Sky rail’s ‘secret expansion’: four-track future looms for Melbourne’s south-east
Date: March 10, 2016 – 12:15AM
Parts of the planned $1.6 billion sky rail between Caulfield and Dandenong could be demolished within 12 years of being built, and new linear parks and paths beneath the line built over, to allow a new structure with two extra rail tracks.
Two extra tracks for express trains, V/Line and freight, are part of longer-term plans for the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail corridor, and could see parts of the sky rail torn down under a secret deal between government authorities.
The third and fourth tracks have been omitted from the scope of the Andrews government’s sky rail project: the removal of nine of Melbourne’s most congested level crossings and the rebuilding of five railway stations by 2018, just in time for the next state election.
The project will boost capacity on the line by 42 per cent, the government says.
But some time beyond 2018, a future Victorian government will face a painful choice of either building a new rail viaduct down the middle of the two raised viaducts the government is to begin building this year, or potentially acquiring dozens of properties between Carnegie and Hughesdale.
The Level Crossing Removal Authority, which is in charge of the project, insists the sky rail design unveiled last month includes provision for the future construction of a third and fourth track.
But it has refused to reveal basic details of where those tracks will go.
“The third and fourth track is not part of the level crossing removal project,” authority chief executive Kevin Devlin said.
“The alignment of these tracks will be determined in the future, as part of a separate project.”
However, The Age has learned of planning details for the extra tracks.
Public Transport Victoria estimates the extra tracks will be needed from 2030, based on forecast passenger demand for Melbourne’s busiest and most overcrowded rail line.
About 37,000 passengers are expected to travel on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line in the two-hour morning peak by 2030, more than double current levels and thousands more than on any other line in Melbourne.
In planning for this huge growth, PTV and the Level Crossing Removal Authority struck a confidential agreement last year on what can be built now on land where the third and fourth tracks will eventually go.
Under this agreement, sky rail infrastructure that could be demolished or built over for the extra track pair includes shared walking and cycling paths, station platforms, station car parks, lifts, ramps, buildings and minor utility services.
The Level Crossing Removal Authority agreed to this, on the condition that it did not add to the $1.6 billion cost of the current project.
The rail corridor is just 20 metres wide at its narrowest point between Grange Road in Carnegie and Poath Road in Murrumbeena, making it difficult to build four tracks without acquiring residential property along the line.
Edward Meysztowicz and his family own a house in Murrumbeena that backs onto the northern side of the line.
In meetings with the Level Crossing Removal Authority, Mr Meysztowicz obtained the dimensions of the planned sky rail structure, and its proximity to his home.
The authority confirmed the viaduct will be 10.6 metres above ground level and 4.3 metres away from his back fence where it runs behind his property. He used those dimensions to commission an illustration of the sky rail from his own backyard.
Mr Meysztowicz runs a business in industrial Dandenong South and insists he supports new infrastructure, even on the rail line behind his home.
But he argues the government is thrusting a cheaper, inferior option on the public, and should spend what it takes to build all four tracks below ground level now.
“Do it once but do it properly,” he said.
Only when the third and fourth tracks are built will the true scale of sky rail be revealed, he argued – a rail viaduct that will dominate and transform the suburban environment far beyond what is depicted in the authority’s promotional material.
Mr Meysztowicz also commissioned speculative images of his neighbourhood with a third and fourth track.
“The sheer bulk of sky rail in the landscape demands cloaking with multi-storey development,” Mr Meysztowicz said.
“This is inter-generational infrastructure our children will be grappling with.”
Jeremy Reynolds, an urban planner who played important roles in Melbourne’s development from the 1970s until his retirement in 2014, agrees that the Andrews government has failed to be up-front with the community about the fact that sky rail is “just part one” of long-term plans for the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail line.
“Given the scale of patronage growth, surely the government should be openly planning for four tracks between Caulfield and Dandenong now,” Mr Reynolds said.
“The Level Crossing Removal Authority does say that the current two track proposal makes allowance for additional tracks to be added in the future and that the future project will be subject to a separate planning, design and consultation process.
“But this has not been made clear to local residents as they gawp at slick videos, paw over designs for linear parks and worry about noise and light consequences of just two elevated railway tracks.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sky-rail-is-just-part-one-fourtrack-future-looms-for-melbournes-southeast-20160309-gnetq5.html#ixzz42Rog6R4o
March 10, 2016 at 10:39 AM
It just gets better and better – $1.6bn expenditure with a 12 year life span ain’t that a good deal.
Wonder what happened to the Skyrail consultations inclusion of the provision of space for (but not the future laying of, that was to come later) the two extra tracks as part of the $1.6bn.
March 10, 2016 at 5:44 PM
Interesting you take this speculative tabloid stuff as gospel.
March 10, 2016 at 6:12 PM
LXRA also make the claim that they have to allow for 4 tracks, but haven’t shown where the 3rd and 4th tracks would go, and the station designs don’t show it either. If detailed planning has been done they should be able to show how they propose to squeeze 4 Tracks into a 20m corridor and what the space underneath will look like as a result.
March 10, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Actually Anonymous respondent, my comment was intended to indicate that, despite the government having a distinct advantage over all others in their distribution of “ïnformation”, quality of information was overlooked in that distribution.
What other conclusion can you draw from that fact a respected “tabloid” (tabloid relating to the size of the printed page rather than the quality of what’s printed on it) believes the above article contains known information that should have been presented to the public. Subsequent details will no doubt be published (by various media outlets) that will either confirm or deny this.
Regardless, your instant classification as “speculative tabloid stuff” being taken as “gospel” shows decided disdain for anyone seeking quality information prior to forming an opinion.
March 11, 2016 at 6:36 PM
The first para of the so-called respected tabloid contained the word “could”.
March 11, 2016 at 10:08 PM
And your point is? Your point could be made if you could indicate where in, the government prepared and presented, documentation four tracks have been provided in what is now described as an irreversible decision. The four tracks being the current two tracks and the currently known requirement for an additional 2 tracks (required to cater for future passenger and freight services).
Unless you are able to do so, the “could” indicates, that at best, a very expensive short term solution will be implemented, without addressing the known even more expensive long term requirements. It’s back to my point on the quality of analysis undertaken, the quality of presented and the need for that information to be questioned prior to the any “reasonable” public opinion being able to be formed.
March 11, 2016 at 10:40 PM
“Could” is actually a word employed by journos when they have no substantive or corroborative reason to say “will”.
March 12, 2016 at 6:23 PM
As you are unable to provide the requested evidence from the government presented info, you have just corroborated that in this instance “could” means “will”.
Thanks and goodbye.
March 14, 2016 at 4:20 PM
You appear to have an issue with basic etymology. Apart from ‘Thanks and goodbye’.
March 11, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Does the government plan to reroute rail freight from Hastings via a new corridor to the Dandenong line as per announcement? Does it intend to stick with single-deck trains and run more trains of lower capacity? What separation will the signalling system be designed for? Track capacity depends on all these.
March 10, 2016 at 10:42 AM
It is important that residents, particularly those affected by infrastructure development are fully informed. It is also important that the community at large is fully informed about what Governments at all levels are planning for us and not deciding behind our back what is good for us without proper full consultation. In addition, it is critical that Governments take the community with them when they make decisions. Another words it’s not only the decisions that are important but also the process by which those decisions are made are important, so the community has an input to make on decisions that affect them.
I find that the Glen Eira Libs dominated Council with its secretive process is highly deficient on that score. I find also disturbing that it has an ideological commitment to anything that the Labor state Government does. The SkyRail issue is a perfect example of that “The council last week officially joined the fight against SkyRail plans.” (March 8 Leader p5). What neither the Council or the Leader do not tell you that the previous Libs State Government had big secret plans for the Caulfield to Dandenong line, which would privatise parts of the line to developers to build multi-storey buildings on top of the trench and cover rail system.
Read about the update “Skyrail or Train Trenches with The Lot?” below, and join me in supporting this campaign by signing the petition!
https://www.change.org/p/no-more-train-trenches/u/15652403?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_update&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
March 10, 2016 at 10:53 AM
$1.6bn of everlasting concrete down the tubes in 12 years and replaced with an who knows how expensive, even bigger concrete mega structure with a yet to be determined life space.
See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3483233/Glen-Eira-Council-workers-Melbourne-resurface-road-parked-car.html
After reading the above article, I’m wondering if the eggs responsible for capital works expenditure have migrated from Glen Eira up to the Department of Transport Planning.
March 10, 2016 at 11:25 AM
FYI – Bowen’s analysis is very much worth a read – as are some of the comments –
http://www.danielbowen.com/2016/03/09/bentleigh-skyrail/
March 10, 2016 at 1:57 PM
Perhaps new sky passenger tracks could be built in the Dandenong Road median strip, for heavy rail or light rail. THE LATTER MEANS COULD BE SMALLER, BUT MORRE FRQUENT AND PERHAPS HAVE MORE STOPS.. This could serve commuters well and those in their driver only cars would soon leave the car at home once they had seen how fast the alternative public transport mpves people. The people of Perth soon hopped onto their railway system after watching trains speed past o the new libne which was built before thae area populated and what’s more other services had better patronage as a result. This would eliminate the need to close any railway services during the time of construstion,
ALSO ON THAT POINT THE DONCASTER LINE COU;D ALSO BE BUILT TOO
March 10, 2016 at 2:32 PM
The Age article is a timely reminder that the government hasn’t actually released a detailed plan, just a bunch of design concepts. Do they have a plan or don’t they? I specifically asked about the provision of 4 tracks and was told it was a PTV issue. That confirmed just how dysfunctional the process has been. They couldn’t tell me what the proposed setbacks were. They don’t know how many properties they plan to acquire compulsorily or where they are. They have provided none of the information required if they had to apply for a planning permit. They admitted they intended to get the equivalent of a permit through via ministerial intervention [S.20(4)], thereby avoiding scrutiny. The young engineer sent to me didn’t know what the Outer Circle or Rosstown rail corridors are or why they were built. Current indications are that they don’t intend to respond to any of my questions until after Submissions close.
March 10, 2016 at 7:08 PM
It’s very interesting that Glen Eira Council instead of utilising the opportunity being presented to them by the SkyRail project to get Public Realm Plans developed along the Caulfield to Hughesdale rail corridor, they oppose it. I would not be surprised that a proposal for Public Realm Planning from Glen Eira Council would be supported with a grant to do such planning. i’m also sure that residents and traders would welcome such development.Can anyone suggesting something like this? I think until there is a change in Council composition, it is unlikely to happen.
One last thing. My understanding of the SkyRail development is that the State Government has full control over what happens on the VicTrack land. That decision was made by Matthew Guy as the Planning Minister in the previous Naphtine Government. I think the Libs on our Council should remember that and blame him for the fact that they do not have any say on what happens to the VicTrack land.
March 11, 2016 at 10:14 AM
The Age uses the expression “planned $1.6 billion sky rail” somewhat casually. Under Victoria’s fragmented, disjointed approach to public transport, we have eliminated the Department of Transport, replacing it first with DTLPI and then distributing its functions over multiple departments and agencies. So somewhere in the void between DEDJTR, PTV, Director of Transport, LXRA, VicRoads, VicTrack et al is where “planning” occurs. LXRA doesn’t believe it is responsible for planning for the future. Its goal is simply to eliminate levelcrossings to satisfy the political imperative.