Poll: East West Link | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Poll: East West Link

Should it be Dumped?


  • Total voters
    71

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,210
4,747
Melbourne
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/metro-rail-tunnel-melbourne-needs-it-so-lets-build-it-20150416-1mm6h3.html

Metro rail Tunnel: Melbourne needs it, so let's build it
April 16, 2015 - 12:25PM, Adam Carey

It is difficult to overstate how badly Melbourne needs the Metro rail tunnel.

The city has an extensive train network, but it is a colonial relic and beginning to split at the seams.

A hundred years ago Melbourne's population was 1.3 million. Today it's 4.4 million. In that time the only significant expansions that have been added to the rail network are the City Loop and the Glen Waverley line.



Today we are faced with a situation in which rail lines that serve booming suburbs are getting close to capacity, meaning they will not be able carry the hundreds of thousands of extra people who will move to Melbourne in coming years. If nothing is done thousands of people will not be able to get into the city by train in peak hour, and the city's economic productivity will be throttled.

Lines from Pakenham, Cranbourne, Sunbury, Craigieburn, Upfield, South Morang and Hurstbridge are all very near the upper limit of how many trains they can handle per hour in the peak, and varying degrees of overcrowding have been recorded on all of them. With many of those lines, the squeeze is on because it is not possible to push any more trains through the City Loop.

The Melbourne Metro tunnel will give much needed breathing space in the City Loop. It will create a new rail path through the CBD for trains on the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines in the east and the Sunbury line in the west. All of these lines service suburbs where Melbourne's growth spurt is happening in earnest and where the population far exceeds prospective job numbers, meaning most residents must travel to get to work.

It is worth comparing the number of people Melbourne Metro will move with how many the cancelled East West Link road would have moved.

In raw terms, the Metro tunnel will create space for an extra 17 trains an hour in each direction, each capable of carrying 1100 passengers - 37,400 people an hour in total.

The East West Link was projected to carry 80,000 vehicles a day by 2031, which equates to 96,000 people using VicRoads' measure that shows each vehicle in Melbourne carries an average 1.2 people.

So even on those numbers, the Melbourne Metro is a significantly greater people mover than the East West Link would have been.

But the shot in the arm the rail tunnel will provide to Melbourne's public transport capacity will extend far beyond the 17 new hourly train slots it will create.

One of the City Loop's tunnels, the Northern Loop, is shared by Sunbury, Craigieburn and Upfield line trains and it cannot take any more. Were Sunbury line trains to switch to the new rail tunnel, it would create capacity for 17 trains an hour on the Craigieburn line and six from Upfield, according to Public Transport Victoria's long-term rail plan.

In the south-eastern suburbs, the removal of Cranbourne and Pakenham line trains from the City Loop will enable Frankston trains to go back into the Loop. This will free up space for Sandringham line trains, which are also suffering worsening overcrowding in the morning peak.

The tunnel makes sense for Melbourne, let's hope the government can deliver on its word and build it.

L2R2R, are you reading this? just in case you missed it, here are the stats:

- The Metro tunnel will create space for an extra 37,400 people an hour in total.
- The East West Link is projected to carry 96,000 people per day

this means that the metro tunnel can carry as many extra people in 2.5 hours as what the EW link can in one whole day. think about that for a second... and this can be done at far cheaper cost.
 

mk33

Tiger Champion
Jul 24, 2005
4,516
86
Caulfield
The metro tunnel maybe good if wanting to go to CBD but if you dont then compared to the east west link it is complety irrelevent for those of us that use the eastern freeway and need to get to the other side of the city, that is why the east west link was a great idea from Bracks and Brumby government in 2008.
Knowing the ALP and Daniel Andrews even own track record with myki card, intralot and desal plant going way over budget, it wont cost more than the ALP Age newspaper.
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,210
4,747
Melbourne
mk33 said:
The metro tunnel maybe good if wanting to go to CBD but if you dont then compared to the east west link it is complety irrelevent for those of us that use the eastern freeway and need to get to the other side of the city, that is why the east west link was a great idea from Bracks and Brumby government in 2008.
Knowing the ALP and Daniel Andrews even own track record with myki card, intralot and desal plant going way over budget, it wont cost more than the ALP Age newspaper.

point 1: it wasn't a bracks/brumby idea, it was from the Eddington report. but yes, it was commissioned by the govt of the day.
point 2: if you wanna talk about costs. the projected taxpayer cost of the desal plant is $22 billion for the life of the contact. that's bad right? well the projected taxpayer cost of the EW link plant is $40 billion for the life of the contact ($18 billion for the eastern section and $22 billion for the western section). then we're gonna have tolls on top. insane figures.
 

Peaka

Tiger Rookie
Feb 14, 2005
244
0
metro rail tunnel will cause chaos at Richmond or South Yarra whichever station it branches off from.
 

jb03

Tiger Legend
Jan 28, 2004
33,856
12,108
Melbourne
Ian4 said:
point 1: it wasn't a bracks/brumby idea, it was from the Eddington report. but yes, it was commissioned by the govt of the day.
point 2: if you wanna talk about costs. the projected taxpayer cost of the desal plant is $22 billion for the life of the contact. that's bad right? well the projected taxpayer cost of the EW link plant is $40 billion for the life of the contact ($18 billion for the eastern section and $22 billion for the western section). then we're gonna have tolls on top. insane figures.

The EW link would be useful, the desal plant not so. Not sure we've ever regretted any of the other freeways being built, including Citylink and Eastlink, despite the tolls.
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,210
4,747
Melbourne
jb03 said:
The EW link would be useful, the desal plant not so. Not sure we've ever regretted any of the other freeways being built, including Citylink and Eastlink, despite the tolls.

no doubt the desal plant is too big, but it will 100% be useful when our population reaches 8 million by 2050 as projected.

as for regretting the other freeways... not at all, but I would argue that citylink wasn't done properly to begin with. 3 lanes from southbank to Toorak road is a joke. it returned to being the old south east carpark inside 10 years. the state govt had to spend 1 billion to add extra lanes to the monash/westgate to help free it up a little. and now the Tullamarine freeway section of citytlink is being widened 15 years later. granted citylink are covering the costs, but we'll be paying an extra year of tolls for the privilege.

citylink was never the long term fix. I doubt the EW link will as well. more freeways = more cars = more congestion. like it or not, at least the desal and metro rail will last for generations.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
Ian4 said:
no doubt the desal plant is too big, but it will 100% be useful when our population reaches 8 million by 2050 as projected.
*smile*ing hell, I might well be dead by then. Since when did any government plan that far into the future? It's a disaster on a massive scale, a Labor scale. It's like building a 100,000-seat sports stadium at Cranbourne and leaving it empty for 40 years... "We'll use it when the centre of population has shifted in 2050."
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,210
4,747
Melbourne
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
*smile*ing hell, I might well be dead by then. Since when did any government plan that far into the future? It's a disaster on a massive scale, a Labor scale. It's like building a 100,000-seat sports stadium at Cranbourne and leaving it empty for 40 years... "We'll use it when the centre of population has shifted in 2050."

2050 is a long way away but the desal will be in full production decades before then. I never said they didn't bugger it up. clearly they did. it was an overreaction from the worst drought we have ever seen.

but this thread isn't about the desal, its about the dud EW link. think about it... the previous govt did nothing in 4 years and sign up to this 2 weeks before the election campaign? it was a desperate act, that was completely rushed and botched for attempted political gain, and as dodgy as you can get when it comes to this dirty, dirty side deal... and it backfired on them badly, so the conservatives are going gung ho at Andrews for not backflipping on an election promise. comical really.
 

martyshire

^^ Jack Graham that is
Aug 11, 2007
1,664
8
Rowville...or maybe London
Ian4 said:
2050 is a long way away but the desal will be in full production decades before then. I never said they didn't bugger it up. clearly they did. it was an overreaction from the worst drought we have ever seen.

but this thread isn't about the desal, its about the dud EW link. think about it... the previous govt did nothing in 4 years and sign up to this 2 weeks before the election campaign? it was a desperate act, that was completely rushed and botched for attempted political gain, and as dodgy as you can get when it comes to this dirty, dirty side deal... and it backfired on them badly, so the conservatives are going gung ho at Andrews for not backflipping on an election promise. comical really.

So many good points in this post :clap
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
Ian4 said:
2050 is a long way away but the desal will be in full production decades before then. I never said they didn't bugger it up. clearly they did. it was an overreaction from the worst drought we have ever seen.

but this thread isn't about the desal, its about the dud EW link. think about it... the previous govt did nothing in 4 years and sign up to this 2 weeks before the election campaign? it was a desperate act, that was completely rushed and botched for attempted political gain, and as dodgy as you can get when it comes to this dirty, dirty side deal... and it backfired on them badly, so the conservatives are going gung ho at Andrews for not backflipping on an election promise. comical really.

Not interested in discussing it rationally Ian, I just came here to vent. :veryupset
 

martyshire

^^ Jack Graham that is
Aug 11, 2007
1,664
8
Rowville...or maybe London
mk33 said:
Andrews just wanted vote from trendy inner suburban inbred greenies and does not really care for anybody that lives in 20km radius outside if the city who wants to travel on the other side.
This is a key argument made by people who support EW link and I can understand people taking this view. Regardless of whether or not EW link is the silver bullet (which I strongly doubt) I realise that people sitting in traffic half the day are going to want to believe that it is.

The trouble is, that fact that so many people need to travel across one of the biggest geographical cities in the world is stupid. This is not the fault of people that have to make the trip but it is due to dumb, over-centralised, car-dependent planning. Planning that the rest of the world ditched decades ago. Even LA has stopped building freeways because they realise they are inefficient band aid solutions.

With due respect, approaching our infrastructure challenges as a solution to the plight of the guy stuck in traffic is simplistic. It's treating the symptoms, not the cause.

What we need is jobs near homes and homes near jobs. We need regional centres to be more attractive and above all, we need the public transport system to be more attractive than driving for more people. Not for everyone, but for more people.

Build me a train line to Rowville and I'll get off your freeway. Increase the capacity of the current system, add a new line and put a station at Melbourne Uni and watch how many others get off your freeway. We need this change of mindset more than any road and we need it 20 years ago. If we can acheive this then maybe we can still squeeze 8 million in here and the people who need to cross the city by car will still be able to. If not, then we are stuffed irrespective of how many freeways are built.
 

TigerForce

Tiger Legend
Apr 26, 2004
71,098
22,054
57
I want to know why Naptime drew up a 'side letter'? Why does this consortium have the right for compensation if nothing is done?
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,210
4,747
Melbourne
TigerForce said:
I want to know why Naptime drew up a 'side letter'? Why does this consortium have the right for compensation if nothing is done?

and this is why Andrews needs to hold an independent inquiry on the conduct of the Napthine govt. can anyone tell me is any govt has drawn up a side letter I the past?
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,210
4,747
Melbourne
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/daniel-andrews-announces-second-river-crossing-freeway-costing-5b-to-be-built-by-2020-20150430-1mwm4j.html

Daniel Andrews announces second river crossing freeway costing $5b to be built by 2020
April 30, 2015 - 6:58PM, Josh Gordon, Richard Willingham.

Surprise 'West Gate Tunnel' unveiled

Only weeks after Daniel Andrews officially ended the East West Link, Victoria's premier unexpectedly unveils a road proposal very similar to the second stage of the now defunct project.

Travel time from the West Gate Freeway to the city would be halved under a surprise plan to build a $5.5 billion toll road across the Maribyrnong River to CityLink.

Just days before the May 5 state budget, Premier Daniel Andrews has revealed he is seriously considering an unsolicited bid by CityLink operator Transurban to connect the West Gate Freeway to CityLink via a tunnel, a second river crossing and an elevated freeway along Footscray Road.

With $3 billion in federal funds sitting idle after the scrapping of the East West Link, Mr Andrews has challenged Prime Minister Tony Abbott to contribute to the new road project.

But Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs has given a tepid response, saying it would be highly unusual for the Commonwealth to pay for the project if the state did not also stump up.

The West Gate Freeway will also be widened under the plan, with two extra lanes in each direction from the M80 Ring Road to the West Gate Bridge boosting capacity by about half.

But while the proposal is not expected to cost the state budget anything, motorists will ultimately pay for extra tolls.

Transurban is proposing to pay for the project by extending the life of CityLink tolls by up to 15 years until 2050 – which would be likely to earn between $1.5 and $2 billion from motorists.

Transurban also wants a $3 car toll and a $13 truck toll for the new tunnel and bridge for 25 years, which would also be likely to boost its profits by at least $1.5 billion.

Crucially, the project proposes to funnel some traffic from a new elevated tollway into what is already a city choke-point in Docklands, at the corner of Footscray Road and Harbour Esplanade.

The Abbott government will also be asked to chip in federal money previously earmarked for the dumped East West Link, with $1.5 billion sitting unused in the state budget.

An independent assessment by consultants Deloitte Access Economics estimated the $5 to $5.5 billion project would return $1.60 for every $1 invested using a basic methodology preferred by Infrastructure Australia, or about $2 after including so-called wider economic benefits.

The project, expected to create up to 3500 construction jobs and 4500 indirect jobs, could start as soon as this year, to be completed by 2020.

The Abbott government had not been warned of Thursday's road announcement. Mr Briggs said if the project was to qualify for federal money it would be contingent on Infrastructure Australia assessing a full business case.

Mr Briggs said the Andrews government needed to get on with tackling the congestion that was "already stifling Victoria's economic growth and prosperity".

Transurban chief executive Scott Charlton said the proposal was much more efficient as a solution to Melbourne's transport problems than the previous proposal for the western half of the East West Link, which would have cost more than $10 billion.

It is expected to almost halve travel time to the city from the M80 and the M1.

Trips to the port will be up to three times faster, but a new truck toll will be applied for heavy vehicles using the West Gate Freeway. That means trucks will be discouraged from using the overburdened West Gate Bridge, removing up to 50 per cent of heavy vehicles from local roads.

If the surprise plan is locked in following six months of negotiations between Transurban and the state government, Labor's previous plan for a West Gate Bridge truck off-ramp will be defunct. Despite this, the off-ramp will still be included in the May 5 state budget.

Opposition treasury spokesman Michael O'Brien said the announcement was a sign of "policy panic", chaos and dysfunction.

"This is an idea with no secure funding attached, an idea to deliver another freeway that ends in a tee intersection in Melbourne," Mr O'Brien said. "This will create further congestion, further chaos. Mr Andrews has not submitted a business case to Infrastructure Australia because there is no business case."

Labor previously promised all big projects would be scrutinised by its yet-to-be set up infrastructure adviser, Infrastructure Victoria. However, in this case, that scrutiny will not apply.

Maribyrnong mayor Nam Quach said the new river crossing would be a boon to the inner west.

"The inner west is really smashed by through transport and long container trucks using the inner suburbs as a rat run," he said. "Any infrastructure that's going to alleviate that is certainly very welcome, so long as this is done properly."

The truck industry's peak body, the Victorian Transport Association, welcomed the proposal but said it was a concern that a publicly listed company appeared to have a bigger hand in planning Melbourne's freeway network than the state government.

"We need to know what the government is thinking about and that's difficult if they're hiding behind dealing with a publicly listed company, [saying] we can't tell people before we announce it, that doesn't sit well because we can't plan anything," association president Peter Anderson said.

The RACV's general manager of public policy said the project would provide a much-needed upgrade to the West Gate Freeway and significantly defer the need to build the western part of the East West Link.

Also on Thursday, Transurban announced changes to the $1.3 billion widening of the Tullamarine Freeway, announced under the previous government. The new plan, to cost taxpayers around $300 million, was necessary as a result of the East West Link being dumped. Builders Leighton have been selected to do the work.

obviously a business plan, etc, needs to be ticked off (and I don't like the idea of tolls til 2050), but this is a far superior project than the EW link.

firstly, the western section is far more desperately needed that the eastern section (which doesn't need to be built at all IMO). secondly, no Victorian taxpayers money is needed, so all funding can be diverted to the desperately needed metro rail tunnel. thirdly and most importantly, its tens of billions of $$$ cheaper than the EW link. finally, it ticks off Abbotts ridiculous requirement that his $1.5 billion must be spent on roads.
 

Peaka

Tiger Rookie
Feb 14, 2005
244
0
Extending the tolls is a massive impost on the Victorian taxpayer Ian. Transurban wouldn't be willing to pay for it unless they figure they will make far more (even after running costs) than they pay.

The idea that this will not cost Victorians is a Furphy.
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,210
4,747
Melbourne
Peaka said:
The idea that this will not cost Victorians is a Furphy.

maybe. but not as much as the $40 billion it would have cost Victorians for the EW link (not including tolls).