by system improver » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:40 am
The HUN's story is designed to provide a Labor bashing opportunity (the level crossing removal program has been a winner amongst voters), which they can hold on their front page all day and hopefully fool the Minister into making a comment about it which will extend the story for days and perhaps kill the whole tender and/or project. There is zero chance of any part of the grade separation between Caulfield and Westall being an elevated rail. Apart from the obvious environmental issues which would rule it out, it is not the cheapest option anyway. The available right of way does not allow for an embankment construction as used (say) between Windsor and Balaclava, from West Richmond to Victoria Park or from Malvern to Caulfield. Significant land acquisitions would be required. An all steel or concrete structure, like between Flinders Street and Southern Cross, is just as expensive as a cutting because the materials (steel and concrete) would need to be used for the whole length and not just for the stations. There is also almost no possibility that land around and above the stations can be sold for development (shops or apartments).
The trap set for the Minister by the Liberal Party together with the HUN and, presumably, a tenderer who knows they will not win so are looking for a way to scupper the whole process, is to get her to comment on a live tender process. Such comment, particularly if it "rules out" significant (or all) aspects of one tender bid, would immediately prompt legal action seeking to declare the tender process "corrupted." It would then be back to the drawing board for a few more years, even longer if there are court cases.
If the Minister has any brains at all, she will not comment, even though it will obviously lead to tomorrow’s HUN story headline, "Minister refuses to rule out elevated rail nightmare", a story which will be populated by comments from nearby residents about how they were "sold out" having voted for Labor for the last 147 years. But the Minister will just have to wear that.
I actually don't feel the least bit sorry for the Minister because the whole thing is of her own making, or should I say, the government's making. In many ways she appears as incompetent to me as a former minister, Lynne Kosky. Kosky made it clear that she knew nothing about public transport and was never going to learn. Instead, she would take the advice of department "experts" and act accordingly. The only trouble was that the department experts were all idiots with either no knowledge themselves or without the ability to convince the Minister that transport requirements should not be subservient to Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) overrule. Alas, she chose to take her take the advice of her former DTF head whom she also took along to Education when she went there. Of the recent Transport Ministers, the only one who appeared to me to actually know anything about transport was Terry Mulder. How ironic that in the four years he was there, he achieved absolutely nothing – keeping Labor out of power was his whole raison d’être.
The former government of Baillieu and Napthine took an un-solicited proposal from Metro trains regarding this corridor, despite the obvious conflict of interest. The term "unsolicited proposal" is a synonym for corruption or an open cheque or a deceitful mirage - you can take your pick. Basically, Metro said we will do this and you will pay us this for the next 50 years. Think of it this way. You go to your local council and say "I will keep my street clean outside my place and you will pay me $1000 a week for the next 20 years." Why would council accept such an offer? Good question, unless (say) your uncle was on the finance committee or council didn't really want to do anything but wanted to appear to do things by keeping the story alive for months or years and simply put up signs “We are keeping your street clean” to keep the issue rolling.
There are very good reasons why unsolicited proposals are not used elsewhere in the world. Also, it is a complete abrogation of responsibility by government. And this is where the Andrews government is at fault. They got rid of the unsolicited proposal idea, but then said, “We want to eliminate the level crossings from Caulfield to Dandenong, but we will let the "market" decide how through a tender process". This is a disgrace, and it has enabled one tenderer to come up with a "plan" (so we are told by the HUN) to build an elevated rail line. If the story in the HUN is correct, and this tenderer in one of the last two in the race, then is it "good news" for the other one. Of course, the government should have determined what it wanted first and then put the project out to tender and in manageable sections. Having construction companies determine what is built (not their responsibility) as well as how it is built (their actual expertise) is a perversion of the democratic process. The government was elected, not the construction company. The government, as part of their justification, has said that this process will ensure the cheapest cost. This sounds good to DTF officials, who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. But, even the lowest cost won't be achieved if the last two tenderers are proposing to do two different projects. How do you compare the costs of one against the other? Only if the design characteristics are identical can the costs be compared.
The best way to ensure value for money on any project, in my view, is to employ the best quality quantity surveyors to oversee the project. Now if you get the best, and the best will have to be fiercely independent of any and all contractors, then they won't come cheaply. But it is far better to pay tens of millions to them than to waste hundreds of millions on these expensive projects because nobody really knows what they are doing. There are models for this elsewhere. In Germany for instance, when major project are done, there is always a period of negotiation at the end of the tender process which ensures that there is always competition throughout the life of the project by awarding all major suppliers a piece of the action with the final amount being determined by how good they are at meeting targets, including time and money. Quantity surveyors play a crucial role here. There are always "unforeseen factors" which lead to cost overruns. The surveyors are the ones who can verify the legitimacy of the overrun and then give an amount which would be reasonable to remedy the problem. But they must be separate from the construction companies.
So what should have happened? The Andrews government should have determined, on the basis of independent construction advice, what design the project should be. It's not really that hard to imagine given the topography and right of way constraints. All of the grade separations from Caulfield to Westall should have the track go underground which will lead to underground stations at Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughesdale and Clayton. What happens between Springvale and Dandenong will depend on local factors, but most can be road over rail. The second issue is the number of tracks.
Just over 100 years ago, the decision makers were faced with the arrival of electric trams in Melbourne. The rail network at the time consisted of almost all crossings being at grade. The arrival of trams prompted a rethink. As a number of new tram routes were to intersect with the track between Richmond and Caulfield, it was decided to eliminate level crossings on that section of rail track. All of the tram/train intersections would see the trains below grade. Road without trams would be a mixture. But in doing the project, the decision was also made, I guess against the wishes of those who said any cost was too much, to build provision for four tracks between South Yarra and Caulfield even though, at that time, only two were needed. We have been living off the back of that decision for the last 100 years!
With the Caulfield to Dandenong project, there is a similar opportunity. Building three or four tracks will obviously cost more than building two. Building three tracks will not involve any significant land acquisition, whereas building four tracks will, but it’s a once only capital spend which delivers greatly increased flexibility and capacity for at least the next 50 years and, given how often we do these projects, probably a lot longer. I would have asked the tenderers to supply bids for (a) three tracks to Westall (b) four tracks to Westall. Of course, Springvale should have this capacity as well, but the whole station would have to be done again if more tracks are to be retro-fitted.
I note that the PTUA spokesperson seemingly gives a comment supporting the “elevated rail nightmare.” I’d be surprised if the PTUA in fact does so, but my guess is that within a much longer comment, he gave the HUN’s reporter a general comment that the HUN ran with. Of course, that was the whole idea of their interview, to elicit such a comment. I doubt if Tony Morton would have fallen so easily for such a trap.
I am pessimistic about the future of the project. If the Minister manages to keep her trap shut, the project might go ahead. Even then, the odds are that the cheapest version with just two tracks will be chosen, justified on the complete nonsense from PTV that “smart signalling” can be just as good. Maybe we should let the Germans and French know about this important breakthrough – they have clearly been wasting money for a long time. No amount of signalling allows an express train to jump over a stopping train in front of it.
Last edited by
system improver on Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
