades should be SUbject to such an analysis? Redevelopment of - Many upstream berths do not I existing berths have sufficient back up land to be redeveloped into modern I facilities. In order to analyse and cost the impact of potential loss of active berths to accommodate the Olympic Village development and the many Docklands scenarios, I the PHA developed certain assumptions:- III 14 I Trade Growth - 4% p.a. growth over the next 10 years (twice the historical growth I rate). productivity - Approximately 50% increase I improvements at over the next 20 years(i.e. terminals 49,000 TEU to around 70,000 TEU per berth). I Ship waiting time - average 3 hours per ship optimum Berth - 50% I Occupancy These assumptions mayor may not be validated in the I course of completion of the Land Use Plan. If they are not the impact will be on the stage at which new berths are required (i.e. the timeframe may lengthen or shorten)". Detailed sensitivity analysis will be I conducted as part of the planning process. To illustrate the impact that the Olympics and I Docklands may have on the port, the PMA developed two scenarios based on the above assumptions:- I Scenario A without the Olympics and Docklands development, .and using these assumptions, the Authority will need 5 new I berths over the next 10 years and 7 over the following 10 years (i.e. 12 berths in 20 years) and 11 existing I sites are aVailable. A shortfall of 1. The 11 existing sites are: I 3 at Appleton dock ~ at Victoria Dock 4 at Webb Dock West I 3 at Webb Dock East There are 10-12 other sites which may be able to be developed during the next 20 plus years for new berths. I All require significant changes from existing use, are not within the control of the PMA, must be SUbject to a full cost/benefit analysis and may never be realised. I These sites are:- 3 at Fisherman's Bend (Hawker de Havillard site, I Aerospace Technologies of Australia site). 2 at Swanson Dock (requires significant realignment of I Footscray Road to the north). 5-7 at Webb Dock (reclamation to extend the eastern side of Webb Dock will be high cost and is likely to be of great environmental sensitivity). I (Refer Map 3) I , ..." ...... "
MAP 3
-, -, ······_·······-:·-;':":';·······1 It 15 I I Scenario B
I with the Olympics (by 1994) and Docklands development (by 2000~2010) and using these assumptions, the Authority will need 9 new berths over the next 10 years I (4 more than Scenario A) and 9 new berths over the following 10 years (2 more than Scenario A); a -total of 18 new berths in 20 years (6 more than Scenario A in total) and only 9 existing sites are available. A I shortfall of 9.
The number of available existing sites has reduced by 2 I due to Docklands development proposals (1 at Appleton Dock and 1 at victoria Dock). I The two other Appleton Dock sites will be significantly smaller and less productive than those available to the Authority under Sce~ario A. I The 10-12 other sites identified under Scenario A may also be available under this Scenario, however, greater I reliance would be placed on their development. It must be acknolwedged that some of the conclusions drawn from t~e scenarios were particularly sensitive to changes in the key assumptions. For example, in I Scenario A if the assumed trade growth did not eventuate the follwoing scenarios could arise:-
I (i) for a 3% p.a. trade growth it is estimated that a total of 8 new berths would be required over I 20 years (4 less than Scenario A). (ii) for a 5% p.a. trade growth it is estimated that a total of 17 new berths would be required over I 20 years (5 more than Scenario-A). Conclusion
I The present indications are that without Olympics and/or Docklands the Port of Melbourne is likely to have capacity to handle a high level of trade growth in I all cargo areas for 20-40 years. with the Olympics and Docklands deveiopment using up port waterfront and backup areas, the Port of Melbourne I may be forced to rely on expensive and problematic development options as early as the year 2000.
I These findings are based on certain assumptions that, as already stated, mayor may not be validated by the Land Use Plan project. For example, lower trade growth I projections and higher productivity improvements may have a significant reducing effect on the ports new I I I, 16
berth requirements. The Land Use Plan project will I definitively address these findings and provide detailed sensitivity analysis. I 3.4 Public Transport Corporation Freight strategies 3.4.1 Fast Freight Train/National Freight I corporation V/Line and the state Rail Authority of NSW (SRA) are jointly examining the upgrading of the rail freight service in the Melbourne-Sydney corridor I for the purpose of making rail more competitive with road (the 'project is known as the Fast Freight Train or FFT). A market study has Ii indicated that with improved reliability and frequency of service and reduced door-to-door transit times, there is a potential for rail to I increase its market share significantly. A three-stage investment programme is being contemplated with a total capital cost of $524 I, million. This is predicted to increase line haul revenues from $55 million to $410 million per annum by the year 2000. I In parallel with this exercise, a consortium of the various state rail authorities, the Federal Government and the private sector has been I studying the feasibility of establishing a National Freight Corporation (NFC) to manage the whole of the intersystem rail business. The study is known as the National Freight I Initiative (NFl). An initial report has recently been released which indicates that profitability of intersystem rail freight can be ,I improved dramatically with centralised management of the business, improved operating efficiency and selective capital investment. I Rail freight tonnage increases of up to 70% over 1988/89 figures are predicted by 1993/4. The report proposes several institutional structure options for management of both rail operations I and freight terminals. It is unlikely that V/Line and SRA would invest II significantly in corridor infrastructure upgrade until the issues raised by the NFl have been I resolved. . 3.4.2 South Dynon Freight Yard Interstate freight cannot operate reliably or I efficiently without a major investment in intermodal terminals. In victoria's case, South Dynon Terminal is being deve~oped as part of an integrated I transport strategy to handle interstate freight not only from domestic sources but to and from the Port I of Melbourne. I 17 II A direct road link is being investigated with a rail il line underpass allowing access of lTV container ! vehicles between the Docks and the Terminal. This Terminal Development Program will increase South Dynon's capacity from a current 120,000 containers I per year (TEU's) to 700,000 by the turn of the century. It should· be noted that a major intermodal terminal will have to be established in Sydney to I, realise the full potential of the Melbourne-Sydney corridor. I If the NFC were to take over r~sponsibi~ity for terminal management, as proposed in some of the institutional structures recommended in the NFl report, there is the prospect that the NFC would I also take over responsibility for funding the terminal investment programme, estimated to total in I excess of $100 million by the year 2005. 3.4.3 Webb, Dock Line I A broad gauge line to service Webb Dock was completed in 1986 at a cost of $21.5 million. The line currently follows an alignment which runs parallel to Lorimer Street on the south side of the I Yarra, crosses the Yarra via a low level bridge immediately downstream of the Charles Grimes Bridge, crosses Footscray Road with an at-grade crossing in I the vicinity of Pigott Street, and thence runs more or less parallel to Footscray Road, on the eastern side, to DUdley Street and beyond. It is seen as a major impediment to development of the Docklands I precinct. Two basic options for relocating the line have been I considered. The first involves keeping the Webb ·Dock line. on the I western side of Footscray Road to a point near the Maribyrnong River, crossing Footscray Road with a grade separated crossing in the vicinity of Schintler Reserve and connecting it into the rail I network at South Dynon Junction. This option was estimated to cost $17 million. I The second option involves constructing a low level bridge across the Yarra in the vicinity of Graham Street, aligning it north through the I Appleton/Swanson Docks area to Footscray Road, maintaining it on the southern side of Footscray Road as far as Schintler Reserve and connecting it into the rail network at South Dynon Junction as in I the first option. This work was estimated to cost $26 million. I It is Government policy to provide a standard gauge line to Webb Dock. This would enable standard gauge trains to be assembled at Webb Dock and depart to I either south Dynon or direct to their destinations. Current estimates cost this proposal at $4 million. I' 18 I 3.4.4 Fast Track/Parcels
I Fast Track is V/Line's 'smalls' freight business activity which handles consignments ranging in size from parcels to pallet loads. V/Line is the major I carrier of such freight within Victoria with 14% of the market. The business has improved from 25% cost recovery in 1985/86 to 60% in 1988/89 with a target I to break even in 1992/93. " currently the Fast Track activities are conducted in a number of rail sheds at the southern end of I Melbourne Yard. Parcels handling operations are conducted from a southern extension of Spencer Street Station opposite the junction of Collins "I Street with Spence~ Street. Both these sets of activities will have to be relocated to enable the Docklands development to occur. In particular, the I Olympic Games scenario, involving the construction of the Media" Centre in the area currently occupied by Fast Track buildings, and the extension of Collins Street through the Parcels depot, will I accelerate the relocation programme.
Concept plans have been developed to consolidate the I Fast Track and Parcels businesses into a new location in the North Melbourne area at a cost of between $20 and $32 million, depending on the site I selected. 3.5 Roads Infrastructure
I Road issues, unlike the other transport modes, are more concerned with planning and construction of new infrastructure to serve the Docklands development than I the removal of existing assets. The principal concerns of vic Roads, in addition to funding, are traffic generation of the development, the I road network strategy, links to the CAD and impacts on the surrounding areas.
I The development proposed for Docklands is more intensive than the existing land use and more trips will be generated as a result. A knowledge of the trip I making patterns is required to ensure that maximum use can be made of pUblic transport modes, bicycles and pedestrians, and intrusion and "adverse impacts of private vehicles is minimised. An efficient, effective I network is required.
The Central Area Transport Strategy (CATS) philosphy I should be the basis of the transport planning for Docklands Development. The principal elements of the I strategy are: Public transport provides direct access to the area;
Public transport and pedestrian facilities, not the I motor car, provide circulation in the area; *I 19
Journeys to work are directed towards pUblic I transport; Through road traffic travels around rather than I, through the city; Parking favours retail and commercial activities;
,I Freight and commercial vehicles are specially catered for; 'I The quality of streetscapes and the environment will be enhanced; Bicycle paths give direct access to the city I through linked networks. I The implications are: Spencer Street station redevelopment provides the pUblic transport focus;
I the pUblic transport system mus~ be extended;
residential land use and the pUblic transport I network must be integrated; . an effective bypass for Footscray Road through I traffic is required; parking must be managed to moderate private I vehicle usage; special roads for local port traffic may be I required; landscaping of streetscapes is an integral part of development;
·1 bicycle paths must be developed in Docklands and connected to the existing network.
I The road infrastructure should also provide the physical an4 architectural linkages back to the II existing CAD. The extension of the existing grid system has been suggested to provide that continuity but this must be undertaken wisely to meet the I objectives above. The traffic generated by the more intensive development will spillover into the surrounding areas. Existing road networks in surrounding areas will need to be I managed to reduce any adverse impacts of this additional traffic. This is particularly so for the I inner Bayside suburbs. Funding of additional road infrastructure is also a concern. Road infrastructure costs are currently I' estimated at $514.1 million (Appendix 4). This excludes cost associated with the construction of the Western I 20 I Bypass from the Tullamarine Freeway to the Westgate Freeway ($590 million). opportunities for private I sector investment in roads should be/pursued. I 4. CONCLUSION The Docklands infrastructure proposals, prepared by the DTF for discussion purposes, represent a workable £ramework I within which further planning should occur. In particular, further work needs to focus on the following issues:
· PMA berth requirements, in particular whether F and G I Appleton Dock should be constructed. In the short term, this will be partly dependent on consultant advice as to the adequacy of existing physical services at Webb Dock I West 1 and 2 and the ability of physical services agencies to provide capacity within the Olympics timeframe. Advice on this will not be available until late September. In I the long term, F & G may be required for future trade growth.
· The alignment of the Western By-Pass extension to the I Westgate Freeway and its impact on such factors as port operations i.e. should it be situated over the Moonee Ponds Creek or to the west of the Creek thereby precluding ,I the extension of PMA activities to F and G Appleton Docks.
· Ensuring that the duplication of Footscray Road under the I platform over the Spencer Sreetrail yards is compatible with CATS.
-. The Spencer Street Station Multi-Modal Interchange and the I appropriate means of extending the CAD. _Seven options have been generated of which two have been identified as I warranting further consideration. · Analysis of the cost and benefits of the infrastructure proposals. While preliminary estimates have costed I transport infrastructure at in excess of $2,000 million over 20-30 years, transport is just one component of infrastructure costs associated with the Docklands development. Funding for these infrastructure proposals I are not currently in authority programs. Authorities will require additional funding for Docklands infrastructure if their current forward programs are to be maintained. I Alternatively, other sources of funding, for example, private sector, will need to be found. Agreements will also need to be reached on the apportionment of cost.
I Work being undertaken in association with the PMA's Land Use Plan and Vic Roads CATS over the next few months will illuminate a number of these issues. Similarly work being I undertaken by the DTF and PTC should facilitate the identification of a preferred option for the development I of Spencer Street station and the railyards. I I' I APPENDIX 1 23 May 1990
I OLYMPIC GAMES BID 1996 - TRANSPORT OPERATIONS PLAN I 1. Planning for the transport response has involved the commissioning of consultants to prepare an initial Transport Operations Plan under the guidance of and in consultation with the Ministry of Transport, Melbourne I Olympic Candidature, the Public Transport Corporation, Vic Roads and the Port of Melbourne Authority. This was followed by a comprehensive consultation program with transport agencies, local government and user I groups to ensure the plan was widely accepted and supported. The paramount objective for the Transport Plan was to provide a safe, I reliable and efficient transport response for the Olympic requirements. The response had four clearly identifiable key tasks: (a) Maintaining a transport response to meet and satisfy the daily I demands of the city; (b) Providing a multi modal transport response dedicated to satisfying I the demands of the Olympic training and competition calendar; (c) Providing a transport response that will ~atisfy the demands of I spectators and visitors; (d) Put into place appropriate traffic management arrangements and controls (street closures around venues, route prioritisation for I Olympic vehicles and park and ride) to ensure achieve~ent o~ the transport response. I 2. The tactical framework for achieving these objectives is within the current transport resources of, the Government and private enterprise sectors. The Transport Plan i~ compatible with the forward business I plans of the Ministry of Transport and its agencies. Likewise, local municipalities have had the opportunity tQ evaluate the key elements of the plan against their current and forward business plans. I Key Elements of the Transport Response 3. The plan promotes public transport as the main mode of travel together I with a "park and ride strategy" involving the use of shuttle buses from both rail stations and specialist car parks established for the Olympic I Games but also as part of the Central Area Transport Strategy, (CATS). 4. It is proposed that the Olympic Hub in the area of the MCG and National Tennis Centre be closed to normal traffic with, priority access to Olympic athletes and 6fficials via buses and special vehicles being allowed. The I car parking areas in this vicinity will also be unavailable for normal traffic and Olympic Games spectators. I I "I II - 2 - I Key Activities 5. Planning for the transport response has involved the following key activities: I (a) Establishment of a Transport Review Group consisting of officers from MOT. Melbourne Olympic Candidature. Vic Roads. PTC and PMA. I (b) A critical review of the Plan by Transport Agencies and affected Municipalities. . I (c) Extensive consultation with the 20 municipalities primarily affected by the Olympic Games both at Councillor and officer level. (d) Consultation with transport unions both in the public and private I transport sectors and maritime unions. (e) Establishment of a Department of Labour industrial relations I working party to investigate the implications of the Olympic building program on the building and transport workforce together I with identification of industrial relations issues which may arise. (f) Consultation with the Social Impact Assessment Panel established by Government to consider the social impacts of the Olympic Games. I (g) Consultation with various transport organisations including the Bus Proprieters Association. Victorian Road Transport Association. I Victorian Taxi Association. etc. 6. Response from the groups included in the consultation program has been very'positive and has~chieved the position where the key players have I· contributed to and strongly support the Transport Plan. It is stressed that the Transport Plan provides strategic directions which will need to be turned into Operational Plans once a decision is made concerning the I Olympic Bid on September 18. 1990. . Implications for Docklands I 7. The Olympic Village will be located in Docklands. in the area bounded by the Yarra River (North and South Wharves). Victoria Dock. Berths 1 to 15 and Footscray Road. Access from the Village to the Central Activities District and sporting venues will be via the Collins Street connection I supplemented by the Flinders Street Extension. 8. The Collins Street tram is proposed to be extended to service Docklands. I but it will terminate at Footscray Road during the games with buses being used within the Village for security reasons. Footscray Road will be I developed as a Boulevard. I BRIAN J NEGUS DIRECTOR. OLYMPIC/TRANSPORT PROJECTS I MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
I 78DDG/41-42 ct I I APPENDIX 2: OPTIONS FOR THE SPENCER STREET STATION AND I RAILYARDS In order for the CAD to be extended westwards beyond Spencer Street major remodelling of Spencer Street station and yards I will be required. In addition the new Multi-Modal Transport Interchange to be incorporated in the development will service and provide linkages between the following modes of I transport: The Met suburban rail V/Line country rail I V/Line interstate rail V/Line intrastate road coach Private interstate road coach I The Met tram/light rail The Met bus Charter bus/road coach I Taxis VFT (if it proceeds) Airport - CAD Rapid Transit Link I Private car access and parking Appropriate ticketing, reservation and waiting facilities will be required, including a "GoldenWings"/"Flight Deck" I type lounge and a VIP lounge with media facilities.
It is anticipated that retail, residential and commercial I developments would be linked with the transport interchange. Consultancies by Connell Wagner and Prof. David Yencken of the University of Melbourne have generated a range of I options which vary considerably with respect to cost, the location of the Station and the amount of developable land I which is released. In summary; the options are: I 1. No extension to the CAD grid. Redevelop the site separately from the rest of the city. This option would not achieve the objective of extending the' city I down to the waterfront. Land val~es wculd be affected by disassociation from the CAD.
2. Depressing the tracks in their existing location I ($250M). The extension of the CAD's main east-west streets would be made easier, however, they would rise I above grade. No new land is released for development. 3. Continuing the existing viaduct from Flinders Street station and raising Spencer Street station ($280M). It I would create no new developable land and would also create a major visual barrier between the CAD and its extension.
I 4. Undergrounding from Flinders Street Station through to the north of Spencer Street Station ($860M). No humps would be created in the extensions of east-west I streets. I I 5. Removing the V/Line tracks from their current location adjoining Spencer Street and placing them to the west I of the Met tracks ($390 M). While this option would release land fronting Spencer Street, the extension of east-west streets would still create humps over the I tracks. 6. Removing and relocating both sets of tracks to the west of the existing tracks and undergrounding those tracks I ($495M). It would allow the extension of major east west streets at grade and relocates the station 200 metres away from its current location and closer to I the Docklands village. 7. Leaving the tracks in their current position and extending Collins, Lonsdale and LaTrobe over the I tracks. (The cost of extending Collins Street is estimated at $45M). This option would create a steeper hump in Collins Street than other options, but I no greater than that which currently exists between Swanston and Russell Streets. I (Estimates are from Connell Wagner - 1989 $'s). Prof. Yencken concludes that in urban design terms the I order of preference is: undergrounding all tracks from Flinders street Station to the north of the Spencer street yards I (option 4 above);
moving all the existing tracks west of their present I location and undergrounding them (option 6 above or Connell Wagner option D);
bridging over the tracks by carrying collins, I Lonsdale and LaTrobe Streets (option 7 above).
However, financial analysis conducted for Prof. I Yencken's report· reverses the order of preference. A financial model developed by Major Projects Unit attempted to provide like with like comparisons between I option 6 and 7, which are considered the most likely alternatives. This exercise costed option 7 at $248M, considerably cheaper than option 6 at $495M, however, I option 6 releases more developable land. The model found that option 7 is financially preferable to option 6 because its lower cost structure means that an I acceptable rate of return can be achieved more readily. While not forming part of the financial analysis, it is considered that the undergrounding option would not I recover the cost involved and would thus require pUblic subsidy rather than produce a return to Government. I I I I' In order to facilitate the identification of a preferred option, Connell Wagner and Daryl Jackson have been requested to re-examine the most viable options, I reviewing operational requirements, identifying MMI facilities and their layout, revising cost estimates and examining urban design implications. A joint DTF/PTC property market study will inform consideration I of the market potential of both options.
The PTC is currently re-examining operational I requirements. I I I ~ I I I II Infrastructure Library I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I
1 1 Relocate Wagon Maintenance Depot am I Infrastructure Maintenance Depot 2 construct new Fast Track/Parcels 32 I Facility 3 PIC Clear southern errl of Mel.boume Yard 16 3
I 4 fMA Construct Webb Dock 1, 2 , 3 , 2972 4 west am Upgrade Webb I Dock B East 5 fMA Vacate victoria Dock 2-15, North Wharf am south Wharf 2-19
I 6 VicRoads Construct minor realignment of 1.2 Footscray Road at Q)llins street I extension 7 PIC Construct minor realignrrent of .120 Webb Ikx::k Rail at Q)llins street I extension 8A VicRoads Construct Q)llins street extension 81 6 I am Olympic Village internal roads 8B PIC construct Q)llins st. tram extension 4 I 9 VicRoads construct westenl By Pass 21.0 4 'I\1llamarine Freeway te Footscray Road
I 10 Establish new MetTrain stabling am 150 4 maintenance depot at Djnon
I 11 Relocate notor vehicle detailing facility I 12 Relocate new fMA maintenance depot 30 13 cancel exist.in:J leases oorth of I nxlley street 14 VicRoads Construct core area (part) 14 6 I internal roads
2 15 PIC Relocate starrlard gauge (Sydney) line 5 I to Me1.bol.ln'le-Adelaide corridor (or elsewhere)
16 Establish part of locorrotive I maintenance depot at Spencer street 5 I 17 PIC Denolish starrlard gauge flyover 1 I'
I STI\GE ~ N:;;mCf IE3CmPl'IW cosrs $M
I 2 18 Replacement berths for victoria Dock 11 16-24 am SOUth Wharf 21-26 - I 19 FMA Construct Yarra Wharves 1, 2, 3 350 7,9 20 FMA Vacate Victoria D:x::k 16-24 1 I am SOUth Wharf 21-26 21 VicRoads Construct core area (part) 11.5 6 I internal roads 22 PIC Link Webb Dock line t.e.rrporarily to 6 Appleton dock rail line
I 23A VicRoads Construct road bridges over Yarra 15 I 23B PIC Construct rail bridges over Yarra 15 24 VicRoads Construct north-south arterial from 10 Footscray Road to Lorimer street I (Graham street North) 25 Rem:Jve Webb Dock rail line fram .105 I Melboun1e Yards 26 PIC Rearrarge tracks am remove tracks 2.5 I south of reversirx.J loop 27 VicRoads Construct Footsray Road (new) 40.3 duplication to Olarle$ Grimes I bridge 28A VicRoads a:mstruct Hawke street extension 23
I 28B PIC Construct northern tram connection (possibly Hawke street) 4
I 29 VicRoads Construct latrobe street extension .28.9
30 VicRoads Realign Footscray Road at Victoria 52.9 I HartxJur 31 VicRoads Construct remai.n.in:J platfonn roads I (over new Footscray Road duplication) Between Flirrlers street am Londsda) e Street extensions 26 I (Initial Olympic Stage-2 lane, 2 way) I Between Collins street am Lonsdale Street extension 35 (divided carriageway incl\.ldirg I wide median in structure) • Lonsdale street extension between platfonn road am I Footscray Road (four lane urrlivided) 14
I Notes I 1. 'The t.irnefzame for the construction of infrastructure is: ~c :U:SS~c
I stage 1 2000 2000 stage 2 2005 2010 I stage 3 2015 2020 2. Denotes project accelerated by IXx:kl.ands development. I 3. Assumes new paper storage and distribution facility will be required. 4 • Denotes project which is independent of Dockl.ands development proposals.
I 5. 'The SPencer Street station Multi-Modal Interchange is to be deveIoped in conjunction with the private sector and it is intended that the project be self funding. 'This project is not included in the transportation I infrastructure staging and costing, although it is prc:grarnmed for development in Stage 1.
6. Projects assigned to vicRoads does not imply that VicRoads is responsible I for the funding of all identified projects. Some may be funded t.l".rough other sources, eg. developers, local government.
I 7 . FMA advises that the construction of Yarra Wharves·1 & 2 should be brought forward to Stage 1, sequence l1A (S300M).
I 8. FHA advises that the construction of the northern extension to Sv;CJ1Son Dock (2 berths) should be brought forward to stage 2, sequence 18 ($130M). I 9. Berth construction required to acconunodate trade growth: Webb IX:x:}: A, C & 0 and reconstruct E Appleton ($175M).
10. Berth construction required to accommodate trade growth: Webb .IX:x:}: G, H, I I and J ($400M) .. I 11. Replacement berths provided at activity sequence 19,37 and 41. I I I I I I I ------•I ------
.....::
: .'.;
'0
MInor Rullllnmenll of Foolle'IY ROld lind Webb Dock Rill LIne
ell' DlIlelllnca helllly 10 b. Reloellled
~_.- .. - SCHEME 0 STAGE 1
LAUD PARCELS RelEASED ------,------
i APPElIDIX 4: INFRAS'IRJCIURE cmrs BY S'I7\GE AND AIJIIDRITY ($M) 1 S'rnGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 I (2000) (2005-10) (2015-20) 1 PTe 61.12 38.605 5.0 104.725 FMA 348.0 351.0 132.0 831.0 1 VicRoads ·96.2 358.4 59.5 514.1 1 505.32 748.005 196.5 1449.825 I 1. Refer notes Appendix 3 2. Excludes cost of projects which are independent of the D:x:}Q ~'.'. /.:':::' development proposals ego Western By-Pass from 'IUllamarine F'l.-e"';w<:ry LO I Westgate Freeway I Met maintenance depot at Dynon. . 3 . Development of core internal roads has been added to VicRoads estilnates. 1 Some or all of these costs may be covered by developers or Local, Govenunent. 4. Excludes cost of berth construction required to accommodate trade growth:
I Stage 1: Webb Dock A, C & D and reconstruct E Appleton ($175M) I, Stage 2: Webb Dock G, H, I & J ($400M) 1 I I I I I I. I I I' APPENDIX 5: CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES AND OPTIONS
I The Docklands infrastructure proposals described in general terms in the text and specifically in Appendix 3 emerged from an iterative process involving the DTF, MoT, PTC, PMA and VicRoads. I The process involved weekly meetings of the above group (the DTF Transport Working Group) at which various infrastructure proposals were considered and modified, deleted or adopted. DTF I planners also met regularly with individual representatives of the Transport Authorities. Specific proposals were developed by the DTF planners for the purpose of meaningful discussion. The final iteration (Scheme D) is not to be seen as a firm proposal, I but as the latest thinking on a range of possible scenarios.
The DTF Transport Working Group'has concluded that the I infrastructure proposals represent a workable framework within which further detailed planning should occur. This does not imply agreement or endorsement by either the Transport I Authorities or the Ministry of Transport to individual infrastructure proposals, bu~ is an acceptance of the general strategy underpinning, the infrastructure proposals.
I Scheme D I Reservations were expressed about two proposals, in particular: the containment of PMA activities to existing berths at Appleton Dock i.e. no construction of F and G Appleton Dock I as required by the OlYmpics timetable. . the duplication of Footscray Road under the platform road to I be built over the railway yards. F and G Appleton Dock
I F and G Appleton Dock are to be constructed to accommodate facilities displaced by the construction of the Olympic Village at victoria Harbour. The PMA are confident that the new facility I can be constructed within the Olympic timeframe. The DTF's proposals would mean the area of F and G Appleton would be available for other uses; specifically, the Western By-Pass !I extension, open space and commercial and residential development. It would also have the consequence of placing the western boundary of the Docklands"development core further to the west than if F and G Appleton Dock were constructed i.e. the I developable area would be greater.
A range of alternatives have been proposed which will be I discussed in detail later. (See also Appendix 6). Of these, the only potentially viable alternative is Webb Dock West 1 and 2. While these berths had been identified by the PMA as part of the I future development of the Port their construction was not proposed for some time. Kinhill has advised the PMA that the construction of Webb Dock West 1 and 2 is achievable within the current Olympic program provided work commences immediately. I However, doubts exist about the adequacy of physical services ego water, sewage, power" and the ability of physical service I agencies to upgrade capacity within the same time frame. I I In order to address this issue the PMA has engaged a consultant to scope all service requirements at Webb Dock and the I development of an implementation process. This work is not expected to be completed until the end of September ~990. Effectively, this means that definitive advice on whether the construction of Webb Dock West 1 and 2 is achievable within the I Olympics timeframe is unavailable until late September. The PMA's and the Ministry of Transport's position continues to I be that the Olympics timetable can only be delivered with certainty if F and G Appleton are constructed. Should it emerge that the Webb Dock'West 1 and 2 is a feasible substitute then I the capacity to develop Appleton Dock F and G may still need to be retained to accommodate future trade growth.
It has been indicated in section 3.3 that based on current I expectations of productivity improvements, the PMA may require 18 berths to accommodate Olympics, Docklands development and trade growth over 20 years, however, only 9 berths are available I on existing PMA sites. These. findings are based on certain assumptions that mayor may not be validated by t~~ r~~:~ ~~nd Use Plan project. This project will definitively address these I findings and provide detailed sensitivity analysis. A further 10-12 sites may become available over the next 20 I years. They are · 3 at Fisherman's Bend. Currently owned by Hawker de Havillard and occupied by Aerospace Technologies cfAustralia. Generally I referred to throughout this report as "Yarra Wharves".
· 2 at Swanson Dock. Requires realignment of Footscray Rd to the I north. · 5-7 at Webb Dock. Requires significant land reclamatic~ ~~Q~ I Hobsons Bay. It should be noted that of these berths, the construction prospects of 5 (G, H, I, J, K Webb Dock East) must be considered I extremely remote given the high cost of land reclamation and the fact that land reclamation into Hobsons ~ay of the scale envisaged will be of great environmental sensitivity. F and G I Appleton Dock should therefore be retained as a development option for the PMA over the longer term. (These comments relate to all alternative schemes prepared by the DTF.)
I Duplication of Footscray Rd
The duplication of Footscray Road, through the CAD extension I under the platform road, was introduced in lieu of the Dynon Road Extension considered in previous alternative schemes. The DTF's view is that this would serve through traffic and that I options for diversion onto CAD streets would be restricted. It is also seen as being consistent with the current grid pattern I of the CAD. VicRoads position is that the duplication of Footscray Road through the CAD extension is not entirely consistent with CATS. VicRoads argue that only one route is required for through I traffic and that it should. be the Western By-Pass extension from I Footscray Rd through to the WestGate Freeway. '. One approach could be to continue to use Footscray Rd until the Western By-Pass is extended to the WestGate Freeway and then II downgrade Footscray Rd as much as land use and trip generation permit. This would reduce construction costs by about $140M (excluding the construction cost of the Western By-Pass of I $210M) . Questions also remain about the practicability of a two level road and the Footscray Road duplication underneath. How feasible I is this in terms of existing road infrastructure? What is its relationship to the various options for bridging or undergroundingthe rail facilities? What sort of slope does it I entail for east-west streets? The foregoing comments relate to the final set of infrastructure proposals developed, known to the DTF Transport Group as Scheme I D. The following sections describe the alternative schemes considered. I Scheme A I Key components The key components of the infrastructure plan Scheme A are:
I reloc~te Fast Track to north of V/Line reversing loop: I establish Met maintenance facility north of Dynon Road: construct opening ,(moveable span) road/rail bridge south of east Swanson to proyide new alignment for the Webb Dock rail I line and to connect Todd Road to Phillips Road. Webb Dock rail to be removed from Spencer Street yard;
construct flyover of realigned (northly) Footscray Road north I of Swanson Dock. Webb Dock rail and road pass underneath: I- no construction of F and G Appleton dock; clear Coode Island tank farm and treat contamination'; I construct wharves in Maribyrnong River; construct new berths at Swanson and Webb Docks and construct I new Yarra wharves; northern arm of Footscray Road to be extended easterly to Dynon Road extension. Remaining sections of Footscray Road I to stay on current alignment; I Western By-Pass to be extended to WestGate Freeway: Dynon Road extended to Charles Grimes Bridge under platform bridging the Spencer Street Yards;
I Hawke street to be extended into Docklanqs core development I area (see plan of Scheme A) ; I - - ,.
--=--
"
,. I II I , ~; \ SCHEME A
LAUD rARCEl8 o. ~ELEA8ED I Docklands Development core roads (Collins street and Hawke street extensions) to be linked by bridge to the west of I 2 victoria Dock and 21 North Wharf. Link to the south side of Yarra to be provided in the vicinity of 19 South Wharf. I Comments While the road network was considered generally feasible, VicRoads was concerned that some layout features would lead to I poor, often unsafe, traffic operations, that the capacity of some of the proposed interchanges was low and would hence cause traffic problems and that the transition from earlier stages of I the infrastructure proposed to the final stage was impractical in a number of cases. In general these comments related to Footscray Road, Dynon Road and extension and the Western By I Pass. VicRoads detailed comments can be found in Appendix 5.1. The PMA advised that removing Coode Island tank farm and constructing wharves in the Maribyrnong River in its place was I not a viable alternative to constructing F and G Appleton dock as the Maribyrnong is too narrow, and the land would be required I as back up space for West Swanson-Dock. The proposed moveable span rail/road bridge south of east Swanson Dock was considered unworkable both from a construction point of view (no moveable span bridge of the required size I exists anywhere else in the world) and for operational reasons. The impact of shipping movements means the bridge would have to be open for 10-12 hours per day and-its proposed site would have I a detrimental effect on port operations. Further details can be found at Appendix 5.2. I Scheme B Key components
I Scheme B differs from Scheme A in that:
· the proposal for a movable span Webb Dock rail/road bridge has I been deleted;
· the Western By-Pass extension south of Footscray Road to the I Westgate Freeway has been deleted; · a new road, Graham st North, provides a link from the WestGate Freeway to Footscray Road to the west of the Western By-Pass I junction with Footscray Road, and provides a new alignment for the Webb Dock railway line. (see plan of Scheme B);
I the Maribyrnong wharves have been deleted. I Comments While the deletion of the moveable span bridge and the Maribyrnong wharves was considered an improvement, concerns were I held about the traffic impacts of the deletion of the Western By-Pass extension from Footscray Road to the WestGate Freeway. I I
------
\
SCHEME B i I
\ . .l-AtiD PARCELS O RELEASED I I. t ! " . \ II The proposal anticipated that south bound traffic on the'Western By-Pass would divert west along Footscray Road to take Graham I street North to the WestGate Freeway. VicRoads' strong advice was that this would not occur and that a more likely scenario was that traffic would continue easterly along Footscray Rd and along the Dynon Road extension through the CAD extension. This I proposal would therefore be counterproductive in terms of VicRoads efforts, through CATS, to direct through traffic away I from the CAD. Scheme C I Key Components Scheme C differs from Scheme B in that the extension of the Western By-Pass from Footscray Road to the WestGate Freeway was I reinstated (see plan Scheme C). I Comments While it was conside~ec that ~he proposals were generally I workable concern was e~press~d abo~~: the containment of the PMA to its existing berths at Appleton Dock i.e. no extension to F and G;
I the extension of Dynon Road under the platform road and its consistency with CATS.
I The extension of Dynon Rd under the platform road was dropped from Scheme D following VicRoads advice that it would render the existing Dynon Rd link with Spencer st impossible. It also I reduces infrastructure changes required of the PTC in the Melbourne and North Melbourne yards. I I I I I I I I I - - ...
I
", ...
SCHE~E,C.
LAUD J'ARCI!LI C1 AI!LUII!D . II I APPENDIX 5.1 MULTI FUNCTION POLIS CONSULTANT SUGGESTED I ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORKS
VIC ROADS has responded to two requests received from the Docklands I Task Force to examine and comment on suggested arterial road networks for the Multi Functioh Polis (MFP): I Letter of 21 March 1990 from Ian Hunt requesting the * production of feasibility layouts· of roads included in a ;\lFP arterial road network produced by the consultants for the I MFP. Part A of these notes together with a feasibility layout Figure 1 and relevant longitudinal sections provide - the I necessary information and comments. A set of sketches depicting an option of the MfP arterial road * network and possible staging was tabled at the Task Force T ransport Team meeting on 27 Mar-ch 90. Pun B of these. I notes contain appropriate comments.
The conclusions reached in preparing the feasibility layout shown in I Fig"'.lre 1 for t he con~ultant suggested Mf'P arterial road nstwor-k and l after exarnination of the modified ~~iFP network, includin g :t :; s tcgmg , I are: An adaptation of the consultant l\lFP arterial road networ-k is I feasible. Some design standards used in the feasibility layout s nown ill Figure 1 remain low and would lead to poor and often unsafe traffic operations. They would also be incompatible with the I objective to develop a technologically advanced ar-ter-ial road udwuck with low ern...rironmentul i ..mpacts .
I * The necessary MFP travei demand e stimates a re s t ill unavailable. However, it is anttcipated that '.ho? r::i!i:1cilY (If I critical interchanges and intersections would be inadequate. The proposed initial stage and the subsequent stages of the * MFP arterial road network shown in Skerches 1 and -) represent two different natwork concepts. 1t would be I impractical to develop the later i\lFP stages f rorn the' i ni r ial stage (which represents the initial stage of the Victor-ia I Harbour concept developed for the MPU). -I I I I II I PART A I CONSULTANT SUGGESTED MFP ARTERIAL ROAD NETWORK A-I Background
I The Docklands Task Force requested preliminary design for vertical and horizontal alignments of the Dynon Road Extension' and the Hawke I Street Extension and their access ramps. Because of the interactions with other roads such as Collins Street, Lonsdale Street and Latrobe Street Extensions and the significant differences in the arterial road network concept between the Task Force I request and the work done for the MPU on Victoria Harbour, a feasibility layout has been prepared for the whole network. This layout I is shown in attached Figure 1. The principal differences with the Victoria Harbour' arterial road I network developed for the MPU include: Extension of Dynon Road southerly to Charles Grimes' Bridge to act I as the through traffic route (instead of improved Footscray Road). Provision of a northerly and southerly oriented half diamond interchange between the extended Dynon Road and Latrobe and I Collins Street Extensions respectively. Relegation of the existing Footscray Road to local tr-affic functions only and removal .of the existing connection to Charles Grimes I Bridge. Westerly shift of the Western Bypass south of Dynon Road to an I alignment stradling the Moonee Ponds Creek. Extended to an interchange with the West Gate Freeway in the vicinity of Graham Street, the Western Bypass would form a land use boundary in the I MFP Relocation of Webb Dock railway to anew alignment further I downstream along the Yarra River. A-2 Comments I A-2.1 An adaptation of the consultant developed MFP arterial road network is feasible.
A-2.2 Some design standards adopted for the feasibility layout I shown in Figure 1 remain low and would lead to poor, often unsafe traffic operations. The following layout features, dictated by the road network configuration and terrain, are I of particular concern: Steep 6.3% grade on Latrobe Street Extension towards I Footscray Road. Half diamond interchange ramp terminals and the proposed North-South Access road .rnajor intersection would be located on this steep grade in the shadow of a 60 kph vertical curve. Up to 50% of I turning movements would take place on steep adverse superelevations. I ____--..- ~: . ":.t-
o ...--. r.: I' : ~ .' . \ -: i .', \ ~' '------" I Steep 5.8% grade on Lonsdale Street Extension towards Spencer Street.
I Extensive weaving would take place on Charles Grimes Bridge between Collins Street Extension and West Gate I Freeway interchanges. Very steep 7.4% grade and absolutely rrurumum standard sag curve on Collins Street Extension towards Spencer Street. Collins Street Extension would also carry tram I lines. .
Low standard horizontal and vertical curves at the north I end of Dynon Road Extension.
A-2.3 Truck traffic originating north and south of Footscray Road I (South Dynon Freight Terminal, Swanson Dock, etc) with destinations south of the Yarra River is likely to remain on Footscray Road through the MFP development. Prohibition of the use of Footscray Road by through trucks south east I of Hawke Street Extension could have adverse effects on industry, freight industry in particular.
I A-2.4 Due to incompatible grades on a major "T" intersection located at the apex of a substandard summit ver-tical curve t the existing Dynon Road - Spencer Street link would have I to be dispensed with. A-2.5 Access to and from the CAD and the Western Bypass would I be restricted to Latrobe. Street half diamond interchange or a circuitous Footscray Road - Lonsdale Street Extension route.
I A-2.6 Restricted accessibility between the MFP and routes to the north (Western Bypass), south and west (Charles Grimes Bridge and West Gate Freeway) and eastisouth-east I (Charles Grimes Bridge, West Gate Freeway). Dynon Road I. Southern Extension and the .t wo half diamond interchanges on Latrobe Street and Collins Street Extensions ....auld :1 provide the only direct routes to and from the MFP. A-2.7 The necessary MFP travel demand estimates are still unavailable. However capacity limitations are likely on the I two half diamond interchanges providing the only direct links between the MFP and other principal routes in the metropolitan area (see A-2. 6) . To satisfy the estimated I year 2001 partial development travel demand (extended 1996 Olympic Village development) would require a six lane divided Footscray Road linking into the initial stage of the I Western Bypass and the existing Charles Grimes Bridge together with six major cross and "T" intersections. The proposed MFP east of Moonee Ponds Creek would generate and attract traffic demands several times greater than the I estimated year 2001 post Olympic partial development. The connection of the Western. Bypass to West Gate Freeway I would reduce the through traffic demands. I ---"--'-'--'- ---_ .. --- I A-2.8 Lower than desirable design standards which had to be used on some road sections would be incompatible with the objective to develop a technologically advanced arterial road I network with low environmental impacts. I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I ------,
ir. t ..,,..... '~',.:. , - -- - -' -- - I· . --.' 1. ... / -. --.I - --.1_. - - --
~ III > uJ ...J a: ouJ o 0( ~
Control Point 16 ~-----_.._.__ .... -...... I 14 ...J Q. ", o >- a: ~ Control Point 12 >0(' 0 ...... v. ~I ;i -, a: 0( z o 10 a:, ~ o III 0 ci -''',~ ~ a: III o CJ uJ ....: o 8 z u, a: ::; u.; uJ > ,~ 0z 6 ~ "" 4 , <. ,I , , 2 ,,I, ,I II
DATUM _0_ W
---t------+-. o o o 0 o o o o o 0 o o o N M ~ '" co
SCALE OF METRES MULTI FUNCTION POLIS INVESTIGATION HAWKE ST. EXTENSION TO FOOTSCRAY RD. v 0 2 4 6 8 r= _._5 Ii 0 20 40 60 81l ------J -- 0,' I" I '0 fv\ 'II. (.
\- \1\ ~ .. ~ ~ 0 II 1. 'Il' 0 ~l 0- t: t !l- I 4- ~ l . 4 Ir- ~ • lJl1OEI.c..Jf)J~O ~ It ~ ~ I LeO' ..Z /1 c~ e::t C) \n ,0 UIL AEsEIWAfiO,v IM:.L. v. F. f. 0 ~18 "'">- ; ..t )' \'j ~ ""'- °1 ~ -" ... ~I + I 1
~ i 0 <:) 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ':to 2 N M
lDRAFT\
MULTI FUNCTION POliS INVESTIGATION LATRCl3E 51 EXTEN~ .;-. ~ .. "it 1 to .'0 ------· --- --~-- -~---~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--
t.D
\--' l! \A ~ ---~ ," ~ 14 ~I, ~ It ~ <> 0. .!2. IW
i .Q.. .-- 0 ~ 8 e ~ 8 ~ ~ -a i ~~
IDRAFTI
ICM.I 01 MlT..EI MuLTI FUNCTION POliS INVESTIGATION LOOSOAlE Sf EXTENSIa'f "",~ II• Jjt. it• J., ------_ .....
._---_ .._. _._----._-- ... III - oJ' \- --- 0 \II /' .------£ """'-- ~ --- .. /.-:;.. t UJ ------4 "~ -..> II "Z. ~ 'i /~. ------~ --. 5 ~I li------III \.- RAIL QES£J..vPtTloN ------\N'£. L.. V. f.1"_1 ~ ~ ------.: "< .;;; .'0~ o ~Ih \ ----... k I t I I ~ 0 t> & ~ ~ ~ ~ & -0
~ -
~ ------..... _"" .... -'1 • ---~~--t-~------Z -r---.---.------t------r----.------+------t------'--
0 .. () o 8 8 0 • ~ ~ ~ ~ IDRAFTI
MULTI FUNCTION POliS INVESTIGATION ------I• -;' .~ o , . > O' '97 0
U' ~ -.it \-... '-' lU J -4 0 cr: Q .. -n SI ~ ~ -4 I l.! 91
~ l- .!. ~ L
1..
.Q I - , , Q ~ R §. ~
(DRAFT]
MULTI FUNCTION POliS INVESTIGATION NORTH - saJT}f ACCESS AQtD
· ..·..·t-· ,. ; j.• ,: i ·~i·· . :··t ...; -~~ ! ::r::: iiiI- '. I· . ,I. _. ·f· I.r... : -~ ~_-:::-=.= '.,~ " " r--_: ---~\ ,.,. .' --! ~. ---- I I I
I I
J I~ ., ~
! ,.,
......
.. :. '.~.
'--~ -~ . .. ..:...... ,~...... -::.-:-- .... --.'.~-- .. '
"I . PART B COMMENTS ON AN MFP ARTERIAL .ROAD NETWORK I AND ITS STAGING A set of sketches depicting an MFP ar-terial : road network and its staging was distributed at the Docklands Task Force Transport Team I meeting on 27 March 1990. Sketch 1 depicted the initial stage (copy of Sketch 1 is .attached) . With I the following additions to serve the Olympic developments, it could be brought up to the initial stage of the Victoria Harbour network developed for the MPU:
I Add Pigott Street Extension intersecting with Footscray Road and a North-South Access road.
I Add North-South Access road between Flinders Street and Pigott Street Extensions. I The Western Bypass would intersect Footscray Road further to the east .than shown on the sketch; the interchange ramps constructed in the initial stage would be located each side of the existing Moonee Ponds I Creek bridge. The existing Webb Dock railway relocated to a Yarra River crossing west of the existing South Wharf Nos. 21-32 would significantly improve I the amenity of the Olympic Village and subsequent MFP development and simplify the arterial road network operations. A new Yarra River crossing and road adjacent to Webb Dock railway could relieve Footscray I Road truck traffic. The practicality' of such a crossing needs to be proven.
It is assumed that the sketch depicts the existing conditions at tho? I Shepherd Bridge and Hopetown Bridge.
Sketch 2 presumably depicted a MFP post 1996 Olympics arterial road I networ-k (copy of Sketch 2 is. attached). The concept shown in Sketch 2 has a number of problems: . I * The step from Sketch 1 to Sketch 2 would be impractical. The Sketch 2 concept differs radically from the MPU Victoria Harbour network concept of Sketch 1. The principal differences in both plan and vertical scale are discussed I later. * Some elements of the network shown in Sketch 2 would be I quite undesirable. I The principal incompatible elements of the two. concepts include: The elevation of Collins Street Extension would continue west of Footscray Road in' Bketch 2. The concept in Sketch 1 requires an I at-grade intersection between Footscray Road and Collins Street Extension. The suggested staged development from at-grade intersection to partial elevation would not be practicable with traffic using Collins Street Extension and Footscray Road. An I initial stage of the concept in Sketch 2 would have to be developed to permit staging. I II r··---·· I r : r: I I .. . I L.: U :..., . -.1 I The proposed Platform Road shown on Sketch 2 and the North-South Access road on Sketch 1 represent two incompatible road concepts. Platform Road would be elevated in structure to I match the gradelines of Latrobe Street and Collins Street Extensions (later Latrobe Street Extension). North-South Access road would be at-grade between Flinders Street and Pigott Street I Extensions. The two roads would not have common alignments in plan.
Flinders Street Extension would have an at-grade .intersection with I Footscray Road in Sketch 1 concept. Flinders Street Extension should not intersect with Dynon Road Extension and half diamond I interchange ramps in Sketch 2 concept. Some of the undesirable layout elements of Sketch 2 concept include: I Intersection of Dynon Road Extension, Flinders Street Extension and the half diamond interchange ramps north of Charles Grimes Bridge (would be very unsafe and hence impractical).
I The Platform Road alignment could not follow Dynon Road Extension and vice versa. The curvature of the southern end of Dynon Road Extension would have such a low operational speed as I to render it very dangerous and hence impractical.
The intersection between Collins Street Extension and deviated I Footscray Road would be located significantly further west and would have a different "T" intersection configuration.
The alignment of the Iink between Footscray Road and Dynon Road I Extension should be amended. The proximity of the "Y" intersection on Footscray Road to the Western Bypass off ramp would cause dangerous vehicle manoeuvres because of inadequate I weaving length.
Sketch 3 depicted further development of the MFP arterial road network I with the addition of a Platform Street and the completion of the MFP Ring Road. Feasibility of a Platform Street has not been examined at ·1 this stage. Comments applicable to Sketch 2 are still valid. Sketch 4 depicted still further development of the MFP arterial road network with the addition of another Yarra River crossing and a VFT route from the south. The Western Bypass extension to West Gate I Freeway showed the configuration examined by VIC ROADS. However, the alignment was too far west. I The desirability of realignment of Footscray Road north of Swanson Dock shown on Sketches 2, 3 and A needs examination as it could be I elevated within the existing right of way. I AP960A/LT I I ------_. ------\ --~ -~~/~ - \
/ / / / /( ------"'" \ ---~
/ / I / I " / ,/ I " --/ »: I /' \ / \ / \ / \ //' I ~- \ i I ~ I \ I I \ l \.---- l' -It
/ / / ------
z., - '2. .
,/ / / / / / /
/ I
Infrastructure Library I'I; ------._------~
(
? I I APPENDIX 5.2 PROPOSED MOVEABLE SPAN ROAD/RAIL BRIDGE: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT COMMENTS I
THE PROPOSJ-.L
I Concerned about the likely barrier effect caused by the location of the Webb Dock line on the west side of Footscray Road, the Docklands Tas~ Force have proposed a new rail/road river crossing in the vicinity of B Be~th Appleton I Dock. The proposed bridge would be constructed over the Port of Me:bourne's swinging basin. I for the reasons outlined be Low • the p r'opos c d bridge is not considered feasible. An altenative which warrants detai led conside r a t ion woul d be to reloca~e the Webb Dock line on the west side of the Dynon Road extension under I the platform. COM?-1EU7S I Phvsical Dimensions The channel width is 200m. The P~~ have advised that 25M is resuired at eac~ side for safety reasons should a sw i nq.i nq ship hi t the enbenkrne r.t . The I opening span would therefore need to be 250m.
In t e rrns of height, the opening span would need to be 51.6 me t e r s above char: I dat~l when open (as per West Gate Bridge) to facilitate the pa55a~e of ocean going vEssels. In addition, the clearance required at the point whe~ the spa~ joins the bridge is at leas~ 20m above water level (ie. ato~e the ~ei;ht of 3 I ships bow ) . Pillars constructed to support the lifting of the open:ng spa~ would be of massive dimensions, however, no hei~'1t estimates are available at this time.
Similarly, the approaches to the bridge would have a much greater impact on surrounding land uses,such as Port operations than is currently depicted on I the plans. Impact of Shiccino Movements
1 The intention of constructing a movable span ship movements by opening the bridge. All -- - ....- -_---- . ~. ,I obviously cease while the bridge is open. As a ship requires 700m in which to come to a complete stop, the bridge should be open during the movement of any ship which comes within 700m, wheth~r or I not the ship actually passes under the bridge. It is estimated that on average there would: e 12 ship movements per day requiring the bridge to be open for 20 rn i riu t e s on each occassion. It is I. estimated that a bridge of the proposed dimension would require 15-20 minutes to open and 15-20 minutes to close. Each ship movement would therefore mean that all rail and road traffic would cease for 50-60 minutes, or 10-12 hours I per day , As most shipping movE.rnents occur during daylight hours, the bridge would constantly need to be in open position, I ..J I I .2. Precedent and Cost
I No evidence exists of a movable span bridge of the r equi red dimens ion elsewhere in the world. The largest movable span bridge appears to be the crossing of the Mississippi River and Fort Madison, Ohio with a draw span of I 160m, approximately two-thirds the length of the current proposal. The PTC estimates the cost of a rail bridge of the proposed dimen=ion 'lould be I at least SIOOm, a combined road/raid jridge would cost considerably more. Impact on Port Operations
Band C Appleton Dock would require replacement (1 new berth) as would 32-33 I South Wharf (new dry bulk facilities).
The rail alignment shown would severely disrupt operations at the containec I terminal at 1 Swanson Dock ~ast.
The P!-~ propose to discontinue the use of the spur line at the rear- of I Appleton Dock. Use of this alignment for the Webb Dock line wo u Ld p r s ven t operation of existing Appelton Dock berths (B to E) and new Appleton ber-ths (F to G) req~ired to facilitate the vacation of the Olympics Village site.
I The proposal is not consistent with the P~..A/PTCs freight handling strategy which is that South Dynon will become the central freight handling facility in the short to medium term with further development south of Footscr-ay Road in I the longer- term. I COIICLL!S :;:DI Port safety and operational requirements as well as road engine~r-ing practices mean that the proposed bridge would be similar in size to the Wes~ Gate bridge when ope~. No moveable swing bridge of this size exists an~'lhere else in the I wor-ld.
ThE impac: of shipping movements means that t ne bridge would have to be open I almost permane~tly and the proposed site would have a detrimental effect on Port opera~ions.
Apart from the fact that the proposal is not practical, the relative I cost-benefits of the proposal must also be considered. For example, does the perception of a possible 'barrier effect', should the line remain in its current location, warrant the $100M+ cost and the disruption to Por t I operations, especially considering the other demands being placed on the Port? Consideration should also be given to the impact of 3 new river crossings on I I a~sthetic grounds as well as traffic circulation sy~tems (Webb Dock rail/road. bridge. Western By-Pass, MFP ring road connection to Graham Street). Preliminary advice suggests that VicRoads have reservations about t he i r I rie c e s s i t y . There may be cost-effective means of ~ddressing a perception that the Webb I Dock line constitutes a barrier, for example. through innovative urban design. I I I .3. Alter~atively, another option may be to relocate the Webb Dock line to the west side of the Dynon Road extension under the platform. This· proposal I requires further consideration. but preliminary analysis is that it is more feasible than the proposed rail/road bridge. I I MA~ION VAN ROOD EN PRC..7ECT MP.NA:;ER - DCCKLp.NDS
I 2S6S?G/S-7/KK I I I I I I I
I I I I I
._------.i APPENDIX 6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF I F AND G APPLETON DOCK The DTF would like to contain PHA operations to existing Appleton Dock berths. An integral component of the Olympics I program is the construction of F and G Appleton Dock so that victoria Harbour berths can be vacated by the PHA within the required timeframe.
I Alternative uses proposed for the site by theDTF include additional area for commercial and residential .development, an alignment for the extension of the Western Bypass to the I WestGate Freeway and opportunities for Wetland style passive open space._ The location of the Western By-Pass in this area would also provide a boundary to the Docklands development core I which is further west than if the by-pass was constructed on the original alignment proposed over the Moonee Ponds Creek. Hence, I more developable land would be available. A range of alternatives have been proposed and rejected. They are:
I 25 victoria Dock 34 South Wharf Appleton Dock E and F I Swanson Dock Maribyrnong Wharves. I Details of the first four alternatives can be found in Appendix 6.1. with the PHA response at Appendix 6.2. The proposal for berth construction in the Maribyrnong River was discussed in I Appendix 5. I I· I I I I I I I , I I I
APPEND IX ALTERNATIVES m THE DEVELOPMENT OF I, s.i NEW BERTIIS AT F AND G APPLETON J:X)CK
I Figure 1, attAched, shows various berth locations alternative to the mRjor development of F and G Appleton Dock at the mnl1th of I Moonee Ponds Creek. ( i ) 25 Victoria Dock I The DQcklands Task Force is proposing in the longer term a medium to low level road and rail cro8Bing of Railway Canal and the Yarra River 8S a point near 23-24 Victoria Dock. The plnn i 11c l u d €.' f! a Ls o aile x ,I, ens ion 0 r Vic Lor i a Do c k we 8 t 0 f t h i EO P (I i 1'1 t. 1 0 I eventually accomnlodate large leisure vessels that will not be ,I able to pASS under the new cr~e6ingA. In the short term, that is within the next ten years or 'so, the n o r t h s r d e of th(~ extension c o u l d be used as a PMA facility for relocation of the steel trade currently operating at 2-4 I Vi~toriH. Figur~ 2 d~mun~trHtes th~t there is sufficient sptl~e t o a c c orrmuda t e the s t e e I t r a d e . The shed at 24 ViCtOriti Do c k could be allocated to the new "26 Victoria Dock". This fncility I would have 8cce~s to Pitt Street 'and Dudley Street. In the long term, at the time that the' low level crossing is c o n s tru c t e d , the facility would revert to non-commercial u s e. I Construction of the new berth is feasible within the Olympic Village deadline ofmid-1992 set for Appleton F.
I { i i ) 34 Suuth Wharf
The Docklands Task Force envisages the eventual relocation of the I aerospace industries in Lorimer Street (west of Todd ROAd) to A remote site such as Avalon. This would r e l e a s e land s u I t a b l e f rr r port fl1<.:i 1 ities.
I In anticipation of this, a new berth inmediately west of the new 33'Victoria Dock could be constructed in the ahort-term whioh uses backup land bounded by Lorimer Street to the south. This I new facility would be of sufficient size to accomod~te the timher trade currently operating at 17-19~~u~h Wharf. The facility is I accessible to Lorimer Street. I I I I -"- I I -2-
I Construction of this new berth is feasible within the Olympic Village deadline of mid-1993 set for Appleton G.
I In the long term, this facility can be further developed by the PMA to encompass the large area of backup land made available I when Hnwker de'Haviland relocates. ( iii ) Appleton Dock E and F
Relocation of the dry bulk opeiatlon located at present at I Appleton Dock E and F is reqUired in the long term to allow development of the Appleton ov~r8eas container trade facility. -I If this relocation were brought forward, the ber~hs and backup land adjacent could be redevelop~d to accommodate the operations proposed for the developmellLtt tlt Appleton F and G, namely the I steel and timber general cargo Traders. Altetnative sites for the dry bulk operation are und~r investigation. Possible alterntltive include the Port of Geelong. the Port of Western Fort and 33 South Wharf at the Port of I Me l b ou r n e . I ( i v i Webb Dock Given an additional six months planning, design and construction time (possibly available as a consequence of the proposed puhlic I consultation p~riod) it may be possible to bring forward the long term development of Webb Dock to within the Olympic Village deadline. Thie would involve significant additional dredging I north of Lhe ~~isting dock and the construction of two· new bprths at 1 and 2 W~bb Dock West. These two new berths are irrrnediAtely we3t of the two berths at 3 and 4 Webb Dock West whiCh are I currently being deSigned. Swanson Dock I I In the short term two berLhe, ~ach 200 metres long. eRn be developed in a northern ext~nsion of Swanson Dock. LOCRl road access can be maintained parallel to and Irrmed i a t e l y south of I Footscray Road. These new f~cilities would be suitable for general c e r g o e s , such a s t Imbe r and steel, wh i n h no not. r e q u i r e large tracts of backup land. This proposal depends on the early termination of exiating leases between Footscray Road and Coone I Road. I I I I I I -3- None of the alternatives above overcomes the deletion of two container berths from the PM~A'a long- term planning. Further I development north in Swanson Dock would provide two 300 metre long bertha which can be regarded a8replac~m~nt5 for Appleton F I and G in the long term. This proposal requireB the reHlignm~nt of Footscray Road to the north. Reconstruction of Footscray Road, In the vicinity of I Swanson Dock, as an elevated 8trU~lure would ~llow the rail] ine to pass under, thus removing H level crossing. It would allow also unencumbered road acceS8 b~iweenthe port to the south and I the r ail termina Ito the nor i h . These proposals for Swanson Dock are not envisaged as achievahJe within the Olympic timeframe BO 8hould be viewed as A staged I solution to long term port planning issues. I I I I I I I I I
I C~S i IH I I - ~/- - .- -. - .------~ -~ <:»- 'n! I' (, 0' r I{
..= == ::.--:::,.. ~/ I,l t -~~ ...,....rr __
- _. - ~ ~"'."'Ci' rn-0-~~~ --- ~ e-
-.--eo" .... e I ....-
i' • f -- j
y )1 ~ 1° cii I If !I .,i .'.. ~ [I ...,! I
" ,.....;;.' ,~,-""~'.. .. . ',: . --
FIG. 11 ------,.
.r"
/
,,. /
.I
,/ ,; ,/ .. /' - __ ~l1=\ ,,- l 11-1'" -;» .'4'J-iO • 1-1:1 I r I I I
_._-----_.3'30 ------ _ ...._-- ~ ,. _...... - -- ....._..- ...------_.- -- -_.,- - ---_... II . APPENDIX G.L
I PHA RESPO~SE TO THE "ALTERNAT~ TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BERTHS I AT F AND G APPLETON DOCK" I Generally • PMA believes that it can only meet the new Olympics site vacation deadline (1.1.94) with certainty if F and G Appleton Berths are built , Development of two I additional new berths at Webb Dock West is the only feasible alternative. However, no guarantee can be given to meet the Olympic deadl ine. Much prel iminary I investigation and design work for this location wou l d need to be undertaken before a completion date could be determined. To put it in perspective, the Webb Dock I option is likely to cost $55m more than the Appleton Dock option ($106m) and is a significantly more I difficult project. • Most of the alternatives in the paper can be categorised as half-way, compromise options. They would reintroduce inefficiencies into our port at a time when we are I accepting the challenge to make all our operations more efficient, technologically advanced and world class.
I 2:> Victoria Dock • 10 years is an insufficient time to recover the costs of I developing this facility which could cost $35m to build. • Relocation of 2-4 Victoria Dock· (3 berths), trade I requires a modern new berth with large stacking areas capable of accommodating cargo from at least 2 vessel visit.s . This proposed berth has insufficient back up I area. • The area of the proposed berth conflicts with two I existing uses:- (a) Amalgamated PMA workshop facility (currently under construction). Any change will have significant I industrial implications. (b) The Ford export programme. I 34 South Wharf • The following operational constraints rule out this I proposal:-
(a) The proposed berth must be set back from the I existing channel (see alignment proposed of Yarra Wharfs in attached plan)· for safe ship operations I and to get the necessary dredge depth.
I .•• /2 i I - 2 -
(b) Timber operations need large areas of land for I storage and quarantine purposes. 17-19 south Wharf currently have 4.6 hectares (with additional area behind 21 South Wharf when available) and the I area behind 34 South Wharf would not be 2 hectares. I E and F Appleton Dock • The existing E and F Appl.eton Dock is only' 344 metres long where as the new F and G Appleton is to be I approximately 560 metres long. This is to accommodate 2 modern ships. Hence there is insufficient berth length I in this location to replace F and G Appleton. • The issue of dry bulk relocation was previously addressed and the PMA was not prepared to fund the I significant capital expenditure required, as it could be 'shown to be economically justified. (The whole issue of dry bulk trades in Victoria is being considered in the I Land Use Plan). • Existing port users have examined Geelong and they have I not considered it to be viable. • ~estern Port has inadequate infrastructure and would require significant capital expenditure, particularly I for road and rail infrastructure. • 33 South Wharf dry bulk operations (imports) are not I compatible with existing dry bulk operations at E and F Appleton (ma i n l y exports) i.e. storage in silos versus I large areas of land for brown coal products. • The land at the rear of 33 South Wharf is leased exclusively to 3 operators and insufficient land will be I available for brown coal exports.
--_Webb...... _--Dock I • Berths 1 and 2 Webb Dock West are the only possible alternatives to F and G Appleton. The major issue is I timing (see above). • At the request of the Dock1 and Task Force, the impl ications of changing are being examined at present I and include:- (a) design and site investigations
I (b) services to the area
(c) bringing the Webb Dock roads project ahead of I schedule (d) relocating Short Road Depot I ..• /3 I
I - 3 -
I Swanston_Doc~ • An additional 200 metres is insufficient for alternative I F and G berths and a temporary extension could not be cost justified. • General cargo steel and timber operations are not I compatible with container operations in the area in the long term. I • Efficiencies and economies of scale are gained by having the berths adjacent to each other (common shed, I amenities etc.> and not opposite as proposed. • Existing lease terms and conditions are being examined, I however expensive pay-outs may eventuate. • Timber operations do require large tracts of land. I I 26.4.90 I I I I I I I I I I -s I PRUDENTIAL BUILDING TRACEY, BRUNSTROM & HAMMOND PTY. LTD. 150 OUEEN STREET dNCORPORATED IN ACT' MELBOURNE. VIC 3000 TelEPHONE· 10316709306 I FAX 1031 670 5-535 I APPENDIX 7: TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE II PROGfW·1 ,I I I ... II IYXKLANDS DEVELOFMENT :1I I i l II 1990-2015 ~ J. I Prepared on Behalf of: .
I. Victorian Government Major Projects Unit, .. and Pre - Comnercial Developnent Divi~ion I. t I - by I II! ! JUNE 1990
1 :1 .! 'I !I. il :1 • I L I
I 1. Executive SlJIIIIlB.Ty
I 2. Introduction 3. Basis for Progrwmnes I 4. Olympic Village and Media Centre 4.1 Division of Sites by Major Restraints 4.2 Principal Restraints to Achievement of the Ol}mpic I Timetable 4.3 Alternate Progranme to Achieve Olympic Timetable I 4.4 Targets 5. Post Olympics Development I Apoendices OlYmpics Programmes I A A{I) Olympics Transport Programne - Victoria Harbour Summary A{II) Olympics Transport Programme - Detail Programme I A{ III) Olympics Transport Programne - Shortened Public Review Summary A{IV) Over Critical Items- Public Review - Comparison I A(V) Target Sunmary Olympics Programme Post Olympics Development I B B(I) Victoria Harbour Transport Progr-amme - All Stages I I I I II I I ·1
I 2 I
I 1. I 1.1 Olympics Facilities Amalgamation of the current anticipated schedule of RiA, PTe, MPU and Dockland Task Force with the previous 'Victoria I Harbour Progr'aame Report N. 2' of March 1990 by Atkinson Project Management results in the conclusion that on the basis of presently envisaged processes, the following items I cannot be achieved within the Olympics time frame:- OlYmpic Village - Victoria Dock South (over-run 5 months) I Media Centre (over-run 4 months) Tram Service on Collins Street Extension (over-run I 3 months) These over-runs are principally the result of the introduction of Public Review Processes to RiA and Roads I redevelopnents. It is suggested that one of the following options be adopted:
1. Bring forward both PMA and Roads Public Review I Processes end reduce their eoope such that they can be operated on the basis of overall Land Use Plans rather than a Detailed Master Pl anni.ng I Exercise; or 2. Make significant chariges to the Olympic Village I siting to remove the dependency on relocation of existing PMA Port activities from Victoria Dock South. One possible solution could be replacement I of the Victoria Dock South site by the site previously considered as an alternative to Yarra South Wharf.
I Additional to this Collins Street Extension would have to be r-eo. .nsi.der-ed requiring implicitljr the re-sit.i.ng of the Media Centre to a site not requiring major road I structures e.g. adjacent to the World Trade Centre. or 3. Amend the scope of works for Victoria Dock South to reduce I the civil engineering content and allow the application of rapid construction techniques to all buildings on that site. I Tram services on Collins St extension would also be excluded from completion within the Olympic timeframe.
Even allowing for such changes of approach, it is our view I that available floats for the following items are too short to provide sufficient probability of the projeCts being completed within the Olympic time frame. Target programmes I must therefore be evolved which have significantly shortened durations e.g. 70% of that presently anticipated. I In particular, the following items need to be accelerated:
1. ~ledia Centre Construction
I 3 I' I (Note that likely resource restrictions for electronics fit-out labour render the extended fit-out/commissi9ning period essential.) I 2. FMA new wharf construction to allow vocation of Victoria Dock South 3. Construction of Victoria Dock South Olympic I Village 4. Design and Construction of Collins Street Extension to allow tram construction to be I achieved with greater confidence. In order to provide a high degree of confidence that the required end dates will be met, Target programmes should be evolved which I have significantly shortened durations e.g. 70% of that presently anticipated. Such a strategy will allow the normally experienced construction delays to be accomodated without undul~' jeopardising I Olympic facilities.
Attention is drawn to the significant number of minor activities I identified in the Detail Programme (App. A II), which need to be implemented no~ if critical delays to Relocations and Site Clearances are to be avoided. Funding and quality staff resources I ~ill need to be provided for these items. ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I' I 1.2 Post Olympics Development
I Consideration of the activities required to release land for MFP/VFI'/Spencer Street Multi Model Interchange indicate that the major constraint on developnent generally is not I construction logic but likely financial constraint associated with the ability of the MelboUIne market to assimilate the developnent opporb.mities which will be I offered and at an acceptable r-et.urn to the Government of Victoria. The SUIIID8.ry Overall Progr-anm included at Appendix B(I) arbitrarily delays activities to post 1996 and post I 2005. Additionally, it may be expected that the arrangements for a Docklands Implementation Agency will significantly alter ~r I assumptions which may be made at present regarding public consultation processes, Public Corporation inter-actions (including Ministries), aVailability of Government funds, I and market place perceptions of the viability and value of DockLands . All of these will affect the speed of '1 development of the area.
I I I I I I I I I I. I I 5 I
I 2.. INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared at the joint request of the Major I Projects Unit of the Victorian Oover'nmr-nt. and t.he Public Transport Corporation Coomercial Developnent Division. It addresses principally the progranme aspects of the proposed Olympic Village developnent at I Victoria Harbour and the impact of presently proposed public review processes on the probability of achieving the desired Olympic time frame.
I A second progranme is included as an overview of future Docklands develeopnent including Multi Function Polis, Very Fast train, the redevelopment of Spencer Street Station as a Multi-Model Interchange, I and their respective precedent Port, Rail and Road relocations.
Assumptions made in preparing these programmes and documents upon I which they are based are noted in Section 3. I 'I I I I
I) I I I I I I I I 6 I' I 3. BASIS FOR mo3R.AfflES
In respect of timescale for the various activities and sequencing of I events, discussions have been held with:-
MPU I RiA Pre - V/Line Pre - CoDJnercial Developnent Division I Vic Roads Docklands Task Force VIT ConsortilDll M.o.T. (VIT) I GH & D I Draft programmes have been received from:- RiA in respect of new berth construction and relocations V/Line in respect of Fast Track/Parcels etc relocation and I Webb Dock Rail PTe (COD) in respect· of Rapid Transit Link Vic Roads in respect of road developments in the area I GHD in respect of Media Centre notional programmes. MPU in rp.RPACt of Pttblic Review processes.
These have been used to expand upon the MPU's "Victoria Harbour I Programme Report No.2" of 19 March 1990 (prepared by Atkinson).
3.2 Key Assumptions Used in Preparing the Docklands Olympics I Progranme I 3.2.1 Durations and Sequencing Generally, .durations as used in the "Victoria Harbour Progranme Report 2" I have been adopted for the programme except that Vic Roads and RiA activities have been totally revised in line with those organisations' current schedules. I Similarly, Pre (V/Line) activities have been reviewed and. amended in detail. Additionally, all activities have .been I statused at 28th May 1990 so that effects of slippage incurred to that I date are fully taken into account.. I I I I i 3.2.2 It has been assumed that Spencer Street Station will not be relocated. The multi-modal interchange will be developed in line with Prof. Yencken's proposals, ie. it will be constructed along the axis of Bourke Street extended, on a deck above the existing platfonns. Trams and buses will link into the interchange at the western end. Commercial developments will extend to , the north and south of the interchange on decks over the existing railway tracks. .
3.2.3 Collins Street will b€ extended as a hump over the existing railway lines at the southern end of Spencer Street Station. It will connect into Footscray Road and a new north-south road between Spencer Street and Foot.scray Road. Tram services will be extended down Collins Street to Footscray Road. Tram services may later be extended down LaTrobe Street also.
3.2.4 The Media Centre for the Olympic Games will be located in the general area bounded by Spencer Street, Collins Street extension, Footscray Road and Flinders Street extension.
3.2.5 No on-site construction will take place prior to the Olympics host city decision, but as much as possible of design work should be completed by that time.
3.2.6 It is assumed for the purpose of this exercise that Melbourne is successful in its bid to host the 1996 Olympic Games. I, 3.2.7 It is assumed that Cabinet decides in June 1990 that V/Line should stay in the Fast Track/Parcels and APM paper traffics, and as a result, facilities I for these traffics wi Ll have to be relocated. I I" I I I I I I 3.2.8 Webb Dock line will be relocated to the waterfront side of Footscray Road and routed. into South Dynon junction near I the eastern bank of the Maribyrnong River initially using the existing I at-grade crossing of Footscray Road. 3.2.9 VFl' will use Spencer Street Station as its major Melbourne Terminal. Pl.at.form I and track space will be reserved. for this purpose.
3.2.10 The proposed. Tullamarine rapid transit I link will also use Spencer Street' Station as the principal CAD tenninal.
I 3.2.11 It has been assumed that design and engineering resources sufficient for. transport infrastructure modifications I can be provided. by judicious use of Consultants and Contractors to I supplement PI'C/R'1A/Vic Roads. ::\.2.12 For the purposes of the Post Olympics Scenario, it has been assumed that Melbourne is successful in its bid to I host the Multi-Function Polis, but that its development will occur over an extended. time frame in excess of 20 I· years. I I I I I I I. I I .- 9 ·1 I APPENDIX B
I rosT OLYMPICS DEVELOFMENT
I BI VICTORIA HARBOUR TRANSroRT PROORAMME I AlL STAGES - SUMMARY I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I: I 24 -_. ------..,.------.. ------,- - - -- TOll - - --- FlT 1990 199: 1992 1993 1994 I~~II I~~~ zuou zuu: 2008 2009 2010 I iii I I I • I I I • I I I I I I I I , , I , I 3165 Cl4 GOVE~NMENT~ APPRO~AL : 1 , 1- I 1 , I 1 I 1 3165 DCOHHENCE DETAIL DESIGN' I I I I I 3165 :,, I CONSTRUcr'ION,. - ~YD/CAN,B : : :, 3165 , I I CONSTRUCTION - CANB/MELB
VIrCTOR'lIA DOC~ SOV TH I, 1 1 1 2100 C.~:::~:::~~:::~:JIOLtMPIC~ILLAGE:CONST~UCTION: 2100 I : I I I 10LYMPIC ViLLAGE MFP HOUSING YAlRRA ~OUTH ~HARF I I I I I I I I 217B ~:::::::JIRE~OCATE AEROSPACE TEC~ &HAWKER DE' HAVILLAND : , 1' 239B 1 c::JENLARGE BACKUP LAND SOUTH'WF 33~40 : 1 I I I I I I I I , I I I • I 217B c;JREtO~ATE P~A FROH,APPLE~ON DOC~ : 25B5 C::~::::)MOONEE PONDS HFP LEISURE PARK STAGE 1 1 1
4BO : MOONEE PONDS MFP LEISURE'PARK STAGE 2 CI::::::::J 217B :I' IAPPLE'TON MFP HOUSI'NG : 1 I 1
1" 1, I I I
I
I
I, , I I 1 1 I
" I , I I I I I I I , I I , 1 t I 1 I 1 , I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I , 1 1 I , Sheet 3 af a III SlAe _. DD..uallll:IUlf'ICS c:=:::=::::J Artloll, ear/tJrI' lilt.. TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMONC _ 0'111<11 ArtI.II, ~ "",,... ear VICTORIA "HARBOUR TRANSPORT PROGRAMME' VICTORIA HARBOUR - ALL STAGES PraI eet ~~I~t: IJ~~ PrII.Yera SYlteiS. IRc .•_.!lIl!I Protect .IRlSh: !Ul.IO I I Continuance of detail design work whilst a.Review is in progress is in our view likely to prove I politically difficult, as it would be seen to be pre-empting any public response. For these reasons, the programmes defer detail design work I until the relevant Review process is complete. As a result, over-critical delays of some 5 months are introduced to both the Media Centre and ,I Victoria Dock South programmes. A sub-critical dealy of some 6 months is also added into the Roads programme which is sufficient ·to delay tram I completion on Collins Street to an unacceptable degree. I 4.2.2 FMA Relocation Relocation of port facilities from Victoria Dock South and Yarra South Wharf in particular, I required the construction of 3 No. new berths. FMA has advised that berth 13, Webb Dock East will be constructed for relocation of Brambles from I Yarra South Wharf. 2 other berths can be constructed at either Appleton Dock (FHA's' preferred solution) or Webb Dock West. FHA advise I that the timescale for development of Webb Dock West is similar to Appleton Dock F & G. Hence there is no programme preference for either I solution. However, the present MPU proposal to hold the Public Review of FMA works follo~ingdeveloPment I of the detailed Master Plan and development of a consultation strategy has the effect of deferring the development of Webb Dock (or Appleton Dock) I for approximately 6 months. .
This in turn prevents relocation of users from I Victoria Dock South with consequent adverse impact on the completion date for the Olympic Village. It should also be noted that FHA has I' advised that phased relocation of facilities from Victoria Dock South is thought to be impractical as loss of part of the site would render present I shipping operations untenable. I I I I
1" I
I that comparisons with Seoul and Barcelona are not fully, valid in the case of Melbourne. This is because of the very small pool of labour' available I within Australia for this type of work and the long lead times required to supplement the labour force. It must be expected therefore that I broadcaster fit-out will be extended compared to previous Olympic Media Centres. 'lbe programmed allowance of some 16 months should not therefore ,I be regarded as including any delay contigency. The building structure is also likely to be complex due to both the need to acoustically I isolate studios from the main structure, and the vo.lume of services required for the building in addition to broadcast electronics. The allowed I construction and fit-out times should not therefore be construed as being generous at this I stage. As a consequence of the above, any public review process for, this building must be undertaken at a I very early stage and must not delay start of construction, on site. As noted in 4.2.1 such review must preoeed detail design of the building. It is suggested therefore that the only viable 1\ opportunity for such review would be immediately after selection of the Developer with a maXimum 6 month deferral of design documentation. This can I be accommodated because of the non-availability of the site until mid 1992 and the possibility of completing documentation in parallel with start of I construction. I I I I I I I I 14 II I 4.3 Alternative Programme to Achieve Olympic Timetable
I There are various options to modify the Olympic Games proposals to allow the required time frame to be met. As stated in 4.2, principal problems lie in the release of the I site for Victoria Harbour South and development of the Media Centre. I 4.3.1 Option 1. Modified Public Review Process It has been stated in 4.2 above that mcxii.fying the I Public Review process would remove the critical restraints on the present programme. This would require:
I a) Retention of PMA's present position as excluded from public review, or alternately basing PMA review on PMA's I own Land Use Plan which is expected to be available in September 1990 rather than basing it on the overall Master I Plan which will not be available until mid 1991. I b) Design of roads proceeding on the basis of PMA' s Land Use Plan but extended to cover the area .up to Spencer Street.· This would also need to be completed for I public review between March and September of 1991.
I c) Public Review for the Media Centre being based on the Tender proposal of the successful developer and commencing late I in 1990.
A suggested programme including these elements has 'I been prepared in detail to confirm its viability and is included as Appendix All. A Sunmary of that progranune and showing key Delay Allowances which I can be achieved is included as Appendix AlII. To illustrate the detail differences between the 2 programmes a further comparison programme is I included at Appendix AIV. This shows over- critical activities (open boxes) as caused by present Public Review proposals and the effect on I those activities of adopting the alternate proposal outlined above (shown as solid, narrow I bars) . I I 15 II
I ·L3.2 Option 2. MOdify ProlX?sals Critical restraints could also be aleviated by relocation of I some Ol)~pic facilities, i.e.:- a) Avoid the need for Victoria Dock South I' site by relocating the Olympic Village to include Yarra North and South Wharves as at present and. to also include the area adjacent to Flinders Street and I east of Foot.scray Road which has previously been considered an I alternative for Yarra South Wharf. This proposal still requires 1 new berth to allo~ relocation of Brambles. I which can be achieved, including !MA Public Review and with a sufficient I probability of success. It is acknowledged that such a change would have severe ramifications for the overall Victoria Harbour development. I It. woulci however achieve the initial ~im of satisfying Olympic Village needs.
I b) Relocate the Media Centre to a site which does not require provision of major ,new roads or associated structures I (eg adjacent World Trade Centre). This would remove Collins Street eh~ension from the requirements for Olympics thus' I removing roads almost totally from the Olympics critical path. The proposed Public Review process would then be reduced to consideration of Olympic I Village roads and minor changes to Poot.acray Road junctions, which could be accommodated in parallel with Village I, Public Review.
In this instance, Media Centre Public I Revie~ remains problematical and it is suggested, as with 4.3.1(c), that this I should be based on Tender proposals. Overall programmes for these options have not been prepared however, the reduction in decontamination I and civil Works required for the Village, its partial relocation, and the absence of major dock construction, will result in a much reduced overall timescale for the Village. As for I the Media Centre, it,may be envisaged that a similar time-frame will be required. (The benefit of relocation being removal of the need for I Collins Street extension). Hence, modification of the public review process will still be essential I to the success of the project. 16 Ii I
I 4.3.3 Option 3. Retain Present Sites and Simplify Design and Construction I Requirements A further option would be to reduce the civi! engineering component of the Victoria Dock South I part of the Village. Additionally, to gain the 5 months required, Village buildings would need to be designed for rapid construction so that the I construction time may also be reduced. Provided that the decision to use rapid construction methods was taken at a sufficiently early stage this need not necessarily compromise Architectural I quality.
The problem of Collins Street Extension tram I service would still remain. If present sites are to be retained and Media centre access is to be provided from Collins Street then the proposed I tram service may have to be abandoned within the Olympic time frame. I 4.4 Targets Amendments to the presently envisaged scheme allow a completion date for all Olympics/Docklands facilities within I the Olympic time ·frame. However, available 'float' for many of these is insufficient to give a high probability of success. In view of the fixed time of the Olympics and the I adverse effects of achieving only partial success (viz Montreal) all possible steps must be taken to increase the I available time conti.ngency (float). As a first step, it is suggested that target dur~tions should be set which are of the order of 70% of the current I durations. Public processes should be exempted from this as for programming purposes they may be considered to be virtually incompressible. The result of adopting such ,I targets is shown in the programme at Appendix A\' Target Summary Olympics Programne. Such targets should be adopted in all dealings with third parties such as I, Developers, Designers, and Contractors of the various . facilities. I I I I I 17 I, i
I 5. FaST OLYMPICS DEVELOH1ENT
Consideration of the activities required to release land for I MFP,IVFI'/Spenser Street Multi Modal Interchange indicate that the major constraint on develoment generally.is not construction logic but likely financial constraint associated with the ability of the I Melbourne market to assimilate the development opportunities which will be offered and at an acceptable return to the Government of Victoria. The Summary Overall Programme included at Appendix BI arbitrarily delays some activities to post 1996, and others to post I 2005, producing the programme shown at App. BI,
It may be expected ·that the arrangements for a Docklands I Implementation Agency will significantly alter any assumptions which may be made at present regarding public consultation process, Public Corporation inter-actions (including Ministries), availability of I Government funds, and market place perceptions of the viability and value of Docklands, All of these will affect the speed of developnent I of the area. Finally I the majority of the land to be released for developnent is presently either currently used for Port activities or is reserved for future Port development. Part of the financial consequence to the I Victorian Government may be early write off of various R1A investments in the Port and perhaps compensation to. other port users,· Consequently I R1A I s timetable for vacating the var-Ious areas may be I eA~ted tc be financially constrained in addition to the effects of I relocation/construction logic, I I I I !I I I I I 18 ,. I APPENDIX A I OI,YMI)I(~ 1'11'0: ;1".:\~1MES I AI Olympics Transport Jlr:.-9g~~llIT)~ Victoria Harbour Summary I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I
10 _.- I I!l!l] Iqq4 Isss TlIllh' ------H A HIJlc-A 1<; III INIII- I.IIF H A. HT.'II. AISIlIINIi II~ H A H--AI~IIIINlr IIF H A H ,II.- A HAH I I
OPEN OLYMPIC GAMES. I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I ' ".CONSTRUCT MC .. I
I I ,j
I . I 1 - r • I ., 1$4' ; de U!iiif£! "O~SIGN VOS 1 I I CONSTRUCT vps I , 1 I I j IWHARF CONST-APP OK WOW I : •1 I• I • 1 OLYMPIC v. VIC DOCK SOUTH ALLOWABLE DELAY I 1 i i
f-923
Sh•• t I 01 2 .'ClllA" IW8Ul C lSSOClAllD lIlJIl! C=.::::J "'loll, BII'/E..1y Dol.. TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMONn ".".r.-'- "=r.=- c:::::o:;;;:;;; D'III"I A< II, II, ~ PrOF'tl8M' OL YHP JCS TnANSPOnT PROGRAMME: VICTOflIA HARBOUR SUMMARY --..1-----.-1--1---- ~m 2~~g Pr I.a •• ra Syst••s, Inc. '!l8'·'!lll9 g:::: _. .-.. __ - --'-'" -- ._ . _.-=.
TOll Iqq~ IqQ\ 144;> 1'1'1.1 ,qq'i Iqqli Iqq~ - - FLY- 11~IM14-HI.II. A'SIIIINIn---H A H'.II" A II~ H A-H AI<;lnINIn"~---H A HIJIJ A - -H A 1l1.1I.1-A -H AIHIJI"-AI<;lnINIr--IIF H A H ______YARRA NPRTH WHARF ': WEST : : :: : 1033 t====l : 'L/BOATS, COMM, ~RUISERS-RELOCATE : :: : 1172 I. I IPRIVATE BOATS RELOCATION I I L I I I I I I u~~L : I I IOESIGN ,YNW ': : 446 f--- I : I_ I ICONSTRU~C~T-!.!.:::....._~YNW ~__
__ YARRA Nj)nTH WHARF :- EAST I : I : 246 , DECONTAMINATE OV SITE : f-'--436._ : I , 'DESIGN YN,W EAST I I , I 436._ : I I ICONSTRUCT YNW EAST I I I I OLYMPIC VIL. YARRA N WHARF ALLJWABLE DELAY I & a 1 I 1 I ___ YARRA SOUTH WHARF : I I I 791 I , IRELOCATE FLOATING DOCK I : 172 e=i , IRELOCATE SEAFAK : : 172 I , IWHARF CONST BERTH B WOE &RELOC BRAMBLES· 661 I IOESIG~ VILLAGE YSW 12-13: : 1 661 I , 'BUILD YSW 12-13, I ~IOESIGN 14-1~ 661 1 L-- YSW 1 I 172 I , BUILD YSW 14-19 I OLYMPIC VIL. YARRA S WHARF ALLOWABLE DELAY" ¥ARM I I I I ROADS PLANNIN~ &DESIGN ROADS CONSTRUCT &LANDSCAPE I I I I I I ALLOWABLE ROADWORKS DELAY ~ I I I 595 I I 'CONCEPT &D~T DESIGN I . ~LOCAT·fE~OODOC~R~AI~.L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I ~ ~---~ 595 I. I ICONSTRUCT
1- 446 COLLINS STREET s OL Y[MP=I=C=V=I=LL=A=GE=;=====~~===~~§~~~~~:I IUTILITIES DESIGN CONSTRUCT I & 20 I I IOESI'GN TRAM COLLINS ST' s VILLAGE I -69 I CONSTRUCT TRAM III.'II!II!BI!IIIIIIDII I I .....:.~ I TRAM ALLOWABLE DELAY I I I .I I I I I I I I I
Sheet 2 01 2 IClIlIU HARlWl I lSSOClUED lfIR
~- 1c=J;ORT PUBLI,C ~~~~~~~O~~~~/PUBLIC ~OlIMENT-flORT : ~ :I I '\AIflING REVIEM/PUllLlC CQ4MENT -OLYMPIC VILLAGE ~ COPTIONS fOR IfLEMEIITATION AGENCY I ~ c::::::::::JLEGISLATION fOR IMP AGENCY , ~ "ESTABLISH IMPLEMENW' ON AGENCY
Sheet 01 t2 ~ IIOfI(5 c:::.=....::::J "tUtU, Bw/hrlr Ott .. TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMOND 'lcrCllIA I ASSOCI.rm ~ D'llIco' A 1--..::-=-+----+---__..L__, --'---r----.- _ .._, I I I IN PRINCIPL~ Sheet of 12 YICrCllIO _eM C ~". clAIm WlRS ~ 1<1I.1t, ....ltarl' Dot" TRACEY BRIJNSTROM s HAMMOND ~ 0'111(11 1<1I.1t, rllll4 ~ ...... " .... OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMME ~I------+---t·-- VIr.TORIA HARBOUR .. DETAIl. PROr,fIAl~ME ------'- _._-- Prolect Start: IJAN89 Data Date: 28MAY90 Pr i.IYer. Sy.lelS. Inc. 1.t-I!lll9 Prolect Finish:' 9SEP96 Plot Date: 9JlJN90 ------_.------1~ - - - TOTL ~~6 ~W 19&~ 11}~1 Ir~4 19&5 FL TJ1--"IF 1M IA 1M mrnIs1011'1 IDJI IF 1M IA 1M rrrm Is10 IN IDJI IF 1M IA 1M IJrm Is10 ItIloJI IF 1M IA 1M IJI lA Is10 IN ID I·JIt 1M IA 1M rnrn Is1011'1 ID IJIF l"I-lllIJI I-Is 10 IN Ie J IF 1M IA 1M fJ IJIA Is10 IN 10 RAILWAYS 1 : __. RELOCA TE F~ST TRACK ~ E3 DEVELOP NEW FACILITY CONCEPI -- I I 56 0 DECISION ON FUIURE BUSINESS 56'-' ~ OElA'IL DESIGN & SPECIFICAIIONS 56" c::J 'lENDER - 56 b EVALUAIE & AWARO 56 : L I CONS IRUCII ON i4s."· , I SURI CONSIRUCIIDN ' --- I I 56 ,C::J COMMISSION --'56... - _._. . - 1_' .. __ ..• _. 0•.__IRANSFERj" .OPERAIIONS ._..•..._0._.._..._.. __ .. r .._. ....-.------.. _4 0 • RELOCAIE AUSTRALIAN PAPER MILLS , I E3 DEVELOP NEW FACILITY CONCEPI , , I -',]i- b DECISION ON FUTURE BUSINESS : I I 31 ~ DEU'IL DESI6N C SPECIFICATIONS I I , I 31 c::J lENDER I ,I --31 F.VALUAIE C AVARO I b, , I 31 ,I I COIlSIRUCTlON I I 1454 I' I START CONSIRUCTION ,' I 31 , c:::J COMMISSION I 31 ' d TRANSFER OPERATIONS ! : ! , I RELOCATE MINOR FACILITIES ' , E:3 DEVELOP RELOCAIION CONCEPT : 56 - Li:=:==JDElm: DESIGN C SPECIFICAIIONS. : 56 c:::J TENDER I 56 - d , EVALUAIE C AVARD ,' 56 " I CONSTRUCTION 1479 :1 SURT CONSIRUCllON : 56 I c:::J COMMISSION 56 _ . ---1..- ._ 0 T/uNSFER OPERATIONS . __, .__ .._:-_.__. I _ I '--' I DEMOl ISH AND ClEAR StTE ~ ' : 110 I f==::=J SPECIFICAIIONS : I 31 F§§,i§O;' IIlELOCATE V-LItE I , I I 51 , c:::J TOOER I 31 : b EVALUATE C AMAro : 31 , : c::::::J DEMOlISH BUILDINGS C LIFT IRACK 31 : I c::::::J ClEAR C' lEVEL EX-V/LltE SHE I , , , , I I I, Sheet 01 12 .(crIllU _ l assocurm WlRlS ~ & -~_.___ sJEVALUAIE ALTS. cllHSULTI I I~ OPREPARE BOARD REPORT I 286 0BOARD APPROVAL : ~ c:JDEVEL SUBH'ISSION (COULSON) I ~~ DOEVEL APPROVAL IPMA) : 286 c:JDESIGN IHFRASTRUTURE (COULl : -2~ D8UILDING PERMIT IPHA) I ~ • I _~ 1 ISITE DEVEL 18Y COULSONSI 286 : OTRANSfER OPERATIONS ~2a6 . ~_~~ATE OVP SITE-START CLEANUP I I .--.-.. ---.... --1--.. ----.---- __ fLOATING DQCK I : I I I -'--i _...2~!...... I I ISELECT/PREPARE flOATING; DOCK HEW SITE: : : ~_ I _.__ : c:::::::J RELOCATE flOA~DOCK ------:--.------.-.~------'-'------_l ___ VICTORIA DOCK CENTRE 'I I I~ c:::::::J VACATE SIrE : : 285 I I CIVIL WORKS - DESIGN I I -~ c:==:J CIVIL WO~S - TENDER AND LET : 480 I I CIVIL WORKS - CONSTRUCT ~ c:==:J BUILOINGS'- REfINE CONCEPT DESIGN I .---- • I _' 2B~_ I I I BUILDINGS - OESlfN ± : I : BU;lDlNGS - TENDER AIIO LET I BUILDINGS CONSTRUCT ~_ I --'I'---.---.-----+------'.==.:..::...==:::....=:..:::==...:..::;~-___loOLY""IC VILLAGE COMPLETE ON vac =---=-=- VICTORIA DOCK SOUTH .-----t : : _!- I 0OPERA TORS ;1ELOCATED TO WE8B DOCK .22~ _ I I CiVIL WORKS - DESIGN : 9 : c:::::::J CIVIL WORK5 - rOOER A}{) LET =::i::: I I' I CIVIL WORKS - CONSTRUCT VDS ~ I ; I BUILDINGS - DESIGN [1~: ~~;;~11~8~U~ILD~IN~G~S~-~TE~~~E~R~AI/ll~L~E~T=====:k=====::J -g : VDS - BUILDINGS ~ CONSTRUCT I =t: '-- .. L-_. -l-__. ~__._..._. -;.: ...:;OL"-Y...:;"":...I:..:C:..-'VI=LL~~ CO""lETE ON vas 0 __""_ -----::-::-::-- YARRA NORTH WHARf - WEST : : I I I I ~ ~IHV~E~ST~I~G~AT~E~SMALL _~. 'f====:::'::::Jj[ • BOAT Tf""ORARY• SITES I I .I I 996 I I I VACATE VESTERN PART I : : I ~ I C::J CIVIL WORKS - DESIGN VEST I I I ~ ~::Rw:S L~TC:~:;RU~T ~ST : i c:::::::J1 CiVIL Wl\RKS ; : : -os : II I BUILDINGS - DESIGN VEST; : : Sheet 4 of 12 VTCTIilIA IWtlDLA , ASSOClAltD olACS c=::=:J Act1.1t, er /[orI, Dolo. TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMOND c:::::==J O'IIIClI Acthll, _Ill"" if.....:.-..~:;;::::LJ Pre...... ,. OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMME VICTORIA HARBOUR - DETAIL PROGRAMME --1---' -'--"- .--.. _- ----.. Prolect Start: IJAHB9 ~m 2~~~ 1-----.----.- 1----'-- Pl'lunrl Sysltas. Inc. UU-SSI8lI Proloct finish: 9SEP96 g:l:: lOll ------A A -H A H M A H A H-A H A A H A A H M AA M A H - - - FLY------' , I PORT G OLYMPIC VILLAGE I I I ___ YARRA NORTH IIHAAF - NEST , , I c::::::J BUILDINGS ', TENDER AND lEJ "E~ST : I '~i~-:,-- ,I C======::::::JI BUILDINGS - CDNSJnUCT NEST ' I '0OLYMPIC VII LAGE COHPLETE ON YNN 923 b ..---... IqELOCA IE hS-DESIGN/CON E1PAOJEC'I DIMENSIONS 923 OIDENT OPTS, CONSQT 923 DPRELIM DESIGN, EST 923 DAODPT LHOUTS 923 DDESIG';,BRIEf 93B DBDARO APPRO fOR DES CONSUL T 94B DAUTHD~lITY REPORT 923 DAD~ERT G SELECT COOSUL UNT 923 DBO'ARD APPRO fOR PAOJ I 923 IAPPDINT DES CONSULT 923 DDESIGN ICOOSUL II 924 DPPSC APPRO 923 : OLET CONTRACT I 923 I 923 I I 923 I 1033 1033 1033 1037 1033 1033 1033 1033 1033 103l 1033 lOll 1050 I 99B IOEN1JfY BOAT OIIHEAS 998 OAEPlJIT TO BOARD I 660 I I 660 I 660 I I 1050 I 436 C=:::J VACATE EASTEIfI PART Sheet 5 oT 12 vlellllU twmJI & I.SSOCIAllD IIlR ISIIE CLEANUP " , ,I ,I I " ---:-- YARRA SOUTH NHARF : I , ~ c=:::J BUILDINGS - REfINE BUI~DING CONCEPT I ~ I , CIVIL MORKS - DE~IGH ON 12-13 : ~ c=:::::J BUILDIN~S - DESIGN ON 12-13 ' ~ c::::J CIVIL NORKS - r~tI)EA AN> LET ON t2-11 : ~ c:=:J VACATE SITE ON 'ERTIIS 12-1] : ~ , , ClVIL NORllS - CONSTRUCTION 1~-13 ~ , c:=J BUILDINGS - TEflOE'l AND LET ON 12-13 ~ : I ,I BUILDINGS - CONSTRUCT ON 12-13 ~ , 0 VACATE SITE ON BERTHS 1~-19 : ~ I , CIVIL NORKS - DESIGN ON IH9 I , ~ ," BUILDINGS - DESIGN ON' 1....9 : ~ ~ CIVIL NORKS - TEIIJER Ate! LET ON IH9 ' r---- I .I I ~ I, I CIVIL NORK~ - CONSTRUCTION IH9 , ~ : r==:J BUILDINGS ,- T~t()ER AND LET ON IH9 : ~ I I[::;::==~======:;::====::::JI BUILDINGS CONSTRUCT· ON 14-19 290 : 0DL Y"'IC VILLAGE COMPLETE ON YSN She.t 6 01 12 .,crCll'o _lJlIl & ASSOC,orm IflR(S c:==:::J "'hll, BIt/tit11 Da'" TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMOND c::::::::=::I 0'III cal "11011, ~ ...... BIt OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMME VICTORIA ItARBOllfl ,. DETAIl. PROGRAMME --_.. --,.------"-'-' Prol.et Start: IJAH89 Uata Oat.: 28HAY90 __ . ,_ PrI ....tI srsteas. Inc. '_I!lII9 Prolect FinIsh: 9SEP96 Plot Date: 9.AJN90 ------run.------FLT A H H A H A H A H 9 I 9 I 44 ISIIE INVEST DESlr-N. SPEC I 9 : ~AOVERIISE. SELEcr lENDER I . I • 9 I 9 I 291 444 444 291 291 291 291 502 663 625 634 297 297 297 297 \263 ~ 291 291 1263 'I 297 §! I BO~VElOP 8R,IEf 38\ DIOENTIFY OPTIOIlS. CONSlA.T 38\ DAOOPT SITE - I REPORT TO 80ARD 38\ o80ARO APPROV~L I 38\ CJPREPARE OEVEL SUBM\SSION (SEA) 410 CJOEVEL APPRO FOR SEAPAK IPMA) 38\ c:=:JOETAILEO• DESIGN ISEAPAKI 381 Del/ILOING APPRO IPMA) 297 : C:===:JISITE 0 VELOPMENr ISEAPAK) 291 • ORElOCATE SEAPAK OPERATIONS 297 : 0SITE VACANT FOR WHARF CON IIOE-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I , I I She.t 7 of t2 ,rClMIA H.t.I81II , lSSOCIUID IRS C:":":""':" "11'11, Bor/Early 01111 TnACEY BflLlNSmOM £) HAMMOND Pil:L+==JIii'l'iaii::=~iffiiQAiiWi'ir c= 17111<11 "11'11, PflOGIlAM~'E ~ Pro...... OL YMP I CS TRANSfJOIl r VICTORI A HAflBOIHl - (JEf AII. PflOGIlAMMF ----_.. - - .-.-_.. Pru' eel Starl: IJAN89 Data Oal.: 28HAY90 Prl ....r. Syshas. TnC.19""I!lIl9 Pro ect F nlsh: 95EP96 Plot Date: 9Jl1N90 -- - - TOll----1990 199' --1'1'11 - -199J --1994 --1995 - --1996 - - FLT II~ 1M A 1M 11.1IA IS III IN III II~ 1M A M AIS10INIUIJ If 1M 1M IA IS10INIU IJ If M A 1M IJ IJ IA IS liN III I,) I~ 1MIA 1M II. A IS III IN III I,II~ M A MI.l A IS III IN II II~ M A M A IS III IN I I I ROAOS: , : , I __ ROADS I I I , , I I _u~!._ I I I PRELIMINARY DESIGN R&AD/SIRUCTURE PLANS : , I 21 I c:::::J FINAL DESIGN nOAD/STRUCTilRE PI ANS I I , I , 240 : c:==J fOIlNllAlION INVf~IIGAlIONS : I , 115 I I ROAO/S!RUCTORE CONTRACT DOWHENIS I , , 0 I , I DESIGN ROADS At«) INTERSECTIONS ---R- I I 175 I I DESIGN STRUCTURE COLLINS STREET : I - 0 175 1 I I CONSTRUCT S~RUCTURE COLLINS STREET : 0 ----zt I I I I EARIHl/ORKS/DRAINAGE --=- I I 1 0 I CONSIRUCI ROAD AI GRADE COLLINS SIREE! ~- I , I I I I I CONSIRUCI ROAD FODISCRAY ROAD -~ I I 0 0 .~ I ,I I CDNSIRUCI ROAD NORTH/SDUIH ROAO STAGE 1 --_!~~ I : I 0 I CONSTRUCI ROAD VILLAGE ROAD - I ---_!~- I , :, I CONSTRUCT ROAD PIGOII STRfET _17~_ I : :I LANDSCAPING/NOISE I :1 ~ I , ROADWORKS COMPLETE FOR OLYMPICS ,0 I , , I I , I I I I , I I I I I I Shoot 8 of 12 'ICflJl" _ C ASSOCI11tD WlR I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I ,I I I I I I Sh.et 9 01 12 Y1C11111A _ , ASSOCIATED IIlRS c::==::J Aell. II, Bw Itw 11 OIl" TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMOND r::=:::I D'llIeal Acll' II, ~PrO""'I"'" OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMME VICTORIA HARBOUR - DETAIL PROGRAMME Prolecl Start:. IJANB9 Oala Oa": 21l11AY90 PrI....r. Sy.lelS. Inc.•90H!I09 Prof",t finIsh: 9SEP96 Plot Oal.: 9oNN90 ------c------,------I~~j ------TOlL 1990 \99' I'I'U 1994 \995 1'I'Ib FLT II~ 1M IA 1M IA 1M IA IMI •. IIAISIIJINIIJ II~ IMIA 1M IIAIS 10IN10IJ If 1M IA 1M IJ IJ IAI~ IU INIn ~ IF 1M A1M IJ 'IA IS liN IIJ 1.1 I~ 1M IA 1M I. IA IS In INI II~ IMIA M AISIIIINII I I I i UTILITIES I I I I I I NATER I I I ~ c:::::::J' PRELIMINARY OESIGN I I I I I I --290- I I I I I FINAL OESIGN SIAGE I & VILLAGE I I I I 290 I IIENOER!AN"!ID!MOBILIZE I 1 I r--sso I I I I INSTALL VILLAGE .----- I , 290 I I c:::::::J TE!"'ORARY SUPPLY MEDIA CENInE I I 336 I I I I INSTALL STAGE I-EAST I I r- I I ~ SEWER I I I I f~ c:::::::J PRELIMINARY OESIGN I I I 1 I I 29~_ _ I I I FINAL DESIGN STAGE I & VILLAGE I I I 290 I I IIENOER!AN~ !MOBILIZE I I I I I I I INSTALL VILLAGE '5so I I I r-2g0 I c:::::::J TE!'RIRARY CONNECTION MEDIA CE~TRE I I I f----3J6 I I I I INSTALL STAGE I-EAST I I DRAINAGE I I I I I ~ c:::::::J PRELIMINARY DESIGN I I I I I I I & I ~~ I I FINAL OESIGN STAGE I ,V:LLAGE I I I I I IIENOER!AN"!VMOBILIZE 1 ~ I I I I I INSTALL VILLAGE I ~ I I I c:::::::J TE!PJRARY CONNECTION MEOlA CE~TRE I ~- I 1 336 I I I I INSTALL STAGE I-EAST I , ELECTRICAL I I , I I I I : 716 c:::::::J PRELIMINARY OESIGN I I I , I ~ I I FINAL DESIGN STAGE I &'ViLLAGE , , 290 I I "EMOER!ANAfllJlMOB IIIZE I I I , 'sso , I I. INSTALL VILLAGE , , I ---zgo c:::::::J TE~'DRARY SUPPL Y MEO IA CENTRE I I l~EAST --m- I I I I INSTALL STAGE GAS 1 I I , ~ o PRELIMINARY OESIGN I I I I , , I ~ c::J I FINAL OESIGN - REGIU TOR I I , c::J FINAL OESIGN - OISTRIBUTION , I I ~ , , I 401 I 1 CONSTRUCT NEN REGIU ~llA , I 551 1 I INSTALL YIl.LAGE I I I I INSTALL ~TAGE I-EAST I----"'-"-r-m- I ~ c:::=J TEMPORARY SUPPlY MEOlA CENTRE c:::=J COMMISSION NEJ REGtA.ATOR 401 I 781 c:::=J REMOVE IU REGULATOR I - TELEPHONE I 716 c:::::::J PRELIMINARY OESIGN I I I I FINAL DESIGN I 29D I I - , I "ENOER!ANAIlll!MOBILlZE ~ I 5~ , I I INSTAlL YILLAGE Sheet 10 01 12 VI(T!Il1A IWIIlUl ClSSOCllItIJ lfrIItS c::::=::::J "U.Il, ../ElfJ, 011 .. TRACEY BRUNSTROM & HAMMOND c:::=::::::I !l'1tI ..J Acthll' ~ Pto...... BIt OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMt-£ VICTORIA HARBOUR - DETAIL PROGRAMME --- .._--- 1--- pr~l~ct SI~~~ : IJANB9 Data Oate: 28MAY90 ---_. ._--_._- ---- Prlll.era Syste~. Inc _19"'lllII9 Pro ect Fin sh: 9SEP96 Plot Oate: 9oW90 - - TOll- -1990 --199~ - --1992 ----1993 1~~4 --l'l'l~ --l'l'lh -- FLY IIF 1M IA 1M 11.1 IA IIF 1M A 1M IJ IJ IA I~ III IN III I. I~ 1MIA 1M1.11.1IA I~ liN III II~ 1MIA 1M1.1I. IA I~ I[J IN III 1.1I~ 1MIA 1M1.1- IIA IS III IN III r I~ 1M A1M IIA IS liN III II~ MIA 1M IIA IS liN ID I I I I I I I I I ...... _ ...._-1 _ .J__ ..• . ..I;!..,..~;:::::::;::::::::::::;:::::::;:::::::;JJ~ I PRELIMINARY DESIGN I I I I MDBILlZElIENDER/AMARD 1 SIleet 1\ of 12 YICTIIII. _ , lSSllClalm IlOIItS ~ "11011, BIr/£orI, Dol" TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMOND c:=::=J crlll,,1 "11.11, ~Pf'o..... 8It' OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMME VICTORIA HARBOUR _. DETAIL PROGRAMME Prolect Start: IJAN89 .Data Date: 2BllAY90 Priuyer. Srshas, Inc. 191"'_ Prolect fInish: 9SEP9fi Plot Date: 9JUN90 ---ron -\qqC - -lqq - ---1992 \qql - -1994 - ---1995 tqqE;- - - FLT IIF III 111111.11.1111<: In IN In IIF III 11111 IA I~ III IN III 1.1 I~ 1M IA 1M 1.1I,. IllS III IN III I.II~ 1M 111111.11.111 IS In IN In I.IIF III 11111 IIJ IA I~ III IN III 1.1I~ 1M A II 1.11.1IA IS III IN 11.11~ 1M A II 1.11. AI':TITTNlI' HUMS.l : : I : ._ COllllIS STREET C OlYMPIC VILLAGE : I 2!-: I I D~vrLDP CONCEPT : 301 I I I DE rAIL DESIGN/SPEClf ICA liONS-CIVIL NOJ1KS 301 I I I DETAIL DESIGN/SPEClfICAIIONS-TRACK NOJ1K ~ I 0 I DETAIL DESIGN/SPECIFICAIIDNS-PONER ~ I EXECUIIVE 1I0Rl I I -' Sheet 12 01 12 VIClIllU _ I OSSOChTm IilRs c:::::::::J let hll, 8or/tlr I, OIt" TRACEY RUNSTROM /; HAMMOND ~ 0'111..1 octhll, ~"""""'18or OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMME VICTORIA HARBOUR - DETAIL PROGR~MME ---1------..-----f--- Protect ~!art: tJAIl89 Data Date: 2BJ4AY90 PrIllverl Systeas. Inc. I.H_ Priilfct fInish: 9SEP!Mi Plot Dah: 9JUII90 I' I I .APPENDIX A OLYMPICS PHOJRAMMES I· A III Olympics Transport Programme I SHORTENED RJBLIC REVIEW SLM1ARY I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I 2] .. TOll 1990 1991 1992' 199] 1'144 1995 I~~h 144 - - I~ ------IS IU ------IA IIA IU IJ - - A IN III 1M III uu IN 1M. A1M --IIJ IA FLT HIAIHIJIJ A HA1M AIS In IN III I If- HIA H 409 409 o I I '-""'=---lVICTORh DOCK CENT,RE I I 285 I IDESIGN VIC QOCK CENTRE I I 285 : ICONSTRUCT VDC I • 1 I : VIC [lOCK C ALLOH~BLE DELAY I DESIGN VDS: I I : 923 ~~~~~~§~~~~IRELOCA:TE PES-DESIGN/CON : : 1033 I L/BOATS. COMM. ~RUISERS-RELOCATE : : 1050 I. IPRIVATE BOATS RELOCATION 475 I• !DESIGN I YNH : I Sheet I of 2 ymlllla _ I ASSOClAlm ~ c=::=:::J ",".ltr Bot/tArlr 011.. TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMOND CiII::lCCII ~ltltAl A tIM , I 1 , I , I I , ...l-- , ROADS CONSTRUCT s LANDSCAPE I' IC::INSTRUCT 1-_---lCOLLINs STREET s OLYMPIC VILLAGE ::: 551 I ' IUTILITIES DESIGN & CONSTRUCT ' ~---~IDESIGN 301 L-- TRAM COLLINS ST &VILLAGC : 31 : I : I':ONSTRUC'T TRAM , TRAM ALLOWABLE DELAY ~ 1 I , I , I , , , I , ,I , I I I Sheet 2 0' 2 'ICIIll" _ , l$Socl.rm IflR(S L."·'--·I Ar.hll, BIr/h..l, Olio, TRACEY RHUNSTROM &HAMMONn ~li1::'1Wi!il ~ 0'111,,1 Ar.hll, 1=0111:: ,.__lIl11JWI.__ ~PtDDI""''''' OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMHE _._------ SHORTENED PUBLIC R['JIEW - 5IJMHARY .-.... ._.,-_. _.__. ----~._-- Prol.ct S,art: IJAN89 gm g:~:~ ~t'~~~~ _._~ ... _-_._- ...- --- PrI....rl Systeas. Inc. 1!lB4-1989 Prolect FInIsh: 9SEP96 I I APPENDIX A I OLYMPICS m:xmAMMES I AIV Olympics Transport Programme I roBLIC REVIEW - m1PARISON I I I I I I I I I I I I I :I I I 22 ... - ---TOTL 1'1'10 ---1'1'1' --1'1'1, --1'1'11 --1'1'14 199~-- ,996--199, - -- FL T IIF 11111 111'>10 IN In (IF IH IA III Il I IN III IIF Il ·IHIAlll H A I IN IU IJ It 1M,A H _ ",,"L1MINAR'IES: : ~ I ! IDe OE~ISIOH ON IIIYIflIC SITE : o COPTIONS fon I..,LE":NTATION AGENCY : ....._- - I I ..._0... I ~LEGI,SLAIIOH Fan IMP AGEHCY : ~===~I~~~'ESIABLlSIt ° • IMPLEMEHIAIIOHI AGENCY ~ I 'oEYElOP & IMPLEMENI COHSIA.IA liON SIRlIEGY -79 ~ UlEVELOP oEUIL HASlER ~AN .- I ~ 'PUBLIC REVIE~ - MASIER PLAN ~ IPUBLlC REVIElI - MEDIA CEHTII: ",,====:J'PUBLIC REvlEM - PIIA ~ .. I ~ c:=::IREVIElI VILLAGE ~SIGN CONCEPT 226 IPleLlC REVIEW - IIIYIflIC VILL GE i--==- I I. 70 'PUIlLIC REVIElI - ROADS & RAIL I f-- MEDIA CEHTII: , , c=::=J OCW'Y SUG[ 1 ~ -,-- I ~ , -24 lUI OPlICAl F11l1£ I , IllY~ICSI :O~U~IPME~NT~11511~~~~:~:'j f-- COI.41SSION ,I , INSTAlL VIDEO HOST BROADCASTER ~ ,I -79 COIf'IlTERS UILDINS FIT en- I , f-- i TEST VIDEO HOST BROADCASTER ~ I I I ,t:=:=:] INSIAlL IIlILA TERAlS ~ --,-, I INSTAlL COIfIIITERS/SIlfTlIAII: t::::::J ' c---79 ' ...... -I t::::::J TEST IIlILATERAlS ~ ,--- I -79 TEST CIlIflIITERS t::::::J I f-- I --- , TE~T OVERAl~ ~ ~ -79 t : COMPL.ETE MEDIA CENTRE ( I t I _ VICTORIA DOCK SOUTH I I I 'OPERATORS RELOClIED T,O IIEII8 olJCl( I ~ ~ -116 CI'IL lIt1lIlS - TOOER AIID LET : f----- : I i crvn, WQII(S - CONSTRUCT vm! ,~ . I I I t I , BUILDINGS - TEMlER AND LET ~ ~ -116 vos 8UILDIIIGS .;:-.!~ill!£~';======:;1CONSTRUCT I =====:===~::J I f----- I ' I IIIYMPIC VILLAGE ClJlI'LETE 011 VOS , ~- I I ,' Sheet I of 2 c::::=:J AnI.U, IW/tItI, lilt.. TRACEY 8RUNSTROM &HAMMOND c=:::::J CHUcal Anl.lt, ~"""",IW OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMHE _ ,...,.. lilt" II II _'" OVER CRITICAL ITEMS - ~rnLIC REVIEW Prollet Stut: IJA11B9 Proleet F1nI8~ ,ilfEB97 TOTL 1440 1991 1992 1993 1994 144~ 144h 144, ---- II~ ---- II~ IIF ------, 1MIII 1M -- FLT IIFIMIAIM 11.1 1M 1M liN III IMIA 1M I I . I I I i I lIEJlB DOCK I I I I I - I I I I I I ~ I t::::::=:JAOVERTlSE. SELECT TEtlJER I I I I I I I --- I 4NO~ I I -1\6 I 'CONSTRUCT 3. , f. G AD I I I --- I I I I I I -116 I I I ,"l:LICATE OPERA TORS. .______1-___ --_._. _..... - . ------.--_.__.....- ....- ...... ,------.--'J.-- I -'--'..---'I .. I I I I ROADS I I I - I I , I I I -79 I PRaIMINAllY DESIGN ROAD/STRUCTlJlE PLANS I I I I - I I I t::=] fiNAL DESIGN ROAD/STRUCTlJlE I>t..ANS I I ~ I I I I -- I , IlESIGN ROADS 00 INTERSECTIONS I ~ I I I I I ~ I I EAllTHWlIlKS/DRAIIlAGE I I I I I -69 I I Cl»lSTRUCT ROAD AT GRADE COLLINS STREET I r- I tELEPHONE I I - I I I -79 I I E:::::I TEJIIORARY S\J'PLY IlEDIA CElITRE I ... .. i -' I i I CASLE TELEVISION I I I - I I , M08ILIlE~AVARll I ,~ i I -24 i :. I CAllLES TO VEJU:S I i I - i -24 I .. , CIMlIS$ ON --- I I .. I -' I COLLINS STREET' OL YIflIC VILLAGE i I I r---- I . , I EXECIIT VE lIlRS liN tlJUSEI I I ~- I -69 I C] 'cOMMISSION -, I - I ~ TRAIl COIfllElE fOR OLYIflICS II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I Sheet 2 01 2 f1t'lIlIA __ • AftltUTm _ [===:J Act",ty "'flIrl, DItu TRACEY BRUNSTROM s HAMMOND l:::::=:J ~"'ra1 Act"'" ~ ...... OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMW: '''''"' Dltu • of _'" OVER CRITICAL ITEMS - PUBUC RElIEW - --_.. - Prl ....r. Syatea, I"t.~~ Pr.et~:I~ct ~l:i~~a - 1=997 .~m g:~:: ~= II I APPD.rDIX A I OLYMPICS PHa:iRAMMES I AV Olympics Transport Programme I TARGET OLYMPICS SUMMARY I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I , 23 ______..4 - lOlL------1'I4U 1441 '44~ ------Iggj 1444 144------1996 199, - fL T II~ MIA M .J I, AIS III M A1M AIS IU IN IU I.J I~ M A MIJ IJ A 1M IA1M IJ r, A .tu IN IU I.J I~ M AM· AIS III IN III II~ M A M A IS III INIDIJ IF M A1M IJ r, AIS10IN10 IJ IF M A M PRELIMTARIE~ : : : 529 OIOC DECISION ON OLYMPIC SITE : 325 LAND 'USE PLAN VICTORIA HARBOUR I 529 I I' InEVEI.Ofl CONCEPTS ron VICTOnlA' lIf1nnOlJfI 416 c=JPURT PUBl.IC nEvIEW GUIOELINES : 416 I I: I PLANNING REVIEW/PUBLIC COMMENT-PO~r 529 : I I ~LANNING REVIEW/PUBLIC COMMENT-OLYMPIC VILLAGE r--__O~ IIOPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AGENCY o IIIIIIILEGISLATION FOR IMP AGENCY r----O~ , ESTABLISH IMP~EMENTATION AGENCY o , OPEN OL MPIC GAMES • ___ MEDI A C~NTRE' : I I' 350 t=====l ILET MEDIA CENTRE : I ~ I __ I I IOESIGN MC , 2Bl F===3 'I RELOCATE AND DEMOLISH RAIL YARDS , ~~ : I' , CONSTRUCT MC ' _.~!!L- I :I I 'FIT-OUT &COMMISSION Me 1 : 'MEDIA CENTRE ALLOWABLE DELAY , RAPID TRANSIT LINK 647 t======i . 647 ICONSTRUCT/COMMISSION RTL RAPID TRANSIT'LINK ALLOWABLE DELAY . o , , • I 575 ID~SIGN VIC DOCK CENTRE 575 I I tCONSTRUCT', VDC I. 'VIC DOCK C ALLOWABLE DELAY , 416 !DESIGN VPS 416 661 416 1 , . , 1095 I 1193 I I 10B7 I I 70B I SIleet I of 2 VIClllll' II&lIIllIl I &S!!Otl&lm IIlRCS c==:::J '''hit, 1lor/~1, IlIIII TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMOND _ 0'111,,1""1011, ~ Ptoar"'''' OLYMPICS TRANSPORT PROGRAMME TARGET OLYMPICS SUMMARY Proiect Slart: IJAN89 Olta Olle: 28HAY90 f--+------I--.-f-- Pr I_a,era Syste.,. Inc. I!l8H9I!l Prolect finish: 9SEP96 Plot Date: IJ.AJN90 ,------_.- _.- TOlL- ----rucn 199 --1'1'1;> --1993 -1'1'14 - Iqll'l-- 1'1'11;-- - Fl1 IIF HIA III1,11,/ A HIA H1.II,j A 1M A H AISIDINIDIJIF H A HIJI" AISllIlNl1J 11~IM A H AI<:lnTNTl1T.TlFli4 A HI.II.IIAIc;lnINln IInM AIM A I ______YARRA NORTH WHARF ~ WEST , 761 ---1.---~------4. , ~ , I ______YARRA NpRTH WHARF EAST I , 652 _ .. , DECONTAMINATE OV SITE 70B__ I lo~SIGN I YNW EAST 70B , I OLYMPIC' VIL. YARRA NHHARF ALLOHABLE DELAY , , 1044 609 -§QL B34 B34 , B34 , 579 : I IBUILD YSW 14-19 1 : OLYMPIC VIl. YARRA S WHARF ALLOWABLE DELAY I 1--_--lROADS : I : I I 325 .---'------:.I-,IAoADS PLANNING *DESIGN: : 520 I' :JRoADS' CONSTRUCT &LANDSCAPE I. I I 1 , ALLoHABLE ROADHoRKS, DELAY B06 RELOCAT WEBB, DOCK,: RAIL f (CONCEPT 1& DET DESIGN : B06 I I' ICONSTRUCT I I' I • , I 796 I IUTILITIES OESIGN &CONST~UCT : 625 IDESIGN TRAM COLLINS ST &VILLAGE : 354 :I' IcoNSTRUCT TRAM 1 : TRAM ALLOWABLE DELAY I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I , I I I I , I I I , I I I I I , I I Sheet 2 of 2 vmllAu _ I ASSOCUlED IIlR I rosT OLYMPICS .DEVELOFMENT I BI VICiORIA HARBOUR TRANSroRT PRCX:IRAMME I ALL STAGES - Sill't1ARY I I I I I I I I !I I I I I I I 24 ------.-- _ ---iMEDIA Ct' ENTRE', " " ',,' -;-, .:',,,,,, 1- I I I I t I I I I _._~O '---_ 'II, 'I', =:,' MEDIA CE_~"TRE STTA,,_GE_l-'-__~_~:f-__: : : : : : : : _ __,-_.J . ~ . :' MEDIA CENTRE STAGE 2 lW£?!i£!kP#'9f1ii£Mii al MULTI FUNCTIONAL POLIS ', I----i..'..'~~ FEASIBILITY STUDY :: 3515 o DECISION ON MFP SITE ', 3515 ~ REVIEH AND IMPLEMENT :: I I I • I I 3515 ,III • I PLANNINGI ANDI EES ,',' 3515 ,' ,j ~r BUILD INIT IAL STAGE 1795 ~RELOCATEI HAGqN• &INfRASTRYCTI I MAI~TENANGE DEPO~SI :I : 1720 ~~_-,CONSTRUCT NEW FAST FREIGHT &PARCELS FACILITY : 1720 C::::JCLEAR SOUTHERN 'END MELBOURN~ YARD; :" 1-.=;::=~=~'=::J I I , '1 WE~TI ~AST• 4BO Ir I ICo,NSTRUq WEBB ,DOCK 1?34 s B : 1565 : QVACA1E VIC pOCK 2~15 NOR,TH HF. ,12-19 fOUTH ~ 1720 c::JREALIGN FOOTSCRAY RD AT COLLINS ST EXTENSION , 1910 I' IREAu'GN HEBB DOCK 'RAIL AT COLu'NS ST. fXTENSiol~ , 1565 I', !cONSTRUCT COLLINS S'T s VILLAGE ROIIDS I: 1310 I I , !cONSTRUCT WESTERN BYPASS TO FOOTSCRAI~ RD 4333 I-----~----,ICONSTRUCT NEH'MET TRAIN STABLING'& DEPOT ::: 3173 ~::::r::::IR~E~OCATE MOTOR VEHICLE' DETAI~ING FACILITY' ::: 3073 L...- ...,..- -'IRELOCA TE PMA ~A.INTENANCE DFPOT: : ::: 3073 c::JCANCEL'LEASESI I I NORTH I'OF DUDLEYf ST'I ,:":I 3073 c:::::JCONSTRUCTI MFP • CORE AREAI LOCALI ROADSI IPARTt'I I " 91B I : c::JRELOCATE STANDARD GUAGE I AIL I 7BB : t:::::JESTABLISH PART LOCO' O~POT'AT' SPENCER S 7BB :: [::]OEHOLISH STANDARD GUAG~ fLYOVER : ~=:::;:==~ 4BO C IREPLAFEI VIC ,DOCK, IpI - 24,&I SOUT~I LNF 2tt - 26:I : ~6 480 []VACATEI VICI DOCK 16t - 24I &SOUTH, WF 21I - f " 25B5 .I, nw~ CORE pNALS, s HARD, HATER, EbGES :: . 4BO ~CONSTRUCT MFP CORE AREA LbcAL RbADS (PARTI I 4BO ,I' IYARRA RAIL 8R'ID~E eAst dr ~JlPlET9N 01< I 4BO : : ~TEM~ORARY :LtNK. H~Bb dk ,RAIL Tp APPLt.ON OK,RAIL 2125 : ,I IYARRA ROAD BRIlbG~ EAST OF APP E10N qK 2~~ :::: c::::::t:::::::::::IN)'S ARtERI~L RD ,00TSCR(lY flo 10 LORtMER ST 4BO ::: []R~HOVE IIfBI~ DOGK hAll: lI~E 10 HELBpUhNE ~AnoS, : 4BO ::: c::JREARRfN~E/R~MOV~ T~ACKS SOUTH qF REVERSiNG ~OOP : c::::==J &eU,II, Ilrn.ly Dot.. TRACEY BRUNSTROM & HAMMOND sileet I of 3 Ill. SlA6£S -. DQ.\IlllC ll.""ICS II:llI:lIIlmII ll" IU Cli &eU'II, ~," ...... 1lIr VICTORIA HARBOUR TRANSPORT PROGRAMME t--+------!----f---- VICTORIA HARBOUR - ALL STAGES Protect ~tlrt: 1,JA!l~~ ~m g:::~ ~~~g Prulect FInish: !lJlA.IO I----+------!---I---I ------TOll ------qQ71 1'1'1;> 1'1'11 1'1'14 1'1'1" I 'I'll - 1'I'Ih FLT ~ ~HU TI fUNCTIONAL POLIS 480 ~~L 480 480 480 1240 540 940 940 940 540 480 480 1120 3073 3445 3445 3376 3376 3376 3376 3376 3376 3376 3376 3376 3376 3376 3376 ~_~VE~Y FAST TRA.IN I I I I I I I I " , I I 3165 lED pJBuc ENllUIRY 'STAGE I I I : I : I: :" I: I 3235 OFJNALIS~ PANEL: REPOR~1 1 1 : : : :: : I I ,':: ~;~~ ~ccg~~~;T~E~~;i~;I~~T~O~~~ESST~OIES 1 ! ~ 1: l II " : 3165 I I IHODIFIED EES s PSA PROCESS I I I ': ' : I I I I I I I I\ I ~ l ;; i I c=:::J ..11.11, Bol'/tIrI' 1lI1" TRACEY BRUNSTROM & HAt-lMOND SlIut I.t I IlL .'110 .-.n. DQ.WM Il.TIf'/CS _ O'lIIcal Arts.", ~ 1'r9111''''IIIr VICTORIA HARBOUR TRANSPORT PROGRA~IME VICTORIA HARBOUR - ALL STAGES Prolecl start: IJAII89 Data DaU: 'IlIIAY~ i---+------f--~___l Protect Finish: 9.M.IO Plot Date: 'i".MIgo , r ------_.------TOll FLT ~nnR ~nnQ ~n I n i I I I 3165 ,I 3165 I I 3165 I I 3165 , , VIlCTOR"IA DOC~, SOUr,T:H~=~==:::::==~:::J: : : : ~ , 2100 L 'OLYMPIC VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION , 2100 I : : i I' , I 'OLYMPIC VILLAGE MFP HO SING ~ , YATRRA ~OUTH ~HARF I I I I I I I I 2176 , ' ~:::::::JIRE~OCATE AEROSPACE TEC~ &HAWKER DE' HAVILLAND : 2396 , ,' c::JENLARGE BACKUP LAND SOUTH'WF 33~40 :' ~~4APPLETbN DOCK I : : : ~: : ! : 2176 : DRELOCATE PMA FROM APPLETON DOCK I C::~=::)'IMOONEE 2565 PONDS'I MFP LEISURE, IPARK STAGEI 1 ::• I 460 I MOONEE PONDS MFP LEISURE PARK STAGE 2 I~ ~--J 2176 ., IAPPLETON MFP HOUSING ,I ,I , , I I I I , I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I .,I S!leet 1 01 1 III '''sn _. DtlIllIJC 11.""11:5 ~ .....11' 1lIr/tlrl, 11111. TRACEY BRUNSTROM &HAMMOND _ Q-llIClI .....11' ~ 1ftIr... 1lIr VICTORIA HARBOUR TRANSPORT PROGRAMME VICTORIA HARBOUR - ALL STAGES Prolect ~~a~t: IJ~~ PrI.aura Systea, Inc, 1...._ Prolect .,nuh' !UA.,O 111.5 099451 'OOC strategic OPtions cr I L _.....--..-- ); --199 - -1994 - - 1995- --1996 - FLT IIF1M 1.1. IIiT. 14 'IF 1MIA MIJ IJ A IS 10l"'In I.II~ 1M141M IA IS 10IN10IJ IF MIA MIJ I, A IS mnn 1.IIFTI4 A M JI, A IS 10IN lIJ IF M A MI. A IS i mIn- ,,~ M14 MIJ '" A IS 10INI[ ~EBB DOCK ~AIL: : : ___ JlElDCAlE ~EBB DOCK RAil ~ I I 651 c:=J DEVELOP RELOCATION CONCEPT I I 551 C:=:J PREPARE COST ESTlMAT~S : 119 1 OECISION ON IlElOCATlpN : 651 I I LAND ACQUISITION I _...2~ I I OETAIL 'OESIGN/SPEClflCATlONS-CIVIL' MOnxS ~ I I DETAIL 'DESIGN/SPECIfiCATIONS-TRACK' ~ORK ~ I I OETAIL'DESIGN/SPEClflCATlONS-SIGNALLlNG I~ : c::::J TENDER : _~~!- : c::::J EVALUATE & AMARO _~ I I I EXECUTE CIVil ~ORKS ~~ : I'EXECUTE TRACK ~ORK ~ : I I EXECUTE SIGNALLING