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.