I Department of Planning & Development I Department of Housing and Regional Development MELBOURNE METROPOLITAN STRATEGY I STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS & PROGRAMS I FINAL REPORT I SOUTH EAST REGION I I I I I I I I I I SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ/ N I E I R in association with I Spiller Gibbins Swan Pty Ltd · · Travers Morgan Ply Ltd I Loder & Bayly Consulting Group October 1995 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I 1frastructure Library I Contents I Executive Summary I 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Definition of Region 2 I 1.3 Study Context 3 I 2. Study Process 5 3. Development of a Strategic Framework 7 3.1 Policy Analysis/Context 7 I 3.2 Region Description 8 3.3 Views of Stakeholders 16 3.3.1 Industry Surveys 16 I 3.3.2 Agency, Institution and Local Government Survey Responses 17 3.3.3 Responses to Advertisements 19 3.3.4 Regional Workshop 1 19 'I 3.3.6 Regional Workshop 2 22 3.4 Future Changes 23 3.4.1 Current Trends and Expected Growth 23 I 3.4.2 Other Drivers of Change 28 3.5 Regional Objectives, Vision and Projects 30 3.6 Economic Development Strategy Framework 33 I 3.6.1 Regional Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses 33 3.6.2 Regional Economic Strategy Framework 36 I 3.6.3 Summary 38 4. Projects and Project Packages 40 I 4.1 Project Selection 40 4.2 Project Descriptions 44 I 5. Project Assessment 65 5.1 Assessment Process 65 5.2 Relationship to Strategic Framework 70 II 5.3 Project Program and Costs 70 6. Implementation: Urban Management Structures 71 I 6.1 Background 71 6.2 Guiding Principles 71 6.3 Management Options 72 I 6.4 Delivery of Strategic Programs • Some Options 73 6.5 The Preferred Approach 75 I 6.6 Summary 76 I I l_.I I I I References 78 I Appendices (Bound in separate volume) Appendix A - National, State and Metropolitan Policies I Appendix 8 - Policies of Regional Organisations I Appendix C - Policies of Local Govemment Appendix D - Strategic Objectives of Service Providers I Appendix E - Detailed Description of Region I Appendix F - Industry and Business Interviews Appendix G - Long List of Projects I Appendix H - Response to Advertisement Appendix I - Workshops 1 and 2 Reports I Appendix J - SWOT Analysis I Appendix K - Project Descriptions Appendix L - Evaluation Tables - Performance Criteria I Appendix M - Special Note - Road Access I Appendix N - Study Team I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary I Background This report was commissioned by the Commonwealth Government I through the Department of Housing and Regional Development and the Victorian Department of Planning and Development to identify infrastructure projects In the south east region of Melbourne which would I strengthen the economic position of Australia, of Victoria and of the region. Although the focus of the study was to be based primarily on an economic framework, considerations were to include broader issues such I as quality of life (livability) and sustainability. I This report was prepared by a consortium of consultants comprising: o Sinclair Knight Merz Project management, transport planning and engineering; I o National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR) Economic analysis and assessment, freight analysis; I o Spiller Gibbins Swan Urban economics and planning; I o Loder & Bayly Consulting Group Transport planning, urban and social planning; and I o Travers Morgan Public transport planning. I The Commonwealth selected the south east region of Melbourne together with the north west region because these regions were seen to be critical to the economic well being of Victoria and the nation. The south east I region was an area where it was recognised that the provision of infrastructure had lagged behind rapid post war urban development. The study area is shown in Figure E.1. The north west region was also I the subject of a separate and concurrent study, by Ratio Consultants in association with DJA Maunsell and others. I The Process the Study Followed This study, which extended from January to June 1995, followed a process which emphasised the following: I o Intense consultation with all the levels of government, with private industry with government agencies and regional authorities. I D The examination of a wide range of issues relating to urban development which included economic, land use, engineering services, transport, technology, recreation, conservation and social I issues. I SINClAIR KNIGHT MERZJNIEIR CONSORTJJM 5R046.102.BJF:mh:17/10/95 I I I I I o high quality tourism assets (e.g. in the outer east and peninsula). Tourism Is a strong export growth sector; I o a strong base in tertiary educational services, particularly based on Monash University (and including the Monash Medical Centre). This part of the service sector is an important export growth sector in its I own right, as well as being central to the development of regional employment skills; I o a deep water port (at Hastings). Ports are traditionally focii of economic activity and they are scarce assets; o generally good internal road connectivity. This is important in I retention of business and attraction of new businesses. Road congestion, which exists at several locations. can be a significant I reason firms relocate out of a region; o an extensive radial rail network. This gives good access opportunities for residents to work elsewhere (along or near the I radial routes), assisting development of the residential base of the region; I o a core of well developed urban centres (e.g. Ringwood, Dandenong, Glen Waverley, Knox, Frankston). Urban centres are the places where higher order services growth tends to concentrate. Without I such centres, opportunities to share in this economic growth are diminished; I o slightly higher income levels than the rest of Melbourne. This underpins a strong retail trade sector and generally high quality urban assets and also helps provide the domestic markets on which I export growth is often built; o green space and other high quality environmental assets. These are I important contributors to breathing space and to the environmental amenity of the region, an important component of high quali.ty living environments, which attract people who can build new businesses. I These competitive strengths are obviously not all unique. For example, a skilled workforce is common to many parts of Melbourne. However, taken in combination, they add up to a significant package of attractions for I business growth and help explain why the region's growth is projected to slightly exceed that of Melbourne as a whole over the period to 2011 . I See Section 3.4 and Appendix E. The analysis of the region's economic characteristics. together with consultations held during the course of the study, however, have also I indicated that the region faces some competitive weaknesses. which act I SINClAR KNIGHT MERlJNIEIR CONSORTlJM 5R046.t02.BJF:mh:17 /10/95 iii I I I I I as inhibitors of regional economic development. As with the competitive strengths, the weaknesses tend to apply to particular parts of the broader I region. The main competitive weaknesses can be summarised as follows: o poor connectivity to the main interregional, interstate and international transport nodes and links. Apart from access to/from the Gippsland I Region, these nodes and links are essentially in the central Melbourne area (e.g. Port of Melbourne, Dynon rail terminals) and in the north (Hume corridor), north-west (Tullamarine: Calder corridor) I and. west (Adelaide corridor). The region is the furthest from these nodes/links of any part of Melbourne and traffic congestion on key I access/egress links adds to the cost of this separation; o the region has large areas of relatively undifferentiated development. with little sense of place. This reduces their attraction as residential I and business locations for many owners/managers and firms; o the low density development which characterises the region mitigates against development of centres of concentrated higher-order I services employment. It should be added that this form of development is associated with high levels of dependence on car travel, the long term sustainability of which is increasingly coming I into question on greenhouse gas emission grounds; o the major Dandenong centre has a poor image and lacks the local I occupational base for growth of higher-order services employment and the local high income levels to support more extensive retail and I services development; o parts of the core region have suffered considerable manufacturing employment loss and have a perceived image as being relatively I undesirable locations; o much of the workforce in the core is not qualified for employment in I those sectors with better growth prospects; o the Port of Hastings is not able to handle non-bulk cargoes and is losing trade in its bulk markets (e.g. as Bass Strait oil supplies wind I down); ,, .I D public transport services are perceived as being unreliable and unsafe, which acts as a counter to the advantage of an extensive radial network. They are perceived to have inadequate frequency, I coverage and coordination. I I SINCtAR KNIGHT MERlJNIEIR CONSOR11UM 5R046.to2.BJF:mh:17/10/95 iv I ,....--------------------------------~~---- I I I I The Recommended Economic Strategy Framework for the Region The region has many attributes which create the potential for economic I growth. For example, overall it has high existing and projected population growth rates: in the main It is an attractive place to live and work; it has the structure in place for a comprehensive intra-regional I transport network (both radially from the central business district and for cross-regional communication); it has an extensive system of major centres of activity which provide a high order of goods and services; and I it has good access to a wide range of educational, recreational and cultural activities.