The below report has been published in today's edition of the Herald Sun and talks of a secret proposal to run an elevated rail line between Grange Road, Caulfield and Chandler Road, Noble Park as part of the elimination of the 9 level crossings that are located within this stretch. The proposal states that this option would be cheaper than tunneling underground at each of the level crossings, and would allow for the land below to be used for a variety of purposes including bike paths and commercial buildings. However it is likely that such a proposal will also have its fair share of critics, including residents who live close to the railway line on the Pakenham/Cranbourne corridor. Lets open the discussion. What do you think of the proposal? What are the pros and cons? Would you rather see underground tunneling take place (such as that which has been done at locations like Nunawading, Mitcham and Springvale) or does the idea of an elevated rail line have merit?
TRAINS would run two storeys above street level for several kilometres along Melbourne’s busiest public transport corridor under secret plans to replace level crossings with suburban sky rail.
Designs have been submitted to the Andrews Government to elevate tracks and stations along parts of the Cranbourne-Pakenham line, clearing the way for land underneath to be used for parks, car parks or shops.
The concept would radically change the suburban Melbourne landscape and has sparked concerns from some local councillors, while the state Opposition has warned sky rail would “split communities in half”.
But public transport and urban design experts say raised rail lines have worked in Canada, and would be far cheaper than road tunnelling.
The sky rail plan has been devised as part of Labor’s key $6 billion program to remove 50 level crossings by 2022 — which the Coalition predicts will blow out to more than $8 billion.
It is proposed in the tender process for the Cranbourne-Pakenham corridor rebuild, which will include demolishing nine level crossings from Grange Rd in Carnegie through to Chandler Rd in Noble Park.
Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan would not comment on the sky rail concept, but said the Government was “considering the best way to deliver our election commitment to remove nine level crossings along the Cranbourne-Pakenham line”.
Southern Metropolitan MP and Opposition planning spokesman David Davis said yesterday: “Nobody voted for a skytrain way up in the air cutting a swathe through densely settled suburbs.”
Under the plan, elevated tracks would replace level crossings currently clustered together.
Ms Allan said: “No final decision has been taken regarding this rail corridor.”
But Mr Davis said the community should be concerned.
“There has been no real consultation with local communities and councils on this ugly sky option and its massive impacts including thunderous noise, wasteland spaces and slicing communities in half,’’ he said.
Two consortia are currently vying to build the Cranbourne-Pakenham line upgrade.
Level Crossing Removal Authority spokeswoman Andrea Duckworth said a preferred bidder for the project should be confirmed early this year, and promised “extensive community consultation on the preferred bidder’s proposed concept to help refine the designs”.
Ms Duckworth said construction would begin this year, and all nine level crossings would be removed by the end of 2018.
If sky rail was endorsed, every station with a level crossing now would have it replaced. This could lead to more car parking for commuters.
There is already some elevated rail in Melbourne, at Canterbury and Balaclava stations and between Flinders St and Southern Cross stations.
Public Transport Users Association spokesman Daniel Bowen said it would be quicker and cheaper to build.
Ian Woodcock, urban design lecturer at RMIT and a student of elevated rail around the world, said although he had not seen any designs, the concept could create new bike paths or parks under tracks.
The Herald Sun understands sections of the Frankston line near the beach have also been considered for elevated rail, because of a high water table that makes tunnel digging difficult.
However, there are serious concerns within Labor about a political backlash.
Glen Eira deputy mayor Karina Okotel said there had been insufficient consultation about the upgrade. “For residents in Carnegie and Murrumbeena, a rail running over the top (of the road) will distress a lot of people,” she said.
Report Courtesy Herald Sun Monday 11th January 2016 - Written by Matthew Johnston
The views expressed by me are mine and mine only. They do not neccesarily fall in line with the views of my friends, family, collegues or my employer.
Much of the line between Victoria Park & North Richmond is elevated, are there any notable issues along there? Does the sound of Hoddle St traffic drown out the trains?
Sound also can't be a huge issue given how Swinburne has built itself around the elevated line through the middle of their Glenferrie campus.
Even with freight trains, those living near Patterson or along Station St Aspendale seem to cope with the Long Island coming through in the middle of the night.
Yes there are privacy concerns if people can start seeing into your backyard for the first time, but there are plenty of sections of the network already where this is possible. And privacy screens could be offered, just like freeway corridors.
If it's done in an integrated way, there is definitely merit to looking at this - it was a bit concerning that every single crossing was becoming underground or at least rail under road by default, making the program expensive. The goldrush was 150 years ago.
I honestly quite prefer elevated, as long as it is done tastefully and with care. Trenches 'split' neighbourhoods significantly more than a more open elevated section would, and many of the examples of rail-under-road separations have resulted in pretty dingy railway stations. The West Richmond-Clifton Hill example probably isn't the best as it is a very narrow corridor - the Dandenong line reserve is a lot wider, and trains are generally travelling very slowly (<55km/h) so some of the possible sound and vibration concerns may not be evident in that. Still, if it means significantly more separations for the same cost, and is done tastefully, it is a good idea.
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 3:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
An elevated line splits communities in half, only when they decide to leave no gaps between either side by filling in the entire section like the concrete monstrosity that is Canterbury station, where the design blocks off access to the Maling Rd shops and Canterbury Gardens. Meanwhile, you can pretty much walk underneath the Flinders Street viaduct from one end to the other if you want since the whole thing is open.
A properly-designed elevated line could also have a bike path/rail trail directly underneath it with no extra space required. Or tons of parking, since cars are the only thing that politicians actually think about. It also won't be that noisy provided they don't let the rails go flat on top and no other damage is done (e.g. rail burn); the clickety-clack sound of wheels over jointed rails is pretty much a thing of the past (if you want to hear that all day, head straight to Camberwell).
Removing the politics from your argument, are you in support of or against the idea of constructing an elevated rail line between Caulfield and Noble Park on the Dandenong corridor?
The views expressed by me are mine and mine only. They do not neccesarily fall in line with the views of my friends, family, collegues or my employer.
ZIB-585 wrote:So an elevated rail line splits communities in half, but one at grade doesn't?
To be honest with you, I think these days, the whole argument of railway lines splitting communities in half is a load of hogwash, albeit hogwash which is still used by the Real Estate industry in certain suburbs to achieve better results. For example, in my home suburb, Noble Park, the railway line runs right through the middle of it. Part of Noble Park which falls north of the railway line is historically known as "Harrisfield" which is where my house is actually situated. If you believe the real estate agents, the "Harrisfield" section of Noble Park is the more desirable part, and therefore commands better real estate values. The Southern side of the railway line, was once regarded in Noble Park terms, the wrong side of the tracks. I've often heard people comment that the "riff raff" comes from south of the railway line. The reality is in my opinion, Noble Park is Noble Park and in my experience it is a pretty good place to live, regardless of which side of the tracks you are on.
If an elevated railway line was constructed, I would want there to be ample points in which pedestrians are able to walk under the railway line to access the other side. (For example, the main street and shopping strip are on the south side of the line). Aside from that, I can't see an elevated line being any more divisive than what is already there.
The views expressed by me are mine and mine only. They do not neccesarily fall in line with the views of my friends, family, collegues or my employer.
In every other forum discussing this topic for the last several years, I am opposed. Visual blight, noise blight. Overlooking back yards. Inability to cope with expansion to four tracks. More level change from ground to platform.
The secret is in the word 'cheaper', and ultimately meeting the primary goal of all transport bodies: the top priority is management convenience.
The concept was knocked firmly in Caulfield 30-40 years ago, when management cited the water table as making trenching 'impossible': certainly not impossible, just more work for management and engineers.
The current elevations show just what is wrong with the concept: every time when I go to the city, I look into the yards of all those expensive Canterbury houses on the south side.
The newspapers have been full of 'it works in...'. Most of the examples are not of elevation full-size suburban trains and diesel-hauled freight trains; effectively they are elevated trams. They also work in totalitarian countries where the government can ride roughshod over anyone.
This isn't really a Labor vs Liberal issue. As ever, it is the useless PTV feeding the government. PTV (and before it DoT) have brought down multiple governments, and PTV is determined to bring this one down too.
The textbook for our times: 'Yes Minister'.
Point of order: it's barely a "secret proposal". It's simply one of many concepts and possibilities that have been designed, that will then be weighed up against a number of criteria including cost.
For the record, the project is effectively three separate sections, being Carnegie to Hughesdale, Clayton, and Noble Park. There's not even a remote possibility of the entire line being elevated as the article could lead the uneducated to believe.
But never let the reality get in the way of a completely sensationalised story...
Roderick Smith wrote:In every other forum discussing this topic for the last several years, I am opposed. Visual blight, noise blight. Overlooking back yards. Inability to cope with expansion to four tracks. More level change from ground to platform.
The secret is in the word 'cheaper', and ultimately meeting the primary goal of all transport bodies: the top priority is management convenience.
The concept was knocked firmly in Caulfield 30-40 years ago, when management cited the water table as making trenching 'impossible': certainly not impossible, just more work for management and engineers.
The current elevations show just what is wrong with the concept: every time when I go to the city, I look into the yards of all those expensive Canterbury houses on the south side.
The newspapers have been full of 'it works in...'. Most of the examples are not of elevation full-size suburban trains and diesel-hauled freight trains; effectively they are elevated trams. They also work in totalitarian countries where the government can ride roughshod over anyone.
This isn't really a Labor vs Liberal issue. As ever, it is the useless PTV feeding the government. PTV (and before it DoT) have brought down multiple governments, and PTV is determined to bring this one down too.
The textbook for our times: 'Yes Minister'.
Roderick
There is also at least one gunzel who took advantage of this: If you look closely towards the north between Box Hill and Mont Albert you can see a VR-era Mont Albert sign on the back of a house.
Tonymercury wrote:It'd probably go down like the proverbial lead ballon - remember the reaction to the Sydney monorail.
Sydney's NW Metro will be largely elevated at the outer end; I don't think there has been much backlash to this.
As for visible backyards, much of Sydney's existing "ground level" trackage is on embankments which overlook thousands of yards; again there has been no problem with this up to now.
Preserving fire service history @ The Museum of Fire.
Tonymercury wrote:It'd probably go down like the proverbial lead ballon - remember the reaction to the Sydney monorail.
Sydney's NW Metro will be largely elevated at the outer end; I don't think there has been much backlash to this.
As for visible backyards, much of Sydney's existing "ground level" trackage is on embankments which overlook thousands of yards; again there has been no problem with this up to now.
Without wanting to sound too harsh, I struggle to see how anybody living adjacent to a railway line could have much right to complain about development really. Lets face it, most people if not all, who currently live adjacent to or opposite a railway line in Melbourne, did so knowing the railway line was there. It is then also entirely reasonable that there was a significant prospect that the line would be upgraded or at least see increased traffic in future years. It's very much like the old airport debate after people have moved in knowing the airport is there.
If you choose to move next to railway line, you have to expect the noise that comes with it. If that is an issue for you, you need to buy or rent elsewhere.
The views expressed by me are mine and mine only. They do not neccesarily fall in line with the views of my friends, family, collegues or my employer.
boronia wrote:
Sydney's NW Metro will be largely elevated at the outer end; I don't think there has been much backlash to this.
Boronia, ride the Tway from Bella Vista to Rouse Hill TC and you'll see why - virtually no existing buildings are affected - it is in a very wide corridor with Windsor Rd and The Tway and nothing on one side as yet for most of the way.
The 'railway came first' argument is too smug. The current plan is to elevate to double height. Try mocking up an impression on a digital photo of your backyard.
I somewhat prefer an elevated railway to that of a trench one.
++ The deal is by no means to sky the whole route, just three sections as stated above.
++ By having an elevated section between Sandown park and Noble park railway station, can free up space and access to the parkland between the two crossings. Small buildings could quite easily be built under the structure. In fact, I would suggest to the PTV, that this section needs to be done first.
++ Going up and over does seem cheaper as it seems to require less material than going down and under. You need to have retaining walls for both sides of the whole length of a trench, whereas you only need pylons for an elevated railway.
There is also the cost of removing all the soil, and putting it somewhere.
++ As for safety, grafiti artists will not be on rail reserve where they are at risk of causing massive delays to rail services if one gets killed by a train. With an elevated railway, they will be exposed to 'passive security' and the road traffic, where police cars could be patrolling up and down at the time. This is not possible with a wall facing railway tracks.
++ I would much rather look out over backyards than into a concrete wall.
++ I am yet to hear from a person who objects to the idea, therefore, I can not see this project loosing votes for Labor.
Perhaps an idea could be to go under then over. Use soil taken out of an 'under location' to build up and 'over location'.
++ The Liberal or opposition leader has said the following; ''Labor is backing away from a pledge''
- Sorry, Andrews said 'we will remove level crossings', never said we will put train lines under the road
++ Re: the Four tracks idea;
- It is far easier to widen a bridge than to widen a trench. So, especially if we do not allow for 3rd and 4th tracks now, even more reason for it to be elevated.
++ Visual blight;
There is no reason why we can not decorate the structure. From having green vines growing up and along it, to those shaped like a Melbourne M, or more.
++ I would much rather look out over backyards than into a concrete wall.
Um, I think you've missed the point here. I don't know that it is the passengers objecting to being able to see into backyards...
Like anything the devil is in the detail. If the elevated railway has privacy screens to protect people from being able to be seen doing whatever they feel like in their backyard without being observed, as well as losing the inability to cross the railway alignment wherever they want, and if the space underneath is resevred for bicycle tracks / parkland / extra station parking, and the elevated sections are done sympathetically instead of being urban blight, then possibly building it above the ground is the best option, compared to a large trench which merely doubles or triples the land take of the existing railway for a concrete gash.
On the other hand, if the Dandenong line is rebuilt in a trench, and then the line is covered over with linear parks, quality apartment buildings, bicycle paths, etc. with the alternative being above ground elevated concrete pylons and decking, with nothing done to make productive use of the space underneath, nor consideration made of railway neighbour privacy compared to now, then under the ground is the way to go.
As for privacy, the backyards affected will already have an existing train line going past, so they can't claim there will be anything different.
To be fair, there is a significant difference between a train going past your back fence unable to see anything other than the fence and one that is now above your back fence where tens of thousands of commuters can see in. I don't think people have much right to complain about a third track going in on the level, but there is some justification to suggesting an elevated railway is unexpected and voicing concerns about the sudden lack of privacy. I suspect if those privacy concerns can be adequately addressed, then elevated rail may possibly be accepted enough to be viable, more so than elevated freeways that seem to get built anyway (see Citylink).
Heh, privacy... Something people only care about when it suits them. You already can see into apartment buildings at night, your neighbors with the 2 story house can already see into your backyard, everyone shares every bloody thing on Facebook, I think some people just like to complain...
All my posts on this board represents my personal views and opinions only. They may not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or values of those of my family, friends, colleagues, or employer.
When the train is travelling at speed, one backyard looks like every other backyard unless it has a distinguishing feature. Besides, as long as Melbourne keeps building hundreds upon hundreds of multi-storey apartments there will always be someone looking into the private area of another person's property, whether it has a backyard or not (these new apartments all seem to be woefully undersized too, most of them being 1 bedroom units and less than 50m², which is the smallest allowable size in Sydney I might add - there are no such "minimum size" laws in Victoria so you could pretty much rent a converted backyard dunny as a house down here and get away with it - makes an Exeloo look luxurious by comparison!)
As for privacy, the backyards affected will already have an existing train line going past, so they can't claim there will be anything different.
To be fair, there is a significant difference between a train going past your back fence unable to see anything other than the fence and one that is now above your back fence where tens of thousands of commuters can see in. I don't think people have much right to complain about a third track going in on the level, but there is some justification to suggesting an elevated railway is unexpected and voicing concerns about the sudden lack of privacy. I suspect if those privacy concerns can be adequately addressed, then elevated rail may possibly be accepted enough to be viable, more so than elevated freeways that seem to get built anyway (see Citylink).
I travel on "ground level" trains in Sydney, and I can see into 1000s of backyards, not fences, as the lines are usually on embankments that give sufficient height. Double deck carriages also give a bit more "spyability". The trains are going past fast enough to not be able to dwell on a particular property, and even if I could, so what. People will get used to it. 60 years of train travel and I've never seen a naked sunbather
Preserving fire service history @ The Museum of Fire.
