4

~ 18. nJ

I :11 I I

I INTERIM REPORT

I BY

I' ~~I. . , t- . . V \ INVESTIGATION.' COMMITTEE I ~ .,.. I FOH • I GOVERJ\1J;H<:NT PROJECTS IN THE

I PORT OF :rvlELBODRNE/SODTH 'MELB01JRNE AREA I I I I I I I I . I ....-'------...--:---~

X 711. 4099 62210~71 C}:::.a.trr!'1F.tl"i : ,I: 45J DOC: Interim;report by Investigation Committee .J. R. Ashworth for' Government Projects Ex.cell tive Director in·the Port 'of Melbourne Public Works Department . ~-I r I So~!.h·¥~lb?urne f.re~ 30th October, 1~75. ____ ~ ____~_~ __ ._ .. _.c.._ . ./ . ~ .. I CONTENTS I I 1 • PREANBLE I 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE I 3. , 'HEHBERSHIP HEETINGS AND PROCEDURES

I 4 ~ l}-1eetings I 4.2 Sub-Committees 4.3 Sources and Pres~ntation of Information to the Committee II 5. SALIE1'\T ISSUES

I 5.1 N.H.T. Commissioners proposed develupment pl~n 5.2 '''est Gate Bridge Approaches

I 5.3 Johnson Stree,t Bridge Approaches,

5.4 ~ropo5ed ,{orld Trade Centre " 'I 5.5 Residential Areas and Developments I 6 . PORT OF NELBOURNE DEVELOPMENT I 6.1 Ba.ckground 6,.2' Trade Forecasts I 6.3 Dock Locations - Possible Alternatives I 6.4 Webb Dock Facilities 6.5 Generation of Road Traffic I 6.6 Rail Service to Webb Dock 6'.7 'Environmental Considerations - General - Physical Aspects I 6.8 Environmental Considerations - Sociological Aspects

I 7. TRANSPOHT ASSOCIATED 'HTH I{EST GATE AND' JOHNSON STHEET BRIDGE 1 7 . 1 Gen era,l 7.2 Initial Considerations I 7 • J Traffic Pr'edic tions

7.4 Recent Investigatio~s and Situation

I 7.5 Subsequent Action and Progreis r

. I CONTENTS (Cont'd.) I

8. HOUSING COMHISSION·FLAT DEVELOPHENT, PORT HELBOlJRNE: I HOWE PARADE, BARAK ROAD, BEACON ROAD A~~ THE BOULEVARD I 9. "rORLD TRADE CENTRE

.. I 10. CONCLUSIONS I 11 • . RECOHMENDATIONS APPENDIX "A" - Letter of 16th July, 1975, to the Honourable Murray Byrne, M.L.C., I Minister of State Development and Decentralization. I APPENDIX "B" - List of Documents made available to the Committee to date. I I I I I II I I I I I I I INTERnI REPORT" I BY

INv~STIGATION COMMITTEE FOR I GOVERl'-.'1'1ENT PROJECTS IN THE I PORT OF }ffiLBOURi~E/SOUTH MELBOURNE AREA

I 1 • PREAHBLE.

The Committee ~as convened by direction ot Cabinet. in I March, 1975, :following repr·esenta tions :from the State Planning Council concerning the need :for overall co-. I ordination and direction o:f planning and development in the Port o:f ~felbourne/S·outh Helbourne area. I At that time the Parliamentary State Development Com­

mittee ~ad already been requested by the Premier to I inquire into and report upon "Port Utilization and De­ I velopment in Victoria" its term o:f re:ference being: To review the present port requirements o:f industry, I cornmerceand shipping in Victoria and the adequacy o:f Victorian ports in meeting these requirements. I To report on the :future development requirements :for ports in Victoria :for the year 1985 and the I year 2000, having regard to:

- predicted econo~ic growth o:f Victoria I - '{orld trade -ship technology I - environmental and decentralization policies I - physical development possibilities. To recommend a co-ordinated port develo~ment strategy.

I To consider any consequent recommendations :for admiri-· I istrative and organizational changes. Any other matters which appear to the Committee to be I relevant to the Inquiry.

I That current enquiry,. there:fore, was pe·rLLnent to, but limited the scope of this Committee's activity to the

extent that the Parliamentary ~tate Development Corrmittee's :findipgs could not be pre-empted. This meant that any proposalS or recommendations with regard to plans or de- velopment would generally need to be o:f short term nature 2. I

I or such that they could not conflict with any recommenda­

tions, whatever they may be 9 coming out of the inquiry I into "Port Utiliza.tion arid Development in Victoria".

I 2. TERNS OF REFERENCE -. The Committee was· designated "Investigation Committee I for Government Projects in the Port of Melbourne/South Nelbourne }\rea" and it was required, to report wi th re­ I commendations on.:

Co~m~tted developmen~ and present plans for the I area. I Matters in the area requiring early attentio~. Guidelines for short term plans in the area. I Requiremerits for overall co-ordination of govern­ ment projects in the area. I J. MEHBERSHIP

I The Committee, as established, comprised:

I Public Works ~epartment Mr. J. R. Ashworth Executive .Director ( Chairman) . -

I Ministry.of Transport }~r. J. M. Bayley Assistant Director of Transport. Ministry of Conservation }-Ir. IV. P. Dunk I Chief Assessment Officer. Victorian Railways Mr. R. J. Gallacher I Assistant Chief Civil Engirteer. Country Roads Board Mr. L. cTones Divisional Engineer, I Metropolitan Division. West Gate Bridge Authority - Mr. C. A. 1Vilson General }-1anager. - . - I Melbourne & Metropolitan Mr. R. E.Lee Board of -il'orKS Supervis~ng Engineer for Transportation Planning. I Town & Country Planning Mr. R. A. Nairn Board Assistant Director I (Planning Services) Ministry of Housing ~~. B. J. Seabrook Chief Technical Officer. I Melbourne Harbor Trust Mr. A. J. F. stevens Comrrlissioners Chief Engineer. Secretary to the Committee - l-Ir. L. Appelbee, I Town & C6untry Planning Board. I

I 4. " MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES

I 4.1 Meetings: The Committee met initially on 10th April, 1975, and its proceedings to date have comprised twelve I meetings incl~ding site and area ins~ections. I 4.2 Sub-Committees: For the purpose of investigating special aG~ects and to expedite proceedings, special purpose sub--commi ttees were formed. These were: I '''estgate Bridge and Transport Sub-Committee. Webb Dock Sub-Committee. I Railwaj Link Sub-Committee.

I 4.3 Sources and Preseritation of Information to the Committee:

D9cuments providing information and which ~ereavailable I to the Committee are listed in Appendix "B" to this report. The outlines of significant developments and proposals by I the~~rious authorities were presented directly and ex­ plained by the relevant ~epresentatives on the Committ€e. I In addition,a number of other persons were invited to attend .and present information on particular matters.­ I These, and the subjects of their presentations, were: Dr. W". T. 0 'Brien (Centre for Environmental Studies, I University of Melbourne) -Outlined and discussed the scope and nature of the Social and Economic Study which the "Centre" had been commissioned by the I Melbourne Ha.rbor Trust to undertake i.n the Port of I Melbourne. (Meeting No.7 - 20th June, 1975.) Mr. G. "IHlson (Department of Crown Lands and Survey) Outlined and discusse4 the situation with regard to the I issue and "renewal of long term leases of Crown Land in the Port of Melbourne area. (Meet~ng No.7 - 20th I­ June; 1975.)

Mr. R. ~9-rclax: (Operatiol~S Manager, Australian National I Line) - Outlined and discussed A.N.L.'s developments, forecasts and requirements in the Port of Melbourne, I Webb Dock area. (Meeting No.8 - 10th July, 1975.) Mr. R. Dic~ (Consultant, Grahame Shaw & Partners) - I Outlined and discussed background to consultants study and. proposals wi th regard to a "\iorld Trade Centre. I (Meeting No. 11 - 21st iugust s 1975.) 4. ~. I .. ~ .

I 5. SALIENT IS~UES After an initial review of the overall situation the I Committee agreed that, in general terms, the major issues on which investigations should b~ concentrated I were: 5.1 The Melbourne Harbor Trust Commissioner's proposed I de~elopment of the Webb Dock complex and associated portindu~try with particular reference to - I (a) . the sociological and environmental effects and implications o~ ·this development; I -(b) the effects and im~lications on the surrollnding and connected road system; and I (e) the need for and effect-s of a rail system to service this dev~lopment. I 5.2 West Gate Bridge approaches with pa~ticula~ reference to: I (a) the situation with regard to the planning and programming of both short term and long term works necessary to provide adequate access, dis­ I ·posal and feeder network for the bridge and its immediate freeway; I (b) the effect of traffic, from this facility, On the surrounding road system; and. I (c) the effect of the extension of a freeway "from West Gate Bridge on both the adjacent road and rail system. I 5.3 Johnson Street Bridge approaches with particular reference to:

I (a) the situation with reg~rd to the planning and pro­ gramming of both short term and long term works I necessary to provide adequate access, dispers~l and feeder network for the bridge; I the interlinking of traffj.c networks for this, and to West Gate Bridge; . and ( c ) the effects on both road and rail systems to the I adjacent areas. I The Proposed World 1~ade Centre with particular reference to: I the need; . concept and siting; and I its possible effect on traffic systems in the Port area and any other i~piicatio~s. 5. I

Residential Areas and Deyelopments and their inter­

I relationships with any o~ the other developments in the environs with particular reference to:

I (a) the existing residential are~adjacent to the Webb Dock cOmplex; and I . (b) . the Housing Commission of Victoria proposed flat development scheme in the land bourtded by Bowe I Parade, Barak Road, Beacon Road and The Boulevard. I 6. PORT OF MELBOURNE DE-IELOPNENT I 6.; Background 6.1.1 The Melbourrle Harbor Trust, as a statutory corporation I established by Act of Parliame~t, is responsible for en­ suring that th~ Port at Melbourne is planned and developed to cater for the increasing needs of the State of Victoria I and the adjacent areas in other States which the port also serves.

I 6.1.2 Since its formation irt H377, the Trust has done ever)rthing in its power to plan port facilities to meet the contin­ I gen6ies of the future. Its port plan of 1915 was far­ sighted, being based on the sound planning principle of I re~erving land for the future growth of this valuable facility. The plans of 1929 and 1954 reflected the in­ I creasing restrictions placed upon the Trust as to the areas in which future development might take place, although the I 1929 proposal still p~anned well ahead of actual needs. 6.1.3 Shipping in the past decade has changed dramatically and it became obvious to the Trust that the capacity of the I River Yarra and the upstream docks (which were· the heart of the original port) could not cope with future shipping, I both in volume and size and as a result the provision of

add{tional docks at the river entrance, envis~ged in pre­ I vious plans, had to be investigated. 6.1.4 The Trust commissioned consultants to prepare a Develop­ I ment Plan both for the Short (1985) and Long (2000) terms.

6.1.5 The Forw~rd Development Plan that has resulted and was I endorsed by the Trust supported the view that the emphasis oftha Port would change to areas below the mouth of the I river; however, it did not foresee the river facilities oeing phased out. I j 6. 1 I

I 6.-1.6 The basic need was the provision of extra land to provide terminals of adequate capacity both in the short and lorig I terms. 6.1.'7 As no uncommitted land was available for future port ex­ pansion, the Trust proposed to obtain the necessary area I by reclamation of two areas in Hobson's Bay: (a) off Point Gellibrand, 1Hlliamsto.m; and I (b) at Port Melbourne. 6.1 .8 The section that this Committee has interest in is, I namely, the short term to 1985, with respect to (b) Port Melbourne. It is believed that mention should be made I of the fact that the Harbor Trust has indicated that it does not expect to pro~eed with the Gellibrand p~oposal I in the -1985 short term programme thus reducing the en- vironmental consideration greatly.

I 6.1.9 The late 1960 I s SEn.; the introduction of the "Container" (a means devised to reduce the labour~intensive cargo I handling methods utilized on the wharf fronts of the world) and it became necessary for the H.arbor Trust to plan and construct.facilities in the Port of Melbourne to handle I containers. Swanson Dock eventuated, becoming operative in 1969. At the present time, four container berths are I functioning in this complex and a further two are currently

in progress with a scheduled date of completion ~n 1977. I This will provide a total of six berths for cellular con­ tainer vessels in the port; however,·no further areas are I available for development in the upstream ~ection. 6.1.10 In 1959, works were commenced on the Port Melbourne side I of· the Yarra River at its entrance to provide facilities for the Australian National Line Roll-on Roll-Off (RO-HO) I service to Tasmania. SinGe that date, additional berths ~a~e been pro~ided in this location until at the present time four berths are now available. The early name I applied to the initial facility - "1{ebb Dock" - is now I used for the complete area. 6.2 '{'-cade Forecasts

I 6.2 • 1 It is not possible to predict the level of future trade with sufficient precision to determine future land and I v.raterfront reqi..1.irements 0xactly since the final level ,\Till deperid on a number of diverse factors such as population I growth~ government policy, ove~seas market conditions and technological developments. I

However; guidelines can be established. through a I statistical approach and the Melbourne Harbor Trust submissions to the Pailiamentary State Development I Commi ttee show that an annual growth rate of beh,'een 2% and 6% can be expected.

I Over that range of giowth rate and based on the 1973 'trade, the tonnages for 1985 and the year 2000 for the I Port of M~lbourne would be. as indicated in the follow­ ing table. I TRADE GR01\TTH (000,000 TONS) I 1985 2000 ~mJ - I 2% 15 19 26 3% 15 21 33 *4% 15 24 43 I 5% 15 27 56 I 6% 15 30 72 *:Helbourne Harbor Trust % for planning.

I 6.2.2 The Melbourne Harbor Trust's current planning is based . on an anticipated growth rate of 4% per annum to 1985.

I 6.2.3 As~u~ing a 4% growth rate to 1985, cellular container trade would be nine million tonnea, compared with five I million.tonnes in 1973. Besides, cellular shipping methods RO-RO shipping must also be taken into accounts I this, in 1973, amounted to three million tonnes rind utilizing the .same growth criteria should total fi~e I million tonnes by 1985. The overall totals with respect to container and RO-RO. I tonnage therefore would be: 1973 8,000,000 tonnes 1985 14,000,000 tonnes.

6.3 Dock Locations - Possible Alternatives

The Committee pursued the possibility of locations for I extension other than the present Webb Dock area. In the ensuing discussion the apparent possibilities that emerged II (a.) Cro\,'Tl Land in tnt;; Fisb.ermen' 8 Bend area belo", the I existing South Wharf Tacilities. (b) Crown I.-and in the Point Cook area. 8. I,

I It did not appear that either could be supported as serious alternatives to the present location. For 1 aliernative (a), in order to provide sufficient back-up area~ it would be riecessary also t6 acquire major in-

d~strial properties such as those occupied by General I Motors Holden Pty. Ltd. and Commonwealth Aircraft Cor­ poration Pty. Ltd. and no doubt the ramification in I this respect would render it impracticable. Alternative (b) could have much greater environmental I impli6ations, apart from practical engineering and

economic problems as the ar~a is currently a wildlife I sanctuary. I 6.4 Webb Dock Facilities 6.4.1 Thi's complex currently provides four berths utilized I in the~following manner: No. - Roll-on-Roll-off car passenger ferry ~I .No. 2 - Roll-on-Roll-off cargo ferry No.3 - Roll-on-Roll-off) , . ) for mlscellaneous trades I No.4 - ROll-on-Roll-off) including Japanese trade. 6.4.2 Government approval 'has been granted. to the Trust to I' complete No.5 berth. The area of the reclamation th~i approved to date is approximately 34 hectares.

'6,4.3 The Consultants" '{ebb Dock Plan, outlined in the'1-1elbcurne I Ha.rbor Trust for\,ard development plan for 1985, provided for additional reclamation beyond No.5 berth to enable a I further two berths - No.6 and No.7 - to be constructed. It was also envisaged that berths would be constrticted at 1 the inner end of the dock by dredging operations. 6.4.l..j, However, at this point in time, the l-felbourne Harbor Trust

I believes that the immedia~e requirements are:

1 • Only one new additional berth would be required I past the existing recl~ma.tion, namely, No.6. 2. The existing No.2 berth to be upgraded to include I part. of No.1 berth, thus accommodating larger vesse.ls. I Extension of' No, 1 berth at the inner end of the dock complex by dredging north to,\'ards \V'illiamsto"m I Road. 4. Th€ additional area of reclamat~mi necessary would I be 14 b,8ctares. · 9. l I

I 6.4.5 The' major requirement for any container berth is the backup area required for the storage of containers in I transit. The current .desirable area required for each berth is 12 hectares; hence, it is evident that ampl~ I land area is a major factor in modern port planning. 6.5 Generation of Road Traffic

I 6.5.1 A container port complex requires movement of con­ tainers into and out of the area by road and/or rail I or both.

6.5:2 At this point in time, the transport of goods to and I from Webb Dock is by road 6nly a~d ~aturally the move­

m~nt of trucks loaded with containers either full or

I empty presents someprobl~ms to local communities.

6.5.3 From figures supplied by the Australian National Li~e, I who are the predomiriant users of Web~ Dock, it is estimated that during this year (1975} some 400,000 1 tr~ck movements per annum, i.e., 1100 per day, would be generated to and from the Dock along Williamstown I Road. This is anticipated to rise to 500;000 per annum, i . e ~ , 1360 per day, in 1977 and to 650,000 per annum, i . e • , oj 780 per day, in 1980. The daily rates 1 are based on seven days a weekop9ration, however, it is stressed that there are more container movements

1 during w~ek days. (These f'igures have been substantiated to some degree by 1 Nelbourne Harbor Trust and the Centre for Environmental Studies ,Universi ty of Melbourne, road traffic' counts.)

'1 6.5.4 The Country Roads Board naturally has considered traff'ic volume in this .area.and their estimates for 1{illiamstown I'" Road west of Graham S~reet on'a 24-hour basis are~ Year -"-""!'_C.Ru8o ... k.N.L. i ().Ll?oc~ Estimated Estimated Trucks I· -_._---Vehicles Trucks Eer c!..9:Z .P.2~3.y I 13,000 1 ,100 1977 IV-est 15$000 1 ,3I.JC Gate Bridge I opened 1980 18,000 1 ,780 10.0% I 6.6 Rail Service to Webb Dock I 6.6.1 During the past thre~ years, the Australian National" Line has made known its need for the provision of rail :facili-- ties to its terminal at Webb Dock. . , 10 • I

I 6.6.2 Ini.ti.ally, it was envisaged that the rail link would follow Beacon Road and the foreshore, along the route 6f a previous railway line which was abaridoned irt 1955. I Howev~r~ at the request of the Port Melbourne City Council .\ in November, 196), the line was re-planned to follow Howe I Parade. This route was then agreed to by all parties 'concerned in 1966 and the reservation was included .in I the Metropolitan Planning Scheme for 1968. The Howe Parade route was authorized in the River Entrance Docks I Railway Construction Act 1970. 6.6.) By 1974, the Railways Co~struction Board had reache~ the I stage of detailed design for construction of the line with a view to its completion by the end of 1974 - th~ I need for this 'eariy construction being principally re­ lated to the expectedincre~~e in container tr~ffic at I Webb Dock in 1975. 6.6~4 Cabinet authorized a stay of construction and formation of a steering commit±ee to investigate alternative routes I on 24th June, 1974. I 6.6~5 That: Committee agreed "that regardless or immediate issues if the Port of Melbourne is to expand in a w~y similar to that envisaged by the l·o1elbourne Harbor Trust? then there I is 'a, clear need for a rail connection from the Victorian Railways System to the main dock area in the long term. I The short term need and the decision to const~uct a . . railway line resul fs immediately f'rom proposals by the I Australian National Line to increase its container trade in the East Asia se'rvice early jon 1975 and the introduc- I 'tion of. two l.E'.rge ne1'1 ship.s in the Eastern Searoad SGrvice. II 6.6.6 As a result of that Committee's deliberations, six alterna-- I tive routes were considered. Some of these routes had

I· 6.6.7 The ·Ho",e Parade Railway Sb'::ering Committee 1974 concluded that only two routes were practicable alternatives to the I authorized Howe Parade route, namely, Lorimer street and the FO':"Bshore Underg-l'ound Line and reported as such to the I Gcvernment in their report 01' the .3rd September, 1974. I 6.6.8 Since 1974 considerable and continual objection has been I 1 1 • I , I 6 .. 6.9 The initial approach of this Committee included the establishment of a railway sub-committee and this has liaised and worked in conjunction with Dr. W. T. O'Brien I of the Centre of Environmental Studies, University of Melbourne, who is in charge of the sociological study.

I 6.6.10 To date, the main activity has been to determine the input data required for the economic and environmental

I ev~luation of the various rail alternatives that are available to serve Webb Dock.

I 6.6.11 There are currently six alternatives under conside~atiori: 1 • Howe Parade {surface) I 2. The Boulevard, i.e., along the foreshore (surface) 3 .. ditto (depressed) I 4. ditto (underground) ._ 5. Lorimer Street (elevated and ~urface via Boundary Street) I 6.' IINo build" alternative.

6.6.12 As Inv~stigation proceeds it is possible that one or two I of the alternatives will be eliminated.

6.6.13 It will be remembered that the Howe Parade Railway Steer­ I ing Committee 1974. concluded. only three schemes were practicabl~, namely, 1,4 and 5 above. However, 2 and I 3 have been added, due to their different environmental impact cOmpared with Howe Parade and because, at the same I time, they pr6vide relatively low cost alternatives.

6.6.14 Preliminary cost esti~ates for the alternative routes at I this juncture are: 1 .' Howe Parade (surface) - $1.0m. I 2. The Boulevard (surface) - $O.7m. 3. The Boulevard (depressed) - $l.Sm. 4. The Boulevard (underground) - $10.'7m. 5,.' Lorimer Street (elevated & surf'ace) $11.3m. 6. IINo build" - not yet estimated. I Th.e figures for al ternative routes cost of ancillary facilities which would be required.

I 6.6.15 During the Committeele deliberations on a rail link to the Webb Dock complex, the quesiion oT existing and further I Housing Commission development in the immediate area adjacent to the Port has proved most contentious and is a salient I factor, particulaily when considering the Howe Parade route. I I.

12. I I 6.7 Environmental Considerations -General & Physical Aspects At the outset, the Committee anticipated that environmental I ma.tters associated 'v.i th proposed or possible developments in the area under reviewwuld be important factors to be I considered in the course of its investigation. In this respect, the Committee had been informed that: Approval to construct both No.4 and 5 Webb I Dock had already been given but for develop­

ments beyond thj.s C~bin~t has given,approval I in principle only, the works to be subjected to an environmental study before a final I decision is made. 6.7.2 The environmental study is being carried out on behalf' of I the Melbourne Harbor Trust under the directi·on of a Steer- ing Committee comprising representatives of the Melbourne I Harbor Trust, the· Ports & Harbors Division· of the Public Works Department, Fisheries & lHldlife Division ,Environ­

ment Protection Authorit~, State Elect~icity Commission, I Centre for environmental Studies, Port Phillip Authority,

Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works and ~he Ministry I for Conservation. I 6.7.3 An environmental study was initially planned to investigate th~ £irst stag~, or 1985, plan which envisaged continuing a. further 2000 f'eet beyond No. 5 berth to include berths. I 6 and 7.Webb Dock. In addition, the plan includes the provision of' a further two to three berths at the inshore I end of Ivebb Dock by dredging the- dock back over \Hlliams- t()im Road. Also, thi~ study was to provide much of· the I basic data and models required for the complete year 2000 proposal. I 6.7.4 The yea.r 2000 plan is an indicative plan only and subject to such factors as population and trade movements. It embraces: Further reclama tion of land at Ivebb Dock. An enlarged recreation area on Webb Dock. Reclamation of an area at Williamsto,m. Reclamation of a finger of land at Port Melbourne I and the demolition of Princes and Station Piers. I 6.7.5 The envirOllltient8.1. study had been planned to· take place i!1 Sociological. economic and transport stud~es by the I Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Melbourne. 13. I

(ii) Marine Biol6gy Study by the Fisheries and Wildlife I Division; and -. (iii) Coastal engineering study by the Ports & ~rbors I Division of the Public Works Department.

6.7.6 The first part, the sociological economic and transport I study, is, fundamental to any expansion of the dock. ] This was commissioned soon after the Trust received its I I instructions from Cabinet and Melbourne University Centre 'I 1 for Environmental 'Studies commenced work nine months ago. i ,j I This study is due for completion in September, 1976. Details are given later in this report. 'l I The Parliamentary State Development Inquiry into "Port ut,i,lization and Development in Victoria" is still in I progress and it is not considered appropriate to investig­ ate an extensive s~t of propo~als uniii th~i~quiry is I con6luded ~nd its ,findings are released. 'Therefore, it was considered necessary to review the rem~inder of the study so that in the short term the investigation is con­ I centrated on those projects in the Trust's development programme which are most urgently required.

I 6.7.8 -The environmental study has been re-designed to investigate at this stage construction of only one additional ,berth I (No.,6) extending 1000 feet into Hobson's Bay and the reconstruction of No.1 berth extending landwards towards I ''\villiamstown Road.

The new study in6lude~ the following physical environ­ I mental matters in addition to tha sociological, economic and transport study: I (i) Atmospheric quality (ii) Beach stability and ~uality (iii) Sedimentation I (iY) Water 4uality (v) Benthic flora and fauna I (vi) Planktonic flora and fauna (vii) Fish and shellfish as a resource for commercial I and ama t'eul' fishermen (viii) Avifauna I It is to be carried out by consultants arid is scheduled for completion in June, 1977.

I 6.8 I Within the limits of the Committee's investigation, the sociological aspects arise principally when considering r

14 . I

the. Harbor Trust's proposed development in relation to the I residential zonings in the Port area and, more particularly, in that area generally encompassed by l{illiamstown Road, 1 Beacon Road, The Boulevard and Todd Road.

6.8.2 South of Howe Parade, 55 acres were granted to the Housing ·1 Commission by the Crown in January, 1939. Work commenced on the first house in 1939 and by early 1940 the first re­ 1 sidents moved in. The complete estate of 376 houses was finished by the middle of 1942. A total of 277 houses have been sold to date. The area bounded by Barak Road, HOHe Parade, Beacon Road arid The Boulevard was a Crown grant 1 purchased by the Housing Commission in July, 1974. TIle Housing Commission proposes to build 89 flats of 2 and 3 1 b~drooms on this land. 6.8.3 In considering the necessary short term and possible long term programmes for development, the Committee was concerned 1 -with the possible effects and reactions arising, not only from the direct expansion of the primary port facilities, but

1 from the seconda~y developments such as the provision of rail and road access and generation of rail and road traffic.

1 6.8.4 Arrangements were made for Dr. Iv. T. O'Brien from the Centre for Environmental Studies to attend on the 20th June, 1975, I and ~nform the Committee on the scope and programme of the proposed social impact studies, which the Centre .is under­ I taking in relation to the Fon.\Tard Development· Plan for the Port of Melbourne. 1 6.8.5 The full scope of the major components of .the study 'vas defined as: 1 (i) Consideration of social impacts (including impacts on recreational and ·visual amenity) will- embrace the residents or the cities of lvilliamstow-n, port I Melbourne and South Melbourne.

(ii) Analysis of economic impacts (including income r employment al~d population distribution) is being

undertaken at the local, metropolitan, Stat~ and regional levels. (iii) Components (i) and (ii) will be undertaken for 1 several alternative combinations of port develop- ment and transportdevelop~ent and operation. 1 6.8.6 Dr. O'Brien indicated that, among other thin~s~ the study would examine the effebtof the port development and the 1 associated road and rail transport alternatives and that the study was expected to be completed within 18 months. r

.. 15. I

I 6.8.7 The. relatiori.shipbetween the proposed Howe Parade railway to service the Webb Dock area and the possible alternatives, on the one hand, and the existing housing area and proposed I Housing Commission development on the other, had already been identified by the Committee as a particular issue requiring immediate attention.. In answer to the Com-

m~ttee's request, Dr. O'Brien agreed that resources in the I first stage of the sociological study programme could be coricentrated on this issue with a view to having some I information available in Febru~ry, 1976. 6.8.8 It was evident that any decision in selection of altern a­ tives for rail access should not be made until· the result of

th~ social impact study was made known. Conversely, the

Committee also considered that., for the same period ~t I least, the propose~ Housing Commission development b6unded

by Beacon Road, Howe Parad~, Barak Roadan<;l The Boulevard

I should be deferred, and ~ccordingly 6n 16th J~ly, 1975,

submitted this as a recomm~ndation for Cabine~'s consideration.

1 6.8.9 At the same time, it ",ras also recommended that Cabinet consider the deferment of the issue of new and/or renewal I of Crown land leases in the Pdrt Melbourne-South Melbourne area until decisions are made with respect to road and rail I ac~e~s to Webb Dock~ the West Gate Bridge and Johnson Street Bridge. I 7. TRANSPORT ASSOCIATED lHTH.lvEST GATE AND JOHNSON STREET BRIDGES

1 7 . 1 General 1 7 • 1 .1 Since the predominant features of the ~hole area under consideration are the port·facilities, the West G~te Bridge and, to a lesser extent, the Johrison street Bridge, now 1 tinder constructions significant problems or issues iherefore to be considered by the Committee are those associated with I· transport· and transport facilities. 7.1.2 One of the immediate problems which has occupied a large 1 proportioD of the Committeels time is that of the proposed railway to service Webb Dock and the possible alternative routes and implications. This matter however, has been I 9 referred to separately in another part of this report. 1 Road access to, and traffic expected to be generated by, the Webb Dock development has also been dealt with in detail

elsewhere in this ~eport. available information placed before the Committee, it would 16. I

I appear that the effects of road traffic generated by Webb Dock would not begrea t '''hen compared ,,,,i th that arising I from the West Gate and Johnson Street Bridges. Of the issues associated with road transport, the major concern, I therefore, is the access and feeder system for the ·two new bridges.

I 7.2 Initial Considerations

In its initial review of the area, the Committee became I concerned with the fact that the 1vest Gate and Johnson Street Bridges were both expected to be completed by the I end of 1976.or early in 1977) but a system for acce~s and fee~er network was yet unresol~ed, although a considerable I amotint of investigational work had been and is being carried out by .Transport Authorities. The Committee felt that the I means for developin~ and eipediting a.co-ordinated plan to resolve the issues both in the short term and lon~ term I should be accorded very high priority for vital reasons~ Firstly, although the 1vest Gate Bridge will continue to be a dominant feature of the locality, its function and I effeQt will extend well beyond its immediate environs and, secondly, these bridges - and .the West Gate Bridge in I particular - represent very considerable investments from \·.hich the community of the State is entitled to expect I optirrium economic returns and other benefits without undue delay. I 7.3 Tra~fic Predictions I The Committee was informed that traffic predictions for the West Gate Bridge were in the order of 45,000 vehicles per I day when the bridge opens. I 7.4 .R e c en t I:.:'2.~:.!2:jS'a i~ ions and. Si tua t i on 7 .4.1 The salient points as presented to the Co~mittee were: (a) It was apparent that, with regard to the locality I under review, problems arising out of these develop­ ments would be related not so much to the Port Melbourne I area as to the South Melbourne area.

(b) The }!elhourD-c & l-'1etropoli tan Bc.ard of' "I-lorks s as a I Planning Authority, had been concerned jon the past with the F9 Freeway and had properties along and adjacent to I the Planning Scheme Rese~vati9n. 17. I

(c) A Transport Committee consisting of representatives of I the Country Roads Board, Melbourne & MeiropolitanBoard of Works, Melbourne, .Port Melbourne and South Melbourne I Councils, West Gate Bridge Authority and ~he Ministry of Transport, had examined proposals relating to the I issues. 7.5 Subsequent Action and Progress I A 1'[est Ga. te Bridge and Transport Sub-Committee of this Committee was formed for the purpose of preparing a I statement on the road transport and access problems of the West G~te Bridge, together with sugges~ions for the solutions of such problems. (Members of the Sub~Committee I were also members of the Transport Committee referred to uti~er 7.4.1(c) being representatives of the Ministry for I Transport, W'est Gate Bridge Authori ty and the Country Roads Board,respectiveli.)

I 7.5.2 The Sub-Committee presented progress' reports to the main

Committee summarizing the currentprop~sal~ for short and I long term traffic management in relation to the eastern approaches to West Gate Bridge and also the otitcome of I discussiohs between the Councils and Country Roads Board which culminated in the public announcement by the Minister for Transport on behalf of the Government with regard to I the general scheme of extensions of the West Gate Bridge I approaches. 8. HOUSING CO!-IHISSION FLAT DEVELOPMENT, PORT J'.'1ELBOURNE: I HOVE PARADE, BAHAKHOA_D, BEACON RQAD AN:[l THE BOULEVARD 0 8.1 The Housing Commission of Victoria has built estates in I various sections of Port Melbourne - one in close proximity of the Port development - comprising some 376 houses. I 8.2 With the development of Webb Dock, local environment and conservation issues have increased and, whilst the Committee I can see justification in this, it believes expansion of the port and associated industry may haVE! tp be accepted' in -the overall interest of the State and this could override local I considerations.

8.3 The Housing Commission has plans to construct 89 flats of I the 2-3 bedroom type in the area Howe Pa.rade, Barak Road, Beacon Road and The Boulevard and it was with respect to I this development. that the letter of the 16th July, 1975, , I attached as.Appendix "A" was forward.ed. The majori.ty of 18.

I ~. : I the Committee is still of the opinion that this develop­ ment shou1d be deferred until the ~esults of the social I and environmental study are knO\ffi • . ; 9. WORLD TRADE CENTRE I 9.1 \Yith the construction of the Johnson street Bridge, a section of North l'illarf is lost to shipping. The area I that becomes available is 5.6 hectares.

9·2 The Melbourne Harbor Trust Commiss~oners, in conjunction I with the Victorian Chamber of Commerce, believed that a Ivorld Trade Centre would be an appropriate facility to I 6ccupy the area that would be vacated by the North Wharf. 9·3 Corisultants were employed to investigate the feasibility I of such a proposal, the State contributing 50% of the cost. I 9.4 During August, the Consultants submitted their ultimate scheme of development for the World Trade Centre concept, I which basically wo~ld comprise: 1 • Offices (to be constructed in two stages) which would I .house firms and org~nizations concerned with trade. It was. expected that these 'of:fices would be occupied I by shippingcomp~nies, customs agents, trading businesses and the Helbourne Harbor '!'rust. Tenants would be those organizations connected with international and I domestic trade. I 2. I 3. Hotel (with approximately 400 rooms). 4. Convention Centre (with a seating capacity of approxim- I ately 4000): It is envisaged that there would be approximatelY one ac~e of flat floor space for c6n- I ventions. This area could be subdivided to enable exhibitions to be hel~ and would be ~lanned so that I it would not be in conflict with existing facilities. 5. A national centre for the national representatives.of I conUH21"'ce. 6. A Galleria and Restaurants, which would be open to the I public. 7. Public open space including a walk area along the I Yarra River .• 19 . I I 8., Car parking facili ties to accommodate approximately 1245 vehicles. I 9.5 Problems encountered in the preparat'ioh of the '''orld Trade Centre concept wereth~ need to maintain a relatively low I profil~ foi the building, a reservation for a future rail-, "Jay, together wi th the location of a 30 11 gas pipeline ip the vicinity of the '''orld Trade, Centre and the location of I the Coroner's Court, which is to be redeveloped in the I ar~a. I 10. CONCLUSIONS At ,this stage of its deliberations, the Comm~ttee has I arrived at a number of conclusions. These are: 10. 1 The area under review by the Committee is essentially I a sea port comple~ embracing associated in~ustrial and land transport activities. I 10.2 The superimposition of the 'vest Gate Bridge and, to a lesser extent, the Johnson street Bridge, adds to the I comp~e~ity of th~ situation and issues arising from these t~o developments are interrelated with issues arising from all other developments and activities I within the area of review.

10.3 While the Port complex, the associated industry and the I '''est Gate Bridge are predominant on the local scene they, in themselves, have a much broader significance with

I their purposes and influenc~~ extending well beyond the immediate environs and at least to a State-wide basis.

I 10.4 The predominant developments within the area represent major investments on which the ,community at large is I entitled to expect optimum economic return and other benefits. In order that thei~ respective functions can I be properly fulfilled and that optinmm return can be de­ rived from these investments, they in turn must be I adequately and effectively ser~iced. 10.5 The works and services, complementary to those main I developments and largely associ~ted with transport (road and rail) are the main £actor$ whioh havB y and will have,

direct impact on local condition~ and environment and I which, ,conversely, will be constrained in some ways by I the'local considerations. ,.

,. 20. I ,':

I 10.6. While the final recommendations of' the State Development Committee, based on its inquiry into "Port Utilization I .in Vi6toria" cannot be anticipated, this Committee is of the opinion that it ~s reasonable to expect that Melbourne I would continue to be one of the significant ports of .Australia.

10~7 Irr~s~~ctive of the ultimate extent of development and any expansion or level of activity, port facilities should I be kept abreast of modern practices based on international standards, otherwise the return on existing investments and I the .value of the existing investments themselves could be los~ in addition to other indirect effects.

I. 10.8 The Committee accepts ~ at .this stage, the Melbourne Harbor Trust figure of 4~ per annum for the growth rate 1 of trade up to 1985 at least as a basis fo~ short term development. I 10.9 Alternative locations for development of additional dock facilities required irt the short term such as FishermeqAs Bend area below the existing south wharf area and the i I Cr0111TI land in the Point Cook area do not appear to be I practicable or economic. .10.10 Havi~g regard to the fact that ther~ are no other readily available locations for suitable alternatives, it is con­ I sidered that the proposal, adopted by the T1~ust~ to proceed

with the riverentra~ce docks known nowadays as Webb Dock 1 and which had its origiri in 1959- appears to have been the only course available for it to fulfill its obligations I under the Act. .10.11 The Melbourne Harbor Trust proposals for the construction I of one additional berth (No.6) and the reconstruction of berth No.1 are reasonable tQ meet expected future trade I requirements in the short term. 10.12 After considering the available information and forecasts, I the Cott~ittee concluded that the effects of road traffic genera ted by Ivebb Dock would be small when compared with I that arising from the West Gate and Johnson street Bridges. 10.13 The Committee~ in its initial stages~ noted the conclusion I arrived at by t~e previous Steering Committee in that there is a need i'or a rail link from the ,rietorian Raih·.rays I I system to the Port of Melbourne Webb Dock area. The matter of rail link alternatives i~ under further con- siderati.on. h 21 • I

I 10.14 The existing residential are~s within the port environs and particularly those on the south side of Howe Parade could possibly change to some other use in the future I .if Port development is to continue. However, at this stage, the Committee could not envisage any change in I the residential status in the foreseeable future.

10.15 Implementation of the proposed development by the Housing I Commission in the Beacon Road, Barak Road, The Boulevard and Howe Parade could increase opposition to ~he rail I links and further port facilities now under review.

I 11. REC Ol'-ft-IEND ATI ON S .' Following .the investigations to date and the conclusions I dra1Vll, the Commi ttee recommends: I 1 1 • 1 The planning and implementation of works and services complementary to, or necessary in order ~hat the re­

spectiv~ functions of the Port and Westgate Bridge, I together with associated industries, can be properly fulfilled with optimum returns on the investments com­ I mitted, be accorded relatively high prioritj.

11 .2 In order to obtain essential information upon which I decisions can be made the amended environmental studies programme covering social, transport and physical I environmental issues be expedited. 11 • J The resources for the first.sta.ge of the Sociological I Studies, which form part of the Environmental Impact Study, be'concentrated on possible effects arising out I of the relationship of the various alternative proposals for a rail link to service Webb Dock. This recorr~enda- tion is already being implemented. I' J TIle Cabinet consider the deferment of the issue of new and/or renewal of Crown land leases in th8 Port Melbourne­ I· South Melbourne area until decisions are made with respect I to road an~ rail access to Webb Dock, the West Gat~ Bridge and JohnsonSt~eet Bridge. I 1 1 .5 In view of the expected opening of the Westgate Bridge and Johnson Street Bridge in 1977, f~nding he imreediately

plann(~d to ensure expeditious construct:Lon o:f the long I term approaches including the proposed F9 Freeway. I 22. I 1 1 1 .6 During construction of the F9 Freeway, work be planned and execut~d so as not to cause disrup~ion to traffic feeder routes which would be heavily taxed when the 1 West Gate Bridge is opened. 1 1 I 1 1 1

1 " . 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. I I 1 I

\ . - ;,J;.

APPENDIX "A"· I -- .11!tA:pg I '1420

The Il!'l'H,r-ab!e ~i. BYTfle, M.L.Co II I W1s15.st.er for State Deve1.cpment1' 232 Victorle Parade. I EAST HEL&OURNE~ VIC. 3002. I 16th July, 1915. I !~"''F.ST! CA'f I I1N COi.!J.m''rEE f:QR ("I.Wr~.m.w.NT PROJE~ _ !l'L_THE Perrr OF ~LOOUP.!!-WSC1m·l MELEOUPJ{E AREA

I~-\t j '--' Pl'ha fouy basic requiremmatsof' th0 Cmb"mittee ~N to NpO:!.-t mth r0e~J]~jad&th:m$ I Oil: I 3. Guidelinas fOT short··tem plans in the ar€'l:4. I 40 R~1uireJ'ilants for ovcnll ~o~oF'dinati()n of go,~amLl~llt pi1?oject1J in tSH" ~r0ao

(hlS of the qu~sti(jlns that the; Committee- ha5 been ill

Com:rd. ttee sst up by the Acting Minhtor fol!' r...ocal GoVQl'n~!H]mt on the 24th JWl~ j) I 1914" for thn~. fHltlXHHito

I , 'I~'. ;./ I f sociologic~l tLS?(~(';ts m'}Y'0 disl"Cga'R'd0d, th~ tns Hr,J~'lie Pa!'~de rout~ is

lJItdoubtadly the JOOst pl"efened, sineo ~.t is the most di1.'act b ?h~ r.m~t efficient from th0 opent.l.l1g point of view for th~ Vieton:m P.aU",~ys, /lnd fin P1'f;~~H.',nt I incliettUons the 1\'li)St economical. Hooover, [email protected] i!!lpliceti.mls 21.Wt D& taken into aecounto

I ~o of the routefi being stt,-&ied 'f)2S$ throt'~h 01" ;rt"caej <'!t:e'i'lt t~ 3;': existing' rcddend al area :md" furthermore, the Housing Comissicm M~ planned rmc 115 randy to imple1!l~nt & TI~~ hew-ling d~velopJl\ent a4jolning til,;; exi:»ting hm.lsing erea 3nd <1l) In.nd bounded by B~aCtm Road, HOll{e ~srad("Jt B(;\I'ak Road and the I lJ.oulevl!l'd.

At toa present ~J.me, as part of the Port of r,lelb:ltm'l!3 Emfi!'o~JJiGi'lt~l $tucly p I tho Centre fOT Envi.l"en~enttll Stttdiss, UniVC)1:"s:1:ty of ~~lb6

'l.;ntU a.f:tal' th~ res~~lts· of the cn'Vi rol~r;k~tfil s~udy were knoml 0

I Yn viote of this. wh! ht lR dctd.siolil on the; raHway pl"O'Pos~)ls has haelJ deft)i'reC until thi~ emrirontWlltml study has bean eo~leted~ th.e Co:muittee W4~$ ~ho (.r the opinlo~ that the propo!!e<.i H?using Ccnmu.s:Jion do'!~lopment sll!mld Bhatia def0Tre

O'.rnt(1/ • ~ • .:,

Ag' ~ X'QSUltD it't.t!ils 1.-esolVed th!'it the C;.binet Stancllng COt'.Ptitt.eebe no.vhed that the Cooollittce for GOVOt"iUt\~ll~: PToj~cts' 'j,n th~ Port (~f HelbournsjSouth ~{elhm.t'm~ Area I tmdCT Part :2 of it3 ch~rt~r; n;-Ii!';;.~ly~. to· t:'eT'ort on mattei'S :roqu.id'!1ge9.l"ly attention; follm:ing n. pl'eHminary inveS'i:i,ll'l.tion of th!t th~e !:"an l'ot.'tes f ?€·cmt7.!end~ th~t furth:iJ:r mct1o:rl ,,~'jji 'the pr)pcscd r-Ycusir.tg . C(»),ir~i:;!Ji(m de!velo}'J1Nmt in the &'i:Ga bounderl by Beeco'n Road, Howe P>.u'ada, I SU1'(L'I.; ~{on.d and 'me B01Jlevft?d~beJ aei(trl'e:ld untH ~h"j l~$ults of th~ $od.al an

I. 'the l'upl"~$entriUve of tho HelbouTn!i: & M~tTOl'oHta1'1 nc~rd orWol'ks n Mr. Po. Lo,~~ tfiE~ ~ht' only diggent~t'to tns'!l:\1tion and clo9i:rea that this be notod :J.n any l'CP!.ll't. It nrust b("l pointed ou:t that tho Tep7eS0l1t~tiva of th~ Housing I Cmnrsh.sloii,·Mr. B. Se~J~:t'ook~, wa.s 'fmt in attGndane() st this mtH.'!fti!~g. At the Srufle meeting, conecro was CJt'pl""\3Sse&. in rCflttrd to .tho issue of mn1 alld/or

'X'enewal. of lcmg-terro lomH~$ f{)r Crown hnd 9 1'

tt"e.d j) Barak RO£'.d 2!na The !1!lulev;:::r{l s tmeU tha t$ of! ~ f-~mre P~r(;\de • re~til I th~ social and enyironmontal !mpa~':t $tudy' 81'8 ~.nOem,.

2. "i'h~, def.~1"RH.mt of t.he iS5Ut'!: I1'lIf l'1&W ~d/oit 'f'oni?i\i'Gl of C'X"v'lil"ll l'::Yia lc.%'i$es I in th& Port: ~·1t~nX,}UnH~/S('m1:h M~loom."i1e ?-l'CHl UY!tH (kid~~.01H; are nade ltJith Yespcc:.:t to TOad Mid rail aceeS$ tfJ WC'ih'l1 Dtld). thCW0St· Gld:1Lf BI':hIge anti JOt:!!son Stl!:'(~t9t llrl.dge. fa· f::. ASll'>'ORl'H), Chtd.l"?!'I-:g.n, !nvo~tige.Uon COm!?!tt€i~ fOT GOV,'3?nP611t Pro, e

,-- ., ..... '"~. ,- "...--_...... c r .. ~

( . r APPENDIX liB" 'L.• SUNNARY OF SUBMISSIONS CONSIDERED BY Ii\'VESTIGATION . --- '1 COMNI'ITEE FClH G OVERNNE:\'T PHOJECTS IN THE PORT OF ',1 MELBOURNE AREA

I 1 • The Port of Melbourne - A Summary of Current Development, Proposals and Studi~s Asso6iated with the Port Area, ·1 R. A. NAIRN, T01"n & Country Planning Board; 1 9 t h Sept e III be r " 1 9 74 •

I 2. RESULTS OF QUESTIO:t\TNAIRE SENT TO AUTHORITIES INVOLVED IN THE AREA. (C.R.B., Ministry. for Conservation, M.H.T., I Ministry' of Transport, To,,,n & Country Planning Board, Victorian Railways Board, West Gate Bridge Authority, I Housing Commission, Victoria). I , J. West Gate Bridge Project Site Plan and i1lustrated brochure titled "i.Jest Gate Bridge, Melbourne".

I 4. Report on Port Melbourne - Webb Dock, Railway Line Prnposal: Port Melbourne - Housing Ccimmissionfs I Inter'est. Housing Commission,Vic·toria.

I 5. Study of Sea Ports - Land Use Interaction - Consultant'8 Brief, Department of Urban and Regional Development; I February, 1975.

,I 6. Port of Melbourne Dev~lopment Pl~n, Melbourne Harbor Trust. II Port Gazette, Vol. 13, No~ 1, February, 1975 - Melbour~e I Harb or 1'ru5 t . 8 . Heport of the Howe·Parade Steering Committee ."Proposed I Hailway. Line. Howe Parade, Port :Me.lbourne:!. Jrd September, 1974.

"I 9 . City of Port Melbournels submission to the Hon. R. C.

Dunstan, M.P., Acting Minister for Local ,Governm~nt; I L /. 21 st Jm1.e ~ 197 r·.

I 10. Beaco'n H.oad~ ~3a:ca1c Re::l.d and The Boulevard. . H.. E. Let! ;1 Melbourne & Metropolitan Doardof Works; 21st May, 1975. 1 APPENDIX "B" ....')

1 1 • Notes on Proposed Railwa y to Webb Dock . R. J. Gallacher, I Victorian Railwa ys Boar d; 4 t h June, 1975 .

I 12 . Port of Me lbourne/Webb Dock Area - Summary of Australian National Line Trade Totals Requir ing Rail Facilities , I Australian National Line; June 1975 .

1 J. Notes Outlining Australian Na tional Line's need for a I rail link to 1{ebb Dock. Mr . R. Barcl ay , Au stra lian I National Line; 10th J uly, 1975 . 14. Ea stern Appr oa ches to \vest Ga te Bridge - Current Propos als I for Short and Long Term Traffic Management . L . H . JO;'le 5, Country Roads Board; 10th July, 1975. I 15. Propose d S ocial Impa ct Study of F or ward Developme nt Plan

for Port of Melbour n e. Dr. W. T . O'Brien ~ Centre for I Environmental Studie s, Univer sity of Helbourne .

I 1 6 . Re sul ts of Traffic Coun t s i n 1-lilliamst o,"n Roa d, Por t I Melbourn e . 17 . Sout h Melbour n e ( Ne l s on Ro ad ) Re clama t ion Area Pla n, I Housin g Comm i ssion, Vi c t oria .

18. Port r-1 e l b ourne Area - Ra il",ay Sub- Committee. R. J. I Ga llacher , Victor i an Ra il",ays Boa rd; 18th Se ptemb er , 1975.

I 1 9 . Pa rliame ntary St a te Deve lopm e nt Commi t t e e of I n qui ry i nto P or t Utilization and Devel opment in Victori a . I Tran scripts of Evi den ce to Commi t t e e .

I 20 . P..::-o p ose :'l World Trfl d e Centre -Re port b y Con sulta nt s . I I I I I