Whilst there’s definitely a few logistical issues to work through, Madden Grove crossing needs to go sooner rather than later.
I reckon about 9 out of 10 times I drive through there I find myself waiting at the boom gates for a train to go past.
Confident off the back of the success of the Melbourne Skyrail, PTA WA / Metronet is doing an elevated rail project of its own within the inner southern suburbs of Perth. There has been mild opposition from the local LGA, but as this line also has a diesel train using it (Australind to Bunbury) proper tunnelling would not be possible, and a cut and cover option is more expensive and less ideal. I like the station design concepts.
https://www.metronet.wa.gov.au/projects/level-crossing-removal
4 Likes
Boggles me that Salisbury level crossing still exists…
Commuter chaos in Melbourne tonight for anyone in the CBD, most likely because of the lockdown protest.
I could not believe there are still trains which dump human poo on train tracks in this day and age 
3 Likes
Today’s Sunday Age has revealed how the Victorian Government conceived the Suburban Rail Loop project behind closed doors.
A price tag of $30-34.5 billion has been attached to the first 26km of the Suburban Rail Loop.
The first stage of the project between Cheltenham and Box Hill could be open by 2035.
That’s an eye-watering amount of money. Even as someone who gets a decent hard-on for public transport development I’d be questioning whether that sort of expenditure is worth it, and if the money is being spent properly.
I just can’t help but think with a price tag such at that, that there are some major items on the list that could be revised to maintain 80-90% of the line’s utility, but halving the cost at the same time.
It seems that most of the line will be built underground. Has any consideration been given to a Skyrail style viaduct to save money? It seems a significant portion between the Clayton South industrial area and Moorabbin Airport could be built as a viaduct or at-grade without much fuss, but they’re still tunneling this section!
In fact, most of the suburbia they’re going through to connect each station seems to be low density residential (that is, 500sqm blocks with single family homes on them). Obviously it wouldn’t be popular and you’d end up with Darryl Kerrigans refusing to budge, but surely acquiring the homes and offering fair compensation would still be cheaper than tunneling? What is $15 billion worth to Daniel Andrews compared to a few Newspoll points? But whatever, we can ignore that idea for a moment.
There also seems to be a huge dogleg in the line which has been mapped to hook up Glen Waverley Station directly to the loop. Why not hook it up to a station on the Glen Waverley line that doesn’t require a dogleg - like Mount Waverley? Glen Waverley is clearly a major centre, so perhaps run a shuttle service between Mt Waverley and Glen Waverley to reduce waiting times for transfers? Surely the money saved on the extra kilometres of tunneling would pay for the shuttle service to run for many years.
I hope they protect a corridor for a second outer-suburban railway loop (or alternative transit) for future growth so such a project doesn’t need to be so crazy expensive.
The logic being you redevelop the whole corridor as medium/high density - it’s more than merely a transport project.
Definitely agree with this.
Why does the first stage of SRL need to take more than 12 years to build? In comparison, the route of the first stage of Sydney Metro was confirmed in 2012, construction began in 2013 and the line opened in May 2019.
That’s not a bad idea. Problem is Mount Waverley has a small shopping precinct south of Glen Waverley line, which is almost surrounded by residential areas. I reckon almost all the shops west of Stephensons Road will have to be demolished to make way for the new underground station.
Should the SRL be re-directed to go through Mount Waverley instead of Glen Waverley as @mubd has suggested, then I’d propose that The Glen shopping centre moves to Mt Waverley, sitting on ground level where the station is, with Mount Waverley station underneath the new location for The Glen.
This would be similar to Melbourne Central shopping centre and train station in the CBD, and should hopefully attract more customers to The Glen. A major limitation would be minimal to no underground parking.
The point of the SRL is to link it with precints that can sustain high density housing and jobs. Mount Waverley is a hamlet, not a city. Glen Waverley already has a couple of towers and is a major activity hub.
The SRL is a link between the major activity centres of Melbourne in the middle ring. It’s not just an orbital railway line that goes via the most direct path.
1 Like
A lot of revenue will flow to the government as a result of development around the line.
It would be a very deep station if it went there.
I’m a bit sceptical of how much value capture they’ll actually get - so many of the redeveloped stations added shop areas that have stayed empty - and there’s massive resistance ever actually building anything dense.
More worrying that they are starting in the East, which is already the best served area for rail - albeit with holes - but the western suburbs are in far greater need, and not only don’t get a nice route, but get it last if at all.
We aren’t still building off plans from the 90s now, what hope would there be for a rail link planned for the 2050s be of being done to a plan made now?
The most alarming thing to me is that all it’s doing is linking existing stations (apart from the Monash Uni station), which probably would have seen redevelopment anyway. There will be no additional infill stations which could service what are now very low density residential areas for redevelopment, and obviously that’s because building and excavating underground stations is easily the most expensive part of a project like this (an elevated railway station would be far cheaper).
The biggest gap is 10km (between Southland and Clayton) and the average appears to be 4km - compare that to the radial railway network where stations are placed around 2km apart. There’s definitely going to be significant swathes of suburbia that the railway line runs directly underneath, yet will be unable to directly benefit from the line because they’ll still need to catch a bus to transfer to the nearest station.
These stations along the SRL are very spread out and the existing stations already have considerable developments underway - will the SRL really bring that much more development in these areas surrounding the stations that it will pay off for the government?
Just to put that in perspective - $20,000-30,000 is about the amount of stamp duty you’d expect to pay for an $400-600k apartment in Glen Waverley (and that’s if you’re not a first home buyer).
You would need to build 1 million new dwellings to recoup that $30 billion investment. Obviously that is a simplification because stamp duty is not the only revenue stream the government would get from new developments along the new line. But it kind of puts it into perspective about just how big that amount is. The business case says the BCR is still positive, ranging from 1 to 1.7. But I just can’t get over this niggling voice in the back of my head that says surely they can do this at a much lower cost while maintaining most of the utility of the line (and a with a correspondingly higher BCR).
And if they’re relying on new development to bring forth a return on investment, it won’t come without a fight. I expect the residents in the areas around the stations will go full NIMBY and get the pitchforks out when it’s suggested that their quarter acre blocks* are turned into townhouses or, perish the thought, three storey blocks of flats.
*an exaggeration, but please humour me
1 Like
The Victorian Government announced this morning that it would build a new tram maintenance and stabling facility at Maidstone in Melbourne’s west, near Highpoint Shopping Centre.
According to Google Maps, the only large site in Maidstone capable to housing such a large tram depot is the one next to Bunnings Warehouse on Rosamond Road, close to current tram route 82.
I think the new facility will replace the current Essendon Depot on Mount Alexander Road.
I don’t think they’ll get rid of Essendon Depot. Need as much space as possible for all the larger trams.
2 Likes
No way will Essendon be replaced when the Maidstone site will only be accessible to route 82 trams (albeit it is close enough for route 57 trams).
Hearing some talk about possible a tram route to Sunshine - may also explain why Maidstone has been chosen.
1 Like