important notice · 2019. 4. 9. · important notice the information contained in this document...
TRANSCRIPT
Important Notice
The information contained in this document originally produced by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) and
PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (PwC) together referred to as AECOM/PWC, was
produced solely for the use of Infrastructure Victoria and was prepared for the specific purpose outlined in the
contract dated 23 February 2016. No third party may use or rely on this document. AECOM/PwC has used its
reasonable endeavours to ensure this document is based on information current as at the date of this document.
AECOM/PwC’s assessments represent its reasonable judgments within the time and budget constraints of its
commission and using information available to it at the time within those constraints.
Information contained in this document takes precedence over any later verbal or written presentation,
representation, clarification or advice. Unless contained within this document, information included in any verbal
or written presentation, representation, clarification, or amendment made after the date of the Report may not be
relied upon unless the same has been issued in writing by AECOM/PwC as a formal numbered addendum to the
Report.
AECOM/PwC has relied on information provided by Infrastructure Victoria and by third parties (Information
Providers) to produce this document and arrive at its conclusions. AECOM/PwC has not verified information
provided by the Information Providers (unless expressly stated otherwise) and we assume no responsibility and
make no representations as to the adequacy, accuracy or completeness of such information. No responsibility is
assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the Information Providers including, without limitation, by Infrastructure
Victoria’s employees or representatives or for inaccuracies in any other data source whether provided in writing
or orally used in preparing or presenting the document.
Unless required by law, Infrastructure Victoria shall not provide this document to any third party without
AECOM/PwC’s prior written consent which AECOM/PwC may, in their sole discretion grant, withhold or grant
subject to conditions. Possession of this document does not carry with it the right to commercially reproduce,
publish, sell, hire, lend, redistribute, abstract, excerpt or summarise this document or to use the name of
AECOM/PwC in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of AECOM/PwC. This document
does not purport to give legal advice.
Subject to AECOM/PwC’s obligations to Infrastructure Victoria:
a. any other recipient of this document, by their acceptance or use of this document, releases AECOM/PwC,
their parent corporation and its and their affiliates from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential or
special loss or damage whether arising in contract, warranty, express or implied, tort or otherwise, and
irrespective of fault, negligence and strict liability.
b. AECOM/PwC undertakes no duty to, nor accepts any responsibility to, any other party who may use or rely
upon this document.
c. If anyone other than Infrastructure Victoria chooses to use or rely on this document they do so at their own
risk.
d. AECOM/PwC undertakes no duty to and accepts no responsibility for impacts on any findings from changes
in "external" factors such as changes in GDP, terms of trade, changes in government policy or the
behaviour of markets.
e. This document may include “forward-looking statements”. These statements relate to AECOM/PwC’s
expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by
the use of words like “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,”
“should,” “seek,” and similar expressions. The forward-looking statements reflect AECOM/PwC’s views and
assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of this document and are subject to future
conditions, other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to economic and political conditions and
sovereign risk. Circumstances and events will occur following the date on which such information was
obtained that are beyond AECOM/PwC’s control or knowledge and which may affect the findings or
projections contained in this document. We may not be held responsible for and specifically disclaim any
responsibility for such circumstances or events.
No section or element of this document may be removed, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any
form by parties other than those for whom the document has been prepared without the written permission of
AECOM. All sections in this document must be viewed in the context of the entire document including, without
limitation, any assumptions made and disclaimers provided. No section in this document may be excised from the
body of the document without AECOM’s prior written consent.
PwC’s liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Table of Contents
Regional rail electrification RRE2 5 Regional rail gauge standardisation RRG 10 Regional rolling stock expansion RRS 15 Regional road upgrades RRU 20 Road space allocation changes RSA 26 Rail signals and fleet upgrade RSF 31 Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable agricultural use RTA 37 Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable use RTH 43 Regional train link upgrades RTL 48 Residential tenancies reform RTR 53 Recycled treated wastewater for drinking RWW 58 Affordable housing development incentives SAH 63 Schools as community facilities SCF 68 Affordable Social housing infrastructure investment framework SCP 75 Public housing asset rationalisation and refurbishment SHA 81 Social housing stock expansion SHE 86 Affordable housing sector planning system amendment SHS1 91 Integrated government service and infrastructure planning SIP 96 SmartBus network extensions and service increases SNE 102 School demand management SOO 107 Sport and recreational facility strategic investment SRF 112 Stormwater harvesting and re-use SRH 118 School regional level maintenance contracts SRM1 123 Stormwater quality management SRQ 128 Unlocking school resources with technology SRS 133 Small scale solar energy regulation SSE 139 School and tertiary education cooperation STE 144 Strategic transit-oriented centres and corridors STO 149 South Yarra Metro station SYM 155 Technology enabled healthcare TEH 160 Major Hospital Redevelopments THR 166 Tram network extensions TNE 171 Real time public transport information TNI 176 Transport network price regime TNP 181 Torquay rail extension TRE 187 Transitional accommodation stock expansion TSA 192 Train station car parking improvement TSC 197 ‘TravelSmart’ programs TSP 203 Tidal and wave energy TWE 210 Compact urban development UDC 215 Green Infrastructure UFF 220 Urban planning and approvals processes for health facilities UPA 226 Victorian data analytics centre VDA 231 Water delivery efficiency in irrigation WDE 238 Webb Dock freight rail access WDF 243 Wonthaggi desalination plant expansion WDP 248 Western intermodal freight terminal WIF 253 Water infrastructure optimisation through increased network connectivity WIO1 258 Water infrastructure optimisation through governance arrangements WIO2 263 Water market development WME 268 Wastewater management in small towns WMS 273 Wallan rail electrification WRE1 278 Wollert rail extension WRE2 283 Water supply augmentation WSA1 288 Water supply augmentation through building new dams WSA2 293 Wind and solar energy generation large scale investments WSE 297 Wyndham Vale to Werribee rail extension WVW 302 Waste water system augmentation in high growth areas WWS 307
Needs Icons
Need Icon
Need 1 Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
Need 2 Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth
Need 3 Respond to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, particularly
due to ageing
Need 4 Enable physical activity and participation
Need 5 Provide spaces where communities can come together
Need 6 Improve accessibility for people with mobility challenges
Need 7 Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians
Need Icon
Need 8 Address expanded demand on the justice system
Need 9 Provide access to high-quality education infrastructure to support
lifelong learning
Need 10 Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central
Melbourne
Need 11 Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment
centres
Need 12 Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural
areas
Need 13 Improve the efficiency of freight supply chains
Need 14 Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural
areas
Need Icon
Need 15 Manage pressures on landfill and waste recovery facilities
Need 16 Help preserve natural environments and minimise biodiversity loss
Need 17 Improve the health of waterways and coastal areas
Need 18 Transition to low carbon energy supply and use
Need 19 Improve the resilience of critical infrastructure
Regional rail electrification
RRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 5
Regional rail electrification RRE2
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Electrification of passenger rail services to Geelong (Sunshine to Waurn Ponds), Ballarat (Sunshine to
Wendouree) and Bendigo (Sunbury to Epsom and Eaglehawk) to increase line capacity and reliability. This will
attract greater mode shift from cars and may encourage more commuting from regional centres. The main
benefits of electrification are cost efficiency, better rolling stock, reduced carbon emissions, improved passenger
experience, and reduction in travel times particularly on corridors with closely spaced (or large numbers of)
stations due to the sharper acceleration/deceleration profiles of the lighter electric rolling stock.
Priorities for regional rail electrification should focus on the corridors with steady patronage and a large number of
stations within a commutable distance to Melbourne, particularly the Geelong corridor. This could be followed by
electrification of the Ballarat and/or Bendigo corridors pending the introduction of new or improved stations to
serve emerging growth areas and/or continued increase in demand along these routes.
This will assist in connecting people living in regional areas with jobs and services in the central city, and support
the viability of reverse commuting to growing regional employment centres.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
Melbourne – Bendigo state-significant transport
corridor
Melbourne – Ballarat state-significant transport
corridor
Melbourne – Geelong state-significant transport
corridor
This option affects areas in the catchment of the
Victorian regional rail network.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk around working in an active rail
corridor during the construction phase of this option,
however it is assumed these will be managed
appropriately. There is also the risk of oversupply in
the provision of electrified railways (including all-
new rolling stock), which could be underutilised
relative to the cost.
With faster and more frequent regional rail services,
there is opportunity for greater regional
development.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
State Government of Victoria, Connecting Regional
Victoria: Victoria's Regional Network Development
Plan (2016)
V/Line, Performance and capacity (2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
KPMG, Arup & Jacobs, Transport modelling for
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Regional rail electrification
RRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 6
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$5 billion – $10 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$5 billion – $10 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$25 million – $50 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
5 – 10 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
Electrification of 34 kilometres of track along the
Sunbury line in 2012 required construction of
substations and 640 steel gantries. The total project
cost $270 million, thus per kilometre cost was
approximately $8 million.
It is assumed that the capital cost of procuring this
option would involve two components:
- Electrification of approximately 350 kilometres
of track from the metropolitan transport hubs
to the four regional transport hubs (two of
which are in Bendigo).
- Procurement of electrified regional trains. The
Regional Network Development Plan does not
inform VLocity carriage purchases over the
long term, and instead identifies procurement
and roll out of next generation trains. To
operate the electrified Geelong line it is
expected 200 carriages would be required.
Annual recurrent cost has been calculated as $10
per train service kilometre, which is expected to
cover most costs associated with running the
service, such as power, wages, train stabling and
maintenance. There are currently 64 services
to/from Waurn Ponds per day, 36 services to/from
Wendouree per day and 14 to/from Epsom per day.
This slightly overstates the number of services
given fewer trains run on the weekends, however it
allows for some expansion of capacity. Taking a
distance of approximately 80km, 120km and 130km
respectively yields an annual recurrent cost of $41
million.
Costing source
Department of Treasury and Finance, Victorian
Budget 15/16 (2015)
Department of Treasury and Finance, Victorian
Budget 16/17 (2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Trains, Trams,
Jobs 2015-2025 (2015)
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources, Connecting Regional
Victoria: Victoria's Regional Network Development
Plan (2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV) website (2016)
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
population growth
In response this option would increase capacity of
the regional rail network through the greater
provision of services.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
15 – 30 years (2031 – 2046)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the regional network
would have a lower maximum service capacity.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Regional rail electrification
RRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 7
Contribution to needs
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
The potential increase in service quality through an electrified regional network would be fairly high. Commuting
from regional centres to central Melbourne has become increasingly popular since the provision of the Regional
Fast Rail Project from the early 2000s. The KPMG, Arup and Jacobs modelling results showing growth on all
major regional commuter lines between 2031 and 2046, especially along the Regional Rail Link, which is
expected to grow at 7 percent each year, adding over 15,000 daily boardings in the AM peak (KPMG, Arup and
Jacobs 2016). If the network was electrified and provided faster journey times, more frequent services and a new
fleet of trains it is expected that these demand figures would increase.
As the number of jobs and services increase in central Melbourne, it is expected that this will be followed by
demand for journeys in to the city from regional areas. This option receives a 'Moderate' contribution rating
against Need 10 initially, which increases to 'Significant' from year 5 on.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
Regional rail electrification will directly benefit access to the central city through increased service quality.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
There will be limited changes in the efficiency of the transport network around central Melbourne through the
provision of an electrified service, although there may be some easing of congestion coming in to the city through
more people choosing public transport over driving.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
In regional and rural areas, this option will improve connectivity both between Melbourne and also between
neighbouring regional towns through an overall service quality improvement. It may also increase overall
economic activity in regional centres and neighbouring towns along the rail line as longer-distance commuting
becomes more viable.
Although an electrified regional network would be beneficial today, as the Regional Rail Link corridor develops
and adds new stations this option will contribute significantly to the need of regional transport. This option
receives a 'Moderate' contribution against Need 12 initially. However, as the Regional Rail Link corridor develops
and adds new stations, the contribution rating of this option increases to 'Significant' from year 5 on.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
Additional services and higher capacity regional rolling stock will directly contribute to the increase in supply of
transport opportunities to regional and rural Victoria.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
Presently, some regional train services are at capacity in the peak periods. By providing these new trains and
more services (with reduced journey times) it will help alleviate any congestion and encourage mode shift to
public transport.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
This option may offer an opportunity to give people in regional and rural areas additional access to the internet
through the provision of Wi-Fi on the new trains required, although it is assumed if the customer has a Wi-Fi
capable device this would not be their only source of ICT connectivity.
Regional rail electrification
RRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 8
Regional rail electrification
RRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 9
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Electrification of the regional rail network will have state-significant benefits including the increase in service
quality (allowing greater access to jobs, services, education and social opportunities) and also the potentially
reduced maintenance and operating costs of the rolling stock.
Since electric regional trains would need to be procured, this would increase economic activity through the
manufacturing process (due to local content laws) and also skills and knowledge transfer in the design process.
There may also be environmental benefits through reduced local pollution and resource use (since they will no
longer be diesel powered) and also the reduction in personal vehicle traffic coming in to Melbourne from the
regional centres.
Regional rail gauge standardisation
RRG
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 10
Regional rail gauge standardisation RRG
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Convert the remainder of the regional rail network across Victoria including the passenger network from broad
gauge to standard gauge. This will enable a wider range of rolling stock to operate on the Victorian network and
interoperability with the broader national network. It will also save rolling stock conversions to broad gauge. The
standardisation will provide new freight corridors for standard gauge operations to link with a greater number of
port facilities. This will reduce freight costs, increase efficiency and create greater competition between the ports.
Of the remaining broad gauge network in Victoria, the next area of focus after the Murray Basin Rail Project could
be the Hume/Goulburn areas including the lines through Seymour, Shepparton and Tocumwal. This would create
benefits for the substantial fresh produce industry in the area.
Sector
Transport
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Rural and regional Victoria
This option affects the regional rail network, mainly
to the north and north-east of the state.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk around working in an active rail
corridor during the construction phase of this option,
however it is assumed these will be managed
appropriately.
Like with the Murray Basin Rail Project, there is the
opportunity to implement axle-load upgrades and
other enhancements to increase the potential freight
benefits of this initiative.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources, 'The Murray Basin Rail
Project – Final Business Case (2015)
Department of Transport, Planning and Local
Infrastructure, 'Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan'
(2014)
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional
Economics, 'Freightline' (2014)
Regional rail gauge standardisation
RRG
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 11
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 billion – $3 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$500 million – $750 million
Annual recurrent costs
$10 million – $25 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
5 – 10 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
At 2014 Victoria had 2,894 kilometres of broad
gauge rail track and 1,222 kilometres of standard
gauge rail track (including the trackage within
metropolitan Melbourne).
The Murray Basin Rail Project involves
standardising and increasing the axle load of the
freight lines in Victoria's Murray Basin Region. As
per the Murray Basin Rail Project Business Case,
the cost per each of the 1,023 kilometre of works is
$388,192, and this includes track gauge conversion,
secondary track, sleepers, under bridge
inspections, level crossing upgrades, junction
upgrades and additional signalling, among other
more minor costs. The capital cost calculation
assumes similar works will be required across the
remaining 1,871 kilometres of broad gauge network.
In 2012 – 13, V/Line identified that Victoria's rail
freight network required $30 million annually for
maintenance. Half of this value been applied to this
option for recurrent costs.
Costing source
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional
Economics and Australasian Railway Association,
Trainline 2: Statistical Report (2014)
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources, The Murray Basin Rail
Project Transport Network Initiative: Final Business
Case (2015)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
desire to optimise the performance of the Victorian
regional freight rail network, and its ability to coexist
with interstate activities.
In response this option would increase the supply of
standard gauge track in Victoria, which will allow
operators to better utilise their assets and reduce
the cost of rail freight movements.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
5 – 10 years (2021 – 2026)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, growth of regional road
freight would continue faster than rail freight.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Regional rail gauge standardisation
RRG
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 12
Contribution to needs
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
Presently, there is only one V/Line service which is standard gauge in Victoria (Melbourne – Albury) with the
remainder of the fleet being broad gauge. Converting the track in northern Victoria (through Shepparton,
Deniliquin and Tocumwal) would require additional passenger rolling stock to be converted to standard gauge for
the Shepparton passenger service, however service quality is not assumed to increase.
This option is expected to make a ‘Very Low/Negative’ contribution to Need 12. The contribution of this option to
regional passenger requirements is not expected to change over time.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
This option may not increase the ability to access regional towns and centres, since the vast majority of
passenger rolling stock in Victoria is broad gauge (to suit the metropolitan network).
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
During the process of gauge conversion, there may be improvements made which increase the reliability of the
track with flow on benefits to passenger services.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
This option will not affect ICT connectivity.
Need 13: Improve the efficiency of freight supply chains
There are numerous freight operation benefits from gauge standardisation, including the ability for operators to
reduce their costs by only needing one gauge of rolling stock and increasing the track axle load ratings during the
upgrade. This will allow for heavier (and more productive) train loads to use the lines and make rail freight more
competitive. This option could also align with the scope of the South East Rail Link (as set out in the 2013
Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan) if the Port of Hastings is developed.
This option is anticipated to make a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 13 in all time periods.
By 2046, the regional Victorian freight task is expected to grow to 68 million tonnes per annum, an increase of
over 30 million tonnes from 2012 levels. This demonstrates the need for improved freight infrastructure in
regional Victoria, and this option will help facilitate this over time.
Metric 1: Reduction in cost of the total freight task (origin to destination)
This option will improve the efficiency of which freight is moved around Victoria.
Regional rail gauge standardisation
RRG
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 13
Regional rail gauge standardisation
RRG
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 14
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
The majority of benefits from this option will be economic benefits from the reduced regional freight cost. With this
will also come environmental benefits from removing trucks from the freeways leading in to Melbourne and a
reduction in port related traffic.
Regional rolling stock expansion
RRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 15
Regional rolling stock expansion RRS
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Procure new rolling stock to support additional services on regional lines. This option includes the acquisition of a
next generation fleet to allow for retirement of older rolling stock and to support additional rail capacity between
regional centres and to the central city, allowing more people to conveniently access jobs and services. Pending
the potential for associated corridor enhancements such as electrification, the procurement of new vehicles could
also improve journey times or minimise the impact of any new stations. This is due to the sharper
acceleration/deceleration profile of electric vehicles or, to a lesser extent, any new vehicles with an advanced
design. All new rolling stock should be specifically developed to best respond to the unique physical
characteristics (i.e. grades, spacing of stations) of Victoria’s rail system.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
This option affects areas in the catchment of the
Victorian regional rail network.
Risks and Opportunities
It can be assumed the design of the train will be
new or modified to suit Victoria's needs, and
therefore increases the chance for unexpected
technical issues arising. As is the case with any
procurement program involving new design, there is
the potential for cost overruns.
Opportunities with this option is the ability to
increase the capacity of the regional rail network
and make commuting from peri-urban and regional
areas more viable, without more expensive
infrastructure capacity upgrades.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
State Government of Victoria, Connecting Regional
Victoria: Victoria's Regional Network Development
Plan (2016)
V/Line, 'Performance and capacity' (2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
KPMG, Arup & Jacobs, Transport modelling for
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Regional rolling stock expansion
RRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 16
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 billion – $3 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$1 billion – $3 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$50 million – $100 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
The 2016 – 17 Victorian Budget includes $280
million for 27 new V'Locity carriages to be entirely
built in Dandenong. This is in addition to the 21
carriages and supporting infrastructure invested in
the 2015 – 16 State Budget at a cost of $257
million. This investment is in line with the short term
strategy of the Regional Network Development
Plan. For the 48 carriages this investment over two
budget years totals $537 million, an average cost of
approximately $11.2 million per carriage. This works
out to $67.2 million per six car train. Victoria's
regional train fleet currently comprises 41 diesel
locomotives with 133 carriages, 141 VLocity
carriages and 21 Sprinters.
The Regional Network Development Plan does not
inform VLocity carriage purchases over the long
term, and instead identifies procurement and roll out
of next generation trains. Assuming regional rail
alignments remain unelectrified, it is expected that
there would be a required investment in
approximately 200 new generation train carriages
over Infrastructure Victoria's 30 year strategy. At a
cost similar to VLocity carriage procurement, this
would have a total capital cost of approximately
$2.24 billion.
The annual recurrent cost is assumed as 0.5
percent of capital cost.
Costing source
Department of Treasury and Finance, Victorian
Budget 15/16 (2015)
Department of Treasury and Finance, Victorian
Budget 16/17 (2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Trains, Trams,
Jobs 2015 – 2025 (2015)
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources, Connecting Regional
Victoria: Victoria's Regional Network Development
Plan (2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV) website (2016)
What could influence this option?
This option could be influenced by the need to
provide more capacity on regional rail services
(especially from the 'commuter' towns such as
Geelong, Melton and Seymour).
In response this option would increase the capacity
of regional rail network while maintaining the current
service plan.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred crowding will worsen on
regional trains and potentially reduce the viability of
commuting using public transport.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Regional rolling stock expansion
RRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 17
Contribution to needs
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Commuting from regional centres to central Melbourne has become increasingly popular since the provision of
the Regional Fast Rail Project from the early 2000s. This trend is set to continue with the KPMG, Arup and
Jacobs modelling results showing growth on all major regional commuter lines between 2031 and 2046,
especially along the Regional Rail Link, which is expected to grow at 7 percent each year, adding over 15,000
daily boardings in the AM peak (KMPG, Arup & Jacobs 2016).
As the number of jobs and services increase in central Melbourne, it is expected that this will be followed by
demand for journeys in to the city from regional areas. This option receives a 'Moderate' contribution rating
against Need 10 initially, which increases to 'Significant' from year 5 on.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
Additional and higher capacity regional rolling stock will directly contribute to the increase in supply of transport
opportunities to the central city.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
There will be limited changes in the efficiency of the transport network around central Melbourne through the
provision of these trains, although there may be some easing of congestion coming in to the city through more
people choosing public transport over driving.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
In regional and rural areas, this option will improve connectivity both between Melbourne and also between
neighbouring regional towns. These have both been identified as requirements of people living in regional
Victoria in the Regional Network Development Plan (2016), and are shown to be a current problem with many
peak-hour trains being at or above capacity. This new rolling stock will allow some of the older fleet to be retired
which will reduce maintenance costs, while also supplementing the V'Locity fleet.
This option receives a 'Moderate' contribution against Need 12 initially. However, as the Regional Rail Link
corridor develops and adds new stations, the contribution rating of this option increases to 'Significant' from year
5 – 30.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
Additional and higher capacity regional rolling stock will directly contribute to the increase in supply of transport
opportunities to regional and rural Victoria.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
Presently, some regional train services are at capacity in the peak periods. By providing these new trains it will
help alleviate any congestion and encourage mode shift to public transport.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
This option may offer an opportunity to give people in regional and rural areas additional access to the internet
through the provision of Wi-Fi on the new trains, although it is assumed if the customer has a Wi-Fi capable
device this would not be their only source of ICT connectivity.
Regional rolling stock expansion
RRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 18
Regional rolling stock expansion
RRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 19
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
With local content requirements in procurements such as this, there will be economic activity generated in the
manufacturing process as well as knowledge and skills transfer. By retiring the older regional train fleet, the
Government will save money through less maintenance required on the new rolling stock. As this option
increases capacity of the rail network, it will also have positive impacts on access to jobs, services, education and
social opportunities.
Regional road upgrades
RRU
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 20
Regional road upgrades RRU
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
A number of upgrade projects on the regional road network (particularly in regional centres) to improve safety,
travel times and travel time reliability, including for freight. The type of works proposed include town centre
bypasses, improved connections to regional highways, improvements to ‘last kilometre’ access for freight and
upgraded rest areas and truck turnaround areas. It includes both state and local roads.
There are a range of upgrades already committed and therefore regarded as being included in the base case –
this option goes beyond these.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Regional
This option is applicable to local roads within
regional centres and rural areas.
Risks and Opportunities
There may a risk of traffic delays during
construction. The upgrades to the road network will
also need to consider any potential impacts to the
local environment.
There is an opportunity to align this option with
regional highway upgrades.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Community Indictors Victoria, VicHealth Survey
2011 (2016)
Community Indictors Victoria, 2012 general
practitioner (GP) addresses: Human Services Data
Directory (2016)
Productivity Commission, Public Infrastructure
(2014)
Travis Review, Increasing the capacity of the
Victorian public hospital system for better patient
outcomes (2015)
Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO),
Maintaining the State’s Regional Arterial Road
Network (2008)
Regional road upgrades
RRU
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 21
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$250 million – $500 million
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The total funding provided for this option is
assumed to be $500 million over the five year
period.
Annual recurrent costs are minimal as these are
assumed to be covered through existing
maintenance budgets.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
safety concerns, and demand from local traffic in
regional centres and rural areas.
In response this option would increase the capacity
and improve the safety of local roads.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred specific hotspots for
accidents would not be addressed, and traffic
concerns in some areas may worsen.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Regional road upgrades
RRU
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 22
Contribution to needs
Need 2: Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth
Overall, challenges in accessing infrastructure and services are typically more significant in local government
areas experiencing low or declining population growth. With low or negative growth the revenue base for local
government contracts, which can create challenges for maintaining existing infrastructure such as local
government roads. Ongoing management and maintenance of infrastructure in these areas would ensure greater
equity in quality of life and access to services for all Victorians. By upgrading roads in these regional areas, this
option is likely to maintain or improve access for existing residences in low or negative growth areas.
Areas with low or negative population growth are often located in more regional and rural areas, which often
perceive their quality and access to infrastructure to be lower than more metropolitan areas. For example, areas
with the longest distances to medical centres with GPs were in Victoria’s outer-metropolitan areas in the west and
east of the state, and these areas generally also had a lower perceived quality of services. People in regional
Victoria also reported experiencing transport limitations more often, with the greatest concentration of
infrastructure challenges experienced within the State’s north-west (Community Indicators Victoria 2016).
This option is likely to improve access to existing services within low or negative areas. It receives a 'Moderate'
contribution in each time period.
Metric 1: Ability to optimise infrastructure delivery while maintaining or improving service delivery within low
growth areas
This option has the potential to prioritise upgrading of local roads that are essential to the functioning of local rural
communities including those in low growth LGAs.
Need 3: Respond to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, particularly due to ageing
The Travis Review considered that the ability of health infrastructure to respond to future pressures could be
reflected by variations in factors including wait times for health services, shortfalls in infrastructure capacity and
the increasing proportion of the population aged 65 years and over (Travis Review 2015).
Although this option may improve the access of regional communities to access health infrastructure, it is not
anticipated to be a substantial improvement. In addition, this option does not address the other factors identified
as reducing pressure on the health system. However, some targeted projects may contribute to reducing traffic
accidents and reduce associated hospital admissions in regional hospitals.
This option may improve road safety in regional areas, or improve access to existing health infrastructure slightly.
It does not address the underlying factors which can increase pressure on the health system, however, so
receives a 'Very Low/ Negative' contribution rating against Need 3 in each time period.
Metric 1: Improvements in access to health services
This option is anticipated to provide only minor improvements to access to health services.
Metric 2: Increase in efficiency of health services
This option is not intended to improve health service efficiency.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
Pressures on maintaining the quality of the regional road network include funding devoted to maintenance, the
expansion and aging of the asset base, higher traffic levels, increased size of vehicles using the road and
increased expectations for road quality (VAGO 2008). While these issues were identified in 2008, it is considered
likely that many still apply, as evidenced by ongoing State and Federal funding to support investment and /or
maintenance of regional roads.
Upgrading local roads can improve access to jobs and services through making local roads safer, and separating
local traffic routes from heavy freight routes. Upgrading local roads may also be necessary to complement
changes to local networks associated with highway upgrades and realignments.
This option receives a 'Moderate' contribution rating in each time period.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
Regional road upgrades
RRU
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 23
Upgrading of local roads would make a moderate contribution to increasing supply to meet demand to
accommodate journeys to and from employment centres and services. Upgrades within regional centres can also
assist to make precincts more attractive places that support business and services.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
Upgrades to local roads can assist to improve performance across the network, particularly in separating freight
movements from local traffic, therefore this option is rated moderate.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
This metric is not applicable to this option.
Need 13: Improve the efficiency of freight supply chains
Freight users rely on the urban, regional and remote road network to transport goods. The freight industry is
anticipated to benefit from this option through improved travel times and safety outcomes. There is the potential
also for roads to be upgraded to take heavy vehicles, which could expand the network available for more
productive freight services.
With the structure of current road use charging, local government has limited ability to recover the wear and tear
on local government maintained roads resulting from freight use. This can result in local government limiting the
use of local roads to certain classes of freight vehicle. Nationally, the Heavy Vehicle Charging and Investment
reform project has been established to address heavy vehicle charging conflicts (Productivity Commission 2014),
which is an ongoing process. Potentially this option could help expand the freight network by providing funding
support for road upgrades to support freight.
This option is anticipated to have a ‘Moderate’ contribution to the need in all time periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in cost of the total freight task (origin to destination)
Improvements to the regional road network are likely to reduce the operating costs of road freight operators by
reducing travel times, or allowing higher productivity vehicles to be used.
Regional road upgrades
RRU
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 24
Regional road upgrades
RRU
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 25
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected to benefit regional and remote communities through investment in their transport
networks. This is likely to enable improved access to jobs and social infrastructure for these communities. In
many cases these benefits are not considered likely to be appreciable, due to the distance to employment
(greater than 45 minutes) or the existence of services to access. In the case of health and education services,
known gaps and alternate delivery models using ICT indicate that the benefits may not be appreciable. Benefits
for access to social infrastructure have been assumed.
This option is considered likely to improve the resilience of regional road network and to have safety benefits for
regional communities and road users.
Road space allocation changes
RSA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 26
Road space allocation changes RSA
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option aims to reallocate road space to prioritise public transport and active transport corridors into the
central city and employment centres to achieve best and most efficient use of the road network. The main
emphasis of this is on separating trams and buses from other traffic (including upgrading some tram routes to
light rail standard) enabling greater throughput of passengers on these corridors.
Specific road allocation changes could include: converting traffic lanes to tram, bus or cycle lanes; extending
clearways at intersections to enable priority lanes for trams or buses (also supporting priority signalisation);
expansion of pedestrian space where viable; narrowing of traffic lanes for additional cycle/pedestrian space (or
safety buffers). Many of these changes can be introduced on a segment-by-segment basis in response to
variations of traffic volumes on city streets.
An example of a template for bicycle-focused road reallocation (including narrowing of lanes and introduction of
buffers) is Swanston Street from the CBD to the University of Melbourne. Areas to be prioritised for such
upgrades could include under-accommodated links in otherwise well-connected corridors (such as the remaining
section of Swanston Street between Collins Street and Flinders Street) or areas with either excess traffic capacity
or critical safety issues.
Areas where road space could potentially be reallocated for tram or bus priority include streets where lane
separation is unclear or inconsistent (such as Tram Route 1 on Park Street) or streets/intersections where car
turn lanes currently overlap with tram or bus lanes (prohibiting advanced signalisation).
Priority areas for upgrades include streets where buses and trams are significantly impeded by general traffic
(such as DART services on northbound Hoddle Street), areas where the current traffic signal priority structure is
inadequate to ensure reliable running times (i.e. intersections with long signal cycles and long conflicting signal
phases), and areas where demand for public transport is severely restricted by the poor speed/performance of
street-running trams and buses.
Sector
Transport
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Melbourne-wide
This option would apply to corridors or parts of the
network that are not currently efficiently used or
where inconsistencies exist. These areas potentially
include Hoddle Street and Park Street.
Risks and Opportunities
With the removal of road space for private vehicles,
there is a risk of a backlash from some sections of
the community.
Reallocating road space provides an opportunity to
increase urban amenity through street scaping and
treatments.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
U.S Department of Transport, Road Diet
Informational Guide (2014)
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia
Queensland Division Inc (IPWEAQ), Complete
Streets Guidelines for Urban Street Design (2010)
North Carolina Department of Transport, Complete
Streets Planning and Design Guidelines (2012)
Road space allocation changes
RSA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 27
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$750 million – $1 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$500 million – $750 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
A scope of works is assumed totalling $750 million.
This would include road space reallocations in key
activity centres and transport nodes, primarily within
metropolitan Melbourne but also in key regional
cities.
Annual recurrent costs are assumed to be mostly
absorbed in existing maintenance budgets.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
congestion, inefficient use of streets and network
planning, creation of place as opposed to
thoroughfare in suitable locations, and the need to
create streets that serve mobility need of multiple
users.
In response this option would increase the capacity
for travel through more efficient use of street space.
In some locations such as back streets, or urban
centres traffic calming measures may be used to
support these places. Reallocation on arterial roads
can help to move more people by prioritising mass-
transit.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred congestion will not be
addressed as much as it could. The liveability of
places within Victoria will not be optimised.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Road space allocation changes
RSA
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 28
Contribution to needs
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Road space allocation entails a variety of treatments that need to be tailored for a specific context and transit
intent. Noting this, this option has the potential to increase capacity along road corridors that have existing mass-
transit or have the potential to support mass-transit in the future.
Given the number of kilometres covered by on-road trams and buses accessing central Melbourne that get
delayed in traffic, this option has the potential to improve the reliability and travel times of mass-transit along with
active forms of transport. Applied to certain transport corridors, this option can moderately contribute to meeting
growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne.
This option is assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 10. This contribution is anticipated to remain
constant over the 30 year period.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
This option would enable greater utilisation of existing transport corridor space, by reallocating street space to
higher capacity transport modes such as public transport, cycling or walking where applicable. This option would
accommodate additional journeys to and from the central city along certain transport corridors.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
Through smart application, this option could improve transport performance across the network, through
prioritisation of signalisation and road diets. As these treatments would be tailored to the needs of each corridor
or intersection, this option has the potential to improve overall transport performance, particularly given the
proportion of journeys into central Melbourne.
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
As per the benefits of this option explored in the related discussion for Need 10, this option could improve access
to middle and outer metropolitan employment centres along certain corridors.
Therefore this option would make a ‘Moderate’ contribution to this need. This contribution is anticipated to remain
constant over the 30 year period.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
This option when also supported by land use has the potential to improve access to middle and outer
metropolitan major employment centres. This would primarily be by way of prioritisation of public transport that
services these centres.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
This option has the potential to improve transport performance along specific corridors and networks surrounding
major employment centres.
Road space allocation changes
RSA
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 29
Road space allocation changes
RSA
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 30
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option will moderately benefit the number of households with a journey to work >45 minutes by potentially
increasing the speed and flow of the different modes affected (car, active transport, trams). It is assumed there
will be travel time disbenefits for private road users which are countered with increases in PT service levels and
efficiency. The areas in the option are all employment centres and the inner city which contain a large number of
health and education facilities. This does not rate 'highly beneficial' as it will be a marginal improvement to
existing corridors. A number of moderate environmental benefits are also anticipated such as reductions in
carbon dioxide, air pollution and consumption of non-renewables associated with anticipated mode shifts to
cleaner and/or more efficient forms of transport.
Rail signals and fleet upgrade
RSF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 31
Rail signals and fleet upgrade RSF
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Upgrade the signalling system across the metropolitan train network to accommodate more trains on existing
tracks using new technologies. This option includes the implementation of high-capacity signalling (HCS)
systems across the network, including upgrades to the rolling stock fleet and communication systems to support
in-cabin signalling displays and direct control of the train. Complemented by the purchase of new high-capacity
trains and associated upgrades (e.g. power upgrades) this will allow more services in peak periods and improve
reliability. There are also safety benefits with HCS as it reduces the possibility for human error, and resilience
benefits, as it supports quicker recovery from disruptions.
HCS can be implemented on a corridor-by-corridor basis in the order of optimal impact. As the Melbourne Metro
1 (MM1) business case identifies HCS as part of the MM1 project, this option would focus on non-MM1
metropolitan corridors as well as regional trains that overlap the metropolitan routes.
Clifton Hill Loop Line (South Morang/Mernda and Hurstbridge):
The Clifton Hill group represents the most significant signalling-constrained portion of the metropolitan rail
network (specifically the segment from Clifton Hill to/including the City Loop). Given that this line also serves
several emerging high-growth areas and is being extended to Mernda (further increasing demand) it should be
considered as Melbourne’s highest priority corridor for signalling upgrades.
Northern Loop Line (Craigieburn and Upfield):
These two corridors are programmed to operate together as the Northern Loop Line following the implementation
of MM1, serving several significant high-growth. As such this corridor could be identified as a secondary priority
for upgrade to HCS.
Glen Waverley Line:
The advantage of this line is that it has only six level crossings remaining; however, it does not serve a high-
growth area (and therefore is not likely to see significant deterioration of conditions) and should be considered a
lower priority for HCS.
Burnley Loop Line (Alamein, Belgrave, Lilydale):
The advantage of this group from an operations perspective is that it has fewer than 10 level crossings
remaining; however, these lines already have a dedicated express track and do not serve high-growth areas (and
are therefore unlikely to experience significantly degraded conditions in the future). It should therefore be
considered only a moderate priority for HCS.
Cross-City Line (Werribee to Sandringham):
Forming the Cross-City Line following implementation of MM1, the Werribee-to-Sandringham corridor serves
several high-growth areas particularly on the western leg near Werribee. As this service is not programmed to
serve the full City Loop, it would require a lesser level of signalling works in the central city than most of the other
metropolitan corridors.
Frankston Line:
As congestion within the Caulfield Loop of the City Loop will decrease as the Dandenong corridor is integrated
into Melbourne Metro 1, the post-MM1 standalone Frankston Line should be considered a lesser priority for HCS
as long as MM1 proceeds according to schedule.
Bendigo and Traralgon V/Line services:
As these regional services overlap the MM1 corridor along the outer portions of its route, the realisation of the full
potential of HCS on MM1 will be dependent on the regional trains on these corridors also outfitted with HCS
technology. (It is presumed the corridors would be HCS-enabled only to Sunshine and Dandenong but that
regional trains and drivers would be equipped to use both conventional and HCS signalling).
Rail signals and fleet upgrade
RSF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 32
Sector
Transport
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Melbourne wide
This option will affect people living within the
catchment of the metropolitan rail network.
Risks and Opportunities
There are a range of risks with the implementation
of high capacity signalling, as it has not yet been
used in Victoria. The base case assumes that it will
be implemented on the outer part of the Mernda line
and through Melbourne Metro, substantially
mitigating these risks.
High capacity signalling opens up a range of
opportunities to manage the network in different
ways, including reconsidering a range of existing
operating practices to improve efficiency.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC), Next
Generation Metro Tunnel Signalling Out To Market
(2016)
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), Infrastructure
Australia Submission 2015 – High Capacity
Signalling (2015)
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), Melbourne
Metro Business Case (2016)
Rail signals and fleet upgrade
RSF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 33
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$5 billion – $10 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$3 billion – $5 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$100 million – $250 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
5 – 10 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
From the Infrastructure Australia submission,
implementation on the Clifton Hill group is estimated
to be $700 million – $900 million, with the wider
network costing between $3 billion – $4 billion.
Annual recurrent costs are assumed to be three
percent of capital costs, and this covers
maintenance only. Operating costs are assumed to
remain unchanged.
Costing source
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), Infrastructure
Australia Submission 2015 – High Capacity
Signalling (2015)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
political will for its implementation.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of the rail system to accommodate journeys to and
from the central city.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
5 – 10 years (2021 – 2026)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, the rail system may not
have the capacity to accommodate expected
increases in demand.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Rail signals and fleet upgrade
RSF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 34
Contribution to needs
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Victoria’s population is expected to grow from a current 4.4 million to in excess of 9 million in 2051 and with it the
number of jobs in central Melbourne is expected to increase from 435,000 in 2011 to 900,000 by 2051. The
number of trips made to, from and around central Melbourne is expected to grow from 14.2 million per day to
24.9 million (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2015).
The capacity of the rail network will need to be expanded to accommodate this expected increase in demand for
travel to central Melbourne. The introduction of high capacity signalling across the metropolitan network is
anticipated to provide significant benefits to commuters, increasing the capacity of the network by up to nine
trains per hour in each direction (for each individual line combination) based on international precedents,
although these may be restricted in Melbourne due to mixed service patterns, high-volume junctions, and the
high levels of passenger use (and associated station dwell times) within the CBD.
Trains are currently separated by signals along the railway tracks. High capacity signals are located inside the
driver's carriage, and computers determine how far apart the trains should be. Implementation of this technology
across the metropolitan train network, combined with additional high capacity trains, would increase the capacity
of the network to help meet the growing demand for access to central Melbourne.
There are a number of rail-related infrastructure projects already planned over the next ten years which are
intended to ease congestion and improve access to the central city, including the level crossing removal project,
the Cranbourne – Pakenham line upgrade, Mernda Rail Extension. As such, the marginal benefit of this option
over the short term may be more moderate. Over the longer term however, this option is intended to provide
significant benefits.
This option receives a ‘Moderate’ contribution rating in years 0 – 10, increasing to ‘Significant’ in years 10 – 30.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
This option is anticipated to significantly increase the capacity of the rail system, accommodating more journeys
to and from the central city.
Metric 2: Improve transport performance across the network access central Melbourne
Implementation of high capacity signalling and purchase of high capacity rolling stock is anticipated to improve
transport performance.
Rail signals and fleet upgrade
RSF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 35
Rail signals and fleet upgrade
RSF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 36
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option will significantly increase service levels on the metropolitan rail network, improving access to
employment, education, health and other services. Upgrading the signalling system across the entire
metropolitan train network is also expected to reduce car use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable agricultural use
RTA
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 37
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable agricultural use RTA
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option involves greater use of recycled treated wastewater to meet existing agricultural water demands. This
would supplement existing water use and allow greater use of raw water supplies for purposes such as meeting
drinking water demands.
Agricultural water usage is currently just over 70 per cent of total Victorian water usage. The majority of this water
is supplied from catchment water storages. Substituting raw water supplies for agriculture with recycled treated
waste water would help to increase water availability for critical purposes, particularly during dry periods.
This option will consider the appropriate technology to treat waste water to a quality suitable for farming
purposes, infrastructure upgrades to deliver this water to major irrigation areas, and pricing signals to promote
uptake.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
Better use/New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option could be applied to the major irrigation
areas in Victoria such as Pyramid–Boort, the
Macalister Irrigation District, Werribee Irrigation
District, the Bacchus Marsh Irrigation District,
Sunraysia and the First Mildura Irrigation Trust
District.
Risks and Opportunities
This option would be high cost to deliver at scale,
and could require ongoing subsidies to be viable.
New irrigated areas or hydroponic farms could be
established closer to the production of recycled
treated wastewater to more cost effectively use the
resource.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Climate
Change in Australia Information for Australia’s
Natural Resource Management Regions: Technical
Report (2015)
Deloitte/Aurecon for Infrastructure Victoria,
Infrastructure Capability Assessment, Water and
Waste (2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Water for Victoria, a Discussion Paper
(2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Rural Water and Irrigation (accessed
2016)
Deloitte/Aurecon for Infrastructure Victoria,
Infrastructure Capability Assessment, Water and
Waste (2016)
Frontier Economics, Potential for water market
expansion, a report prepared for Infrastructure
Victoria (2016)
Marsden Jacobs and Associates, Progress against
the national target of 30 percent of Australia’s
wastewater being recycled by 2015, Report
prepared for the Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities
(Deepak) (2013)
Melbourne Water, Annual report (2015)
Melbourne Water, Using recycled water,
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/whatwedo/recy
clewater/Pages/Using-recycled-water.aspx, site
accessed 29/06/201
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable agricultural use
RTA
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 38
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$250 million – $500 million
Capital / implementation cost
$100 million – $250 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
5 – 10 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
Major irrigation areas in Victoria include Pyramid–
Boort, the Macalister Irrigation District, Werribee
Irrigation District, the Bacchus Marsh Irrigation
District, Sunraysia and the First Mildura Irrigation
Trust District (Goulburn Broken Catchment
Management Authority 2006).
To support this option, transport connections
between existing recycled water treatment plants
with unused capacity and major irrigation areas
could be established.
Additionally, there may be opportunities to invest in
additional water recycling facilities in some regions
in Victoria to supply additional recycled water, as
well as investing in transport networks to deliver the
water to agricultural users.
In addition, subsidies or other forms of support
could be provided.
For the purpose of contribution assessment, one of
these mechanisms has been explore more fully
below. The cost estimate is limited by the lack of
information about the feasibility of interventions.
To provide an indication of cost, construction of a
pipeline from the Eastern Treatment Plant to the
Macalister Irrigation District has been considered.
The Eastern Treatment Plant has the capacity to
produce recycled treated wastewater of a quality
sufficient for use in agriculture and currently
discharges most of this water (Deloitte and Aurecon
2016). The distance that the water would need to be
transported is approximately 200 kilometres.
Stage 2 of the Warragul-Moe Water Supply
Interconnect is expected to cost $7.4 million, and
involves connecting Darnum to Warragul by
pipeline, a distance of approximately 10 kilometres
(Gippsland Water)
This indicates that 200 kilometres of pipeline
transport could cost in the range of $200 million
dollars, with an allowance for additional supporting
infrastructure.
Annual recurrent costs have been assumed to be
three percent of capital costs.
Costing source
Deloitte and Aurecon, Infrastructure Capability
Assessment Water and Waste – advice to
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Gippsland Water, Draft Water Plan 3 Major Projects
(website, accessed July 2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
need to increase water security in response to likely
future shortages, and the dependencies of major
industry such as agriculture on water.
In response the option would increase the supply of
non-potable water for irrigation in agriculture,
reducing the demand on higher quality potable
water and allowing it to be used for other purposes.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
10 – 15 years (2026 – 2031)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option is deferred ongoing climate variability
will continue to influence the output of irrigated
farms.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable agricultural use
RTA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 39
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
Agriculture is a major industry in Victoria and a major user of water, which is an essential input to production. In
periods of water shortage, supplies of water to agriculture are affected and so is farm output, affecting regional
economies.
It is likely that demand for water will increase in the future, with economic and population growth forecast across
Victoria. At the same time, it is likely that supply of water from traditional rain fed sources may diminish, and
increase in variability (CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology 2015). To maintain current output, and potentially
expand, the sector could benefit from more secure water supplies.
Recycled water can and is used for a range of agricultural applications, depending on the standard that water is
treated to (Deloitte and Aurecon 2016). These include uses in cattle and livestock production and horticulture,
including use in irrigation systems (Agriculture Victoria 2016, Department of Primary Industries 2006). With
expanded use of recycled treated wastewater, potable water could be put towards alternate uses.
Irrigation is a water intensive form of agriculture, which in 2012-13 accounted for 38 percent of the output
(DELWP 2016). There is existing capacity to produce recycled waste water for non-potable uses and supply of
this water currently exceeds demand in many jurisdictions, including in metropolitan Melbourne (Melbourne
Water 2015).
Transport costs and the cost of recycled treated wastewater relative to other sources of water supply are barriers
to expanded use. Major irrigation districts are in the north of Victoria, while the largest quantities of recycled
treated wastewater are produced in major urban areas. As recycled treated wastewater is of a different quality to
potable water, it requires dedicated supply networks (i.e. trucking, or at a large scale, piping) that may be cost
prohibitive outside of periods of water scarcity. This option would address the barrier of transport costs through
investment in transport networks.
Recycled treated wastewater is a more expensive form of supply than other options in normal weather conditions,
due to the level of processing required for it to meet environmental standards. For this reason, historically,
demand for treated wastewater for use in agriculture has peaked during periods of water shortage, and then
fallen when alternate supply becomes available. This option is understood to involved subsidies to farmers or
similar price signals to encourage them to make use of recycled treated wastewater under normal climatic
conditions.
The overall contribution of this option to the need is considered to be ‘Moderate’. There is some uncertainty in
future trends in the agricultural sector that present some degree of uncertainty as the contribution of this option in
the future. These factors include changing locations of major irrigation areas over the next 30 years along with
changes in agricultural activities such as an increase in dairy farming and decrease in grain production.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
This option relieves pressure on supplies of potable water through enabling use of recycled water in Agriculture.
Depending on the scale of the intervention, this option has the potential to significantly meet the need, as
Agriculture is a major user of water.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option does not target the efficiency of irrigation systems and so is not expected to have any direct impacts
against this metric.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
This option performs strongly against this metric, as agriculture users are mostly in regional and remote
communities.
Need 17: Improve the health of waterways and coastal areas
It is assumed that this option, by increasing the supply of water suitable for use in Agriculture, would in periods of
good water supply, reduce demand for existing rain fed water sources. This could allow for higher environmental
flows. Additionally, in times of poor water supply, water could be retained for environmental flows that may have
otherwise have been assigned for agricultural use.
This option is therefore considered to have a moderate contribution to the need. This contribution is anticipated to
be constant in all time periods.
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable agricultural use
RTA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 40
Metric 1: Increase of waterways in good or excellent condition
This option supports the health of waterways by reducing the demands of agriculture on them, creating the
potential for higher environmental flows.
Metric 2: Improvements in coastal water quality
This option is likely to impact on coastal water quality in a localised way to the extent that the quality of
waterways is improved.
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable agricultural use
RTA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 41
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable agricultural use
RTA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 42
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option diverts non-potable water to agricultural uses, making available existing potable supplies for other
purposes and benefiting water use. In times of water scarcity this option is anticipated to benefit the resilience of
water supply. By reducing the demands of agriculture on waterways, this option is likely to have benefits on
ecosystems.
For implementation and ongoing operation, this option is likely to require significant investment in water
infrastructure to transport water to regional areas, and so is expected to benefit them. This option could also
support business innovation, through encouraging the development of new irrigated and hydroponic farms.
The resources needed to support this option may have negative impacts. State GSP growth is expected to be
affected as the amount of resources tied up in supplying water to the agricultural industry would increase,
decreasing its productivity and acting as a drag on the economy. Resource use and energy use are also
anticipated to be negatively affected, both in water treatment and transport.
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable use
RTH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 43
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable use RTH
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option involves increasing the use of recycled wastewater for non-potable (non-drinking) use through third
pipe (or purple pipe) schemes.
A state-wide review of current and potential uptake of recycled treated wastewater through third pipe schemes
would inform progress in adopting this component of integrated water cycle management. Based on this review,
the government can incentivise further uptake where there is potential for significant reduction in demand from
mains water supply. This will promote consistency in utilisation of recycled wastewater and assist to address site
specific cost challenges. A suitable incentive may be a targeted grant scheme.
Wastewater treated to a quality suitable for supply through third pipe schemes can be used for watering gardens,
toilet flushing, car washing, and irrigation of park areas, sporting ovals and golf courses. A key benefit of this
water supply source is that it is not subject to restrictions. A number of water businesses in Victoria currently
generate treated wastewater to a quality suitable for supply through third pipe schemes. In areas such as
Melbourne and Geelong these schemes are well developed for some greenfield residential sites. This option has
potential to further increase use of this resource in areas outside of Melbourne. Increasing the use of recycled
treated wastewater creates local resilience by increasing water security.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
Better use/New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option entails two locations yet to be
determined; however it has the potential to be
scaled-up to other areas across the state.
Risks and Opportunities
Uptake of this option in rural areas may be limited
by significant costs and lack of reticulated
wastewater management systems.
There is potential for cost efficiencies in integrating
third pipe schemes servicing developments within
the vicinity of community spaces such as sporting
fields.
Certainty of evidence
High
Evidence base
Barwon Water, Recycled water for Armstrong Creek
and Torquay North (website accessed August 2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Water for Victoria, a Discussion Paper
(2016)
Environmental Protection Authority, Supply of
Reclaimed Water for Drought Relief (2006)
National Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC),
Progress against the national target of 30 percent of
Australia’s wastewater being recycled by 2015
(2013)
Melbourne Water, Annual Report (2015)
Melbourne Water, Using recycled water (2016)
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable use
RTH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 44
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$10 million - $25 million
Capital / implementation cost
$10 million - $25 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 - 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The costing of this option assumes a review of
current projects and two targeted projects of a
similar scale to that of the existing initiative carried
out in Torquay and Jan Juc. The initiative in
Torquay supplied non-potable water to 2,500
residential lots, shire offices, community and
recreational facilities, as well as a future 350Ha of
residential land. For this project, the Federal
Government committed $10.5 million in funding.
While infrastructure needs may vary for each site, it
is assumed that the State Government will commit a
similar amount to that committed for Torquay for
each of the two projects.
The incentive component of this option is
considered to provide existing dwelling owners in
Victoria with a $200 rebate for purple pipe
installation. The recurrent costing assumes this
option is applied to two initiatives of similar scale to
the Torquay initiative, equating to a total of 5,000
lots, spread over a 10 year programme lifespan.
Costing source
Barwon Water, Extending Recycled Water to
Torquay: Project Evaluation Report (2004)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
future inability of rain-fed water sources to support
population and economic growth, combined with the
ability to fit or retrofit housing stock in the catchment
area of waste treatment plants with dual pipe
systems.
In response this option would improve the utilisation
of recycled water by expanding the networks
required to transfer this water to households for
household use.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 - 5 years (2016 - 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred drinking quality water
would continue to be used for functions like flushing
toilets and watering gardens minimising
conservation of this resource for drier periods.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable use
RTH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 45
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
There is existing capacity to produce recycled waste water for non-potable uses. Supply of this water currently
exceeds demand in many jurisdictions across the state. With investment in dual pipe infrastructure, recycled
treated wastewater could be used to meet current and future water use needs, increasing water security. In
situations of diminished water supply, the option will reduce the need for water restrictions by providing an
alternate source of supply for essential household functions such as toilet flushing.
This option is anticipated to make a ‘Low’ contribution in years 0 - 5, and a ‘Moderate’ contribution to managing
threats to water security across the remaining time periods. It is anticipated that if further initiatives were rolled
out that the contribution would increase, however as this option entails two projects, the contribution is likely to
remain stable.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
This option relieves pressure on supplies of potable water through enabling use of recycled water. Depending on
the scale of the intervention, this option has the potential to moderately meet the need.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option does not target the efficiency of irrigation systems and so is not likely to have any direct impacts
against this metric.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
This option could be applied in both larger and small settlements. While there are benefits of scale achievable in
larger places; smaller treatment systems can also be adopted in smaller water supply catchments. Facilitating the
use of recycled water would increase water available for non-urban users such as irrigators, the environment,
industry and for recreational use and public spaces. Therefore this option is rated as moderate against this
option.
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable use
RTH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 46
Recycled treated wastewater for non-potable use
RTH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 47
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is likely to have benefits for resilience, by expanding infrastructure in the water supply industry to take
advantage of new water sources. Replacing higher quality water used in households with recycled treated
wastewater conserves the supply of available high quality water. This could allow for greater supply of water to
regional and remote communities as well as urban residents in dry periods that enables the continued
maintenance of sporting fields and recreational areas such as parks.
This option is anticipated to have mixed environmental impacts. This option directly improves efficiency of water
usage through recycling, and reduces the release of flows from sewerage plants into the environment. However,
recycling water is energy intensive.
Regional train link upgrades
RTL
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 48
Regional train link upgrades RTL
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Upgrade existing public transport links between regional centres and surrounding communities. This option will
improve high priority links with increased frequency of service, reduced travel times and greater reliability.
Examples of this option could include the purchase of additional rolling stock to support rail shuttles at the end of
existing lines, increasing the frequency of long distance services or returning rail services to towns on the freight
rail network.
Rail shuttles: The initiation of rail shuttles would extend the reach (or service hours) of rail services further into
regional communities, and enable the matching of capacity with demand along outer portions of the routes by
allowing the use of short (1-2-car) trains in outer communities versus the full-length trainsets that travel into
Melbourne. This strategy would rely on the design of termini to allow convenient (same-platform/cross-platform)
transfers which could presumably be achieved with modest capital outlay given the minimum of platform space
required for 1-2-car trains.
A priority/pilot for this type of service (representing the opportunity to increase the number of trains per day) could
be the Bendigo-to-Echuca corridor. A potential upgrade in service along this route would be supported by both
Echuca-to-Melbourne and Echuca-to-Bendigo demand. The Geelong-to-Warrnambool corridor would similarly
represent an opportunity to supplement the existing limited number of through services from Melbourne with
shorter Warrnambool-to-Geelong shuttle trains.
These upgrades will increase access to jobs, education, health care and other services for people in rural and
regional centres.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
This option applies to regional towns around
Victoria which are large enough to support public
transport connections with neighbouring towns and
regional centres.
Risks and Opportunities
A key risk in providing these service upgrades is if
the future patronage is not sufficient to justify the
service. This may result in an inefficient use of
funding and infrastructure.
This option may give the ability to cluster jobs and
services in regional centres, due to the increase in
transport service quality.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
State Government of Victoria, Connecting Regional
Victoria: Victoria's Regional Network Development
Plan (2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Regional train link upgrades
RTL
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 49
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$750 million – $1 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$25 million – $50 million
Annual recurrent costs
$10 million – $25 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
The capital cost of this option is based on a pilot
project being undertaken along the Bendigo/Echuca
corridor. As the rail track is already in place and has
capacity to accommodate additional services the
only capital costs are expected to be minor
associated infrastructure improvements. Rolling
stock is assessed out of scope as it is to be
provided under option RRS. The costing of this pilot
project is, therefore, considered to have similarities
to three other options - RCU, RBU and RMU.
Rail shuttles: $25 million has been assumed as
required for this pilot to allow for signalling and
station upgrades as needed.
Rail shuttles: The calculated annual recurrent cost
is based on each additional coach covering a
distance of 600 kilometres per day, 48 weeks of the
year. Fuel consumption is assumed to be 200 litres
per day per bus (three kilometres per litre) and fuel
cost is assumed to be $1.25 per litre.
Driver, management, administrative wages, stabling
and maintenance facilities total $1 million per
annum.
Costing source
Public Transport Victoria (PTV) website, Network
Statistics (2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV) website, Bendigo
Metro Rail Project (2016)
Managing Growth: Infrastructure for Melbourne's
outer suburbs (2015)
Newman, Doncaster Rail: What are its prospects?
(2012)
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
sufficient evidence of demand for public transport
services such as these.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of transport links between regional towns.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the pattern of regional
towns shrinking may continue, since the mobility of
residents will not be improved.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Regional train link upgrades
RTL
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 50
Contribution to needs
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
As this option is a network-wide upgrade, the contribution towards the need is highly dependent on the level of
services provided. Victoria's Regional Network Development Plan reiterates the importance of this option for
people living in regional areas, indicating that a case for further investigation exists (State Government of Victoria
2015). Better connectivity between regional towns can allow for the clustering of jobs and services while also
increasing the agility of the labour force to adjust to changing market conditions in their towns without the need to
move house.
Although the Victoria in Future population projections broadly show regional centres growing with surrounding
communities declining (DELWP, 2015), increased accessibility to jobs and services through the provision of
public transport in regional towns may slow this trend. This option receives a 'Moderate' contribution rating
against Need 12 in time period.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
By increasing the provision of public transport between regional towns and centres, it increases the mobility of
Victorians living in regional areas. These services may induce demand for trips like this, which currently may be
made in private cars or not happening at all due to the lack of transport options.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
The potential congestion removed off regional roads and highways is not assumed to be significant to the overall
transport network, however improved public transport will make the network more accessible for a greater
number of people (increasing its performance).
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
This option may offer an opportunity to give people in regional and rural areas additional access to the internet
through the provision of Wi-Fi on the services provided, although it is assumed if the customer has a Wi-Fi
capable device this would not be their only source of ICT connectivity.
Regional train link upgrades
RTL
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 51
Regional train link upgrades
RTL
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 52
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
By upgrading the transport connections between neighbouring regional towns with regional centres, it increases
the ability for people to access jobs, services, education and social opportunities. These transport connections
are assumed to have a positive impact on tourism in regional Victoria, as trips to regional towns may increase as
public transport service quality is improved.
Residential tenancies reform
RTR
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 53
Residential tenancies reform RTR
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Reform of residential tenancies laws and regulations to provide for longer-term rental housing outcomes.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
This option is applicable to rental properties across
the State.
Risks and Opportunities
If the reform process is rushed without adequate
consultation it may be ineffective or have
unintended consequences due to the complexities
of the housing market and the vulnerability of some
participants.
For landlords, the option could present the risk of
increased costs, or the inability to increase rents in
line with the market. This could disincentivise
investment in private housing.
This option presents scope for significant structural
reform of tenancies. This may reduce the need for
state and federal government spending in other
areas, for example, social housing or other forms of
housing support.
Certainty of evidence
High
Evidence base
Affordable Development Outcomes, Draft Report to
Infrastructure Victoria – Improving Access to
Affordable Housing (2016)
Department of Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs, The Road Home:
A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness
(2008)
Justice Connect Homeless Law Group, There's no
place like home: Submission to the Residential
Tenancies Act Review (2015)
Justice Connect Homeless Law Group, There's no
place like home: Submission on the Rent, Bonds
and other Charges Issues Paper, (2016)
Residential Tenancies Act Review, Security of
Tenure Issues Paper (2015)
Residential tenancies reform
RTR
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 54
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This is considered a very large size policy option
that would involve initial policy drafting, consultation
with key stakeholders and the community, and final
policy implementation. This process is expected to
involve public servants and potentially private sector
consultants over a period greater than one year.
The recurrent cost assumes that the cost of
managing the policy addition is absorbed by the
existing State Government budgets.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
desire to improve choice in the private rental market
and ensure that legal structures support longer
tenure private rental market for those that would
prefer it.
This option would result in a change in the legal
structures supporting tenancies to reflect changing
needs of tenants in the private rental market.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, existing legal
arrangements would remain in place. Some parties
in the private rental market may be able to negotiate
their desired outcomes under this framework,
whereas others could be in a weaker bargaining
position relative to the circumstance of reform.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Residential tenancies reform
RTR
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 55
Contribution to needs
Need 7: Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians
The Residential Tenancies Act Review (2015) documents that residential mobility in Victoria has shown a
decreasing trend over the past twenty years, that is, Victorians in both the private rental market, and Victorians
who own their own homes, are moving less frequently. Therefore, there is likely to be increased demand for
contracts that support longer term tenancy arrangements. The review quotes research from the Tenants Union of
Victoria indicating that 65 percent of tenants in the private rental market preferred the flexibility of short term
leases, which are viewed as presenting the opportunity to move in response to changing circumstances (i.e.
family, employment, study, existing the rental market through purchase of a property) (The Residential Tenancies
Act Review 2015). This suggests that the remaining 35 percent of tenants may be interested in longer
arrangements.
It is unclear whether those desiring longer term arrangements are vulnerable in the housing market, but
increasing tenancy protection may have benefits for housing market outcomes for these groups. If those desiring
longer term arrangements can be better protected, they may be more likely to remain in the private rental market
(and experience less stress). Potentially, the overall incidence of homelessness can be reduced because those
who may have experienced extreme housing stress under previous laws may be better protected.
The contribution to the need is assessed as ‘Moderate’.
It is expected that this option requires a range of reforms, not just one single reform to the act. As such, it is
expected it may take more than five years to implement all necessary reforms, and see the benefits from each,
particularly with the need for stakeholder engagement and consultation prior to reforming the act.
The contribution to the need may begin from the implementation of the first reform (expected to be possible in the
next five years), which will likely have a ‘Low’ contribution. However, once more reforms are introduced in the
next 5-10 years the benefits will likely increase to ‘Moderate’.
Metric 1: Reduction in housing stress for lower income households in the rental market
This option is directly targeted at reform to improving the legal arrangements for private tenancies. If low income
tenants can have better protection and security of affordable tenure, this would likely address housing related
stress.
Metric 2: Reduction in average waiting time of people on the social housing register waitlist
This option may reduce demand for social housing by improving the certainty of tenure in the private market.
Although this option does not propose an increase in social housing supply, a decline in demand may reduce wait
times for existing social housing.
Metric 3: Ability to provide homeless people a pathway into housing
This option does not directly target homeless people or provide them a pathway to housing, rather it indirectly
effects homelessness in two ways. Firstly, improving protections to vulnerable tenants in the housing market
could result in fewer incidences of homelessness, for example, through less scope for significant increase in
rents or improved protection against eviction in the private market. Secondly, improving outcomes in the private
rental housing market more generally could reduce demand for social housing and as such there may be
increased capacity for others, including homeless people and those with high needs, to gain access to social
housing units.
Residential tenancies reform
RTR
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 56
Residential tenancies reform
RTR
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 57
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option would support tenants seeking to secure a long term supply of housing in the private market. There is
also the potential of benefits to housing affordability, depending on the reforms implemented and the market
response. Reforms in favour of tenants would likely support low social-economic index communities, as members
of these communities may experience reduced bargaining power in the private rental market compared to other
participants.
There is a chance than costs to business (i.e. landlords) may increase under this option, as the option appears
likely to extend the regulation of the private housing supply. Depending on the nature of reforms, there could be a
risk of reduced investment in residential investment if profitability of investment properties appears to be lower or
the associated risks of holding rental properties increase.
Recycled treated wastewater for drinking
RWW
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 58
Recycled treated wastewater for drinking RWW
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Review of government policy and investment in infrastructure to enable uptake of recycled treated wastewater for
drinking. This option would allow wastewater to be treated to a quality suitable for drinking in order to supplement
drinking water supplies.
Wastewater treated to a quality suitable for drinking can be utilised directly through connection into mains water
supply systems (direct potable reuse) or indirectly through discharge into rivers, storages or aquifers that then
provide supply for drinking water systems (indirect potable reuse). This option proposes consideration of both
mechanisms to enable increase water availability.
The United Kingdom, California and Singapore provide examples of government policy to enable the use of
recycled treated wastewater to meet potable water demands. Subsequent investment in infrastructure (by the
private sector or State-Owned enterprises) is then required. This option could include building a new asset or
expansion of existing assets. Treating wastewater to drinking quality is costly but it has great potential to meet
the need of managing threats to water security.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option has the potential to impact all Victorians.
Risks and Opportunities
Monitoring quality of water output at plant for safety
outcomes will be required, and monitoring of
discharge to make sure that it is meeting
environmental requirements.
There may be an opportunity to introduce this with
other 'new' water sources such as desalinated
water.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Deloitte/Aurecon for Infrastructure Victoria,
Infrastructure Capability Assessment, Water and
Waste (2016)
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Climate
Change in Australia Information for Australia’s
Natural Resource Management Regions: Technical
Report (2015)
National Water Commission, Using recycled water
for drinking, Waterlines Occasional Paper no.2
(2007)
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering, Drinking Water Through Recycling:
The Benefits And Costs Of Supplying Direct To The
Distribution System (2013)
Recycled treated wastewater for drinking
RWW
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 59
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$5 billion – $10 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$1 billion – $3 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$50 million – $100 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
10 – 15 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
The estimated capital cost is based on the Western
Corridor Recycled Water project that was
completed at a cost of $2.5 billion in 2008.
Escalated to 2015 dollars this is $2.93 billion. The
Western Corridor Recycled Water project draws
water from six existing wastewater treatment plants
in Queensland's south east. It involved construction
of more than 200 kilometres of pipeline as well as
three water treatment plants at Bundamba,
Luggage Point and Gibson Island that are
collectively capable of producing 232 megalitres of
water per day, or approximately 85 billion litres per
year.
The estimated capital cost of this option assumes
that the scale of the treated wastewater plant is of
the same scale and the same cost in 2015 dollars
as the Western Corridor Recycled Water project.
Potable water output for this scale and cost is
expected to be in the range of 85 billion litres per
year. The cost may vary depending on site specific
considerations and the range quoted allows for
almost twice the capacity to be built.
Recurrent costs are assumed to be three percent of
capital costs, and this covers maintenance works,
but not operational works.
Costing source
Australian Government National Water
Commission, Using recycled water for drinking
(2007)
Queensland Government Department of
Infrastructure and Planning, Final Progress Report
(2009)
RBA website (2016)
What could influence this option?
This option would be influenced by the need for
major augmentation the timing of which is uncertain
and can be delayed by uptake of localised
solutions.
In response this option would increase water
security through rainfall independent water supply.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
15 – 30 years (2031 – 2046)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred other options to
minimise water demands or investigate alternative
supply may be required.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Recycled treated wastewater for drinking
RWW
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 60
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
CSIRO research, alongside other investigations, identifies that climate change is likely to reduce the certainty of
traditional, rain-fed sources of water supply. Additionally, current water supplies will come under pressure due to
increased population and economic activity. This option responds to these pressures by proposing new supply.
The full contribution of the option against the need will depend on how the option is implemented. A number of
small scale investments to process recycled treated wastewater to potable quality could be made around the
state. Alternatively, Melbourne’s large treatment plants could be upgraded and infrastructure used to transfer or
supplement supply to various areas. The treated recycled potable water can also be directed to existing storages
to increase overall water availability.
It is assumed that this option would be investigated after the desalination plant is in use, meaning that the
resilience benefits the desalination plant now offers are exhausted. It is challenging to forecast future rainfall;
however, it has been assumed that this occurs towards the end of the next thirty years. This option receives a
'Moderate' contribution rating in years 0-5, increasing to 'Significant' from years 5-30.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
The ability of this option to increase supply of water provides a significant contribution against the metric.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option does not target the efficiency of irrigation systems and so is not likely to have any direct impacts
against this metric.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
The implementation of the option will determine the full contribution against this metric, although there may be
limitations in supplementing water or transferring water across the State.
Recycled treated wastewater for drinking
RWW
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 61
Recycled treated wastewater for drinking
RWW
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 62
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Water is required to support the health of the Victorian population, and is used in commercial, residential and
social settings. This option increases the supply of water in Victoria by using technology to recover water suitable
for drinking from wastewater. By increasing the supply of water, the option has benefits for resilience and
economic growth. The use of new technology is also anticipated to benefit business innovation, and increases
the supply of an input to production.
In situations of water scarcity, the option is likely to have benefits for health, business continuity, access to social
infrastructure and securing water for the environment. Due to the energy intensity of the technology used to
recover water, the option has some adverse environmental impacts. There are strong environmental benefits in
terms of water use. By re-using a currently disposed water resource this option reduces pressure on river
systems.
Affordable housing development incentives
SAH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 63
Affordable housing development incentives SAH
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option proposes the introduction of voluntary incentive based statutory planning mechanisms to increase the
supply of affordable housing, in particular affordable private rental dwellings. Mechanisms include :
- offering development bonuses related to building height, density or floor ratios
- reduced building setbacks
- reducing car parking requirement
- removing unnecessary planning obstacles to smaller scale infill housing programs such as accessory or
ancillary units (e.g. granny flats, secondary suites) or laneway units.
- shortening and guaranteeing timeframes for assessment of planning applications.
Further work is required to determine the approach without compromising design quality or amenity to the
development and the broader community. It is also important that incentives are targeted at the developer,
enabling a component of the benefit to be applied to affordable housing and not inadvertently passed to the
landowner in the form of land value uplift. This approach is noted in the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion
Paper, however the Plan Melbourne Refresh response had not been released at the time of drafting this
document.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
Better use/New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option would most likely affect Greater
Melbourne and the regional centres.
Risks and Opportunities
Concessions offered to developers, such as
reduced building setbacks, would need to be
applied sensitively to preserve amenity for residents
and stakeholders.
Coordination between State and Local Government
in delivery could increase the benefits of this option.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Affordable Development Outcomes, Draft Report to
Infrastructure Victoria – Improving Access to
Affordable Housing (2016)
Council on Federal Financial Relations, Affordable
Housing Working Group: Issues Paper (2016)
Grattan Institute, Getting the housing we want
(2011)
Productivity Commission, Performance
Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation:
Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments
(2011)
Affordable housing development incentives
SAH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 64
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$10 million – $25 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
As per the description, this option proposes the
introduction of voluntary incentive based statutory
planning mechanisms to increase the supply of
affordable housing, in particular affordable private
rental dwellings. This option is considered to include
a very large size policy and incentive development
component that, from the State Government in
association with private sector consultants, would
involve preparation of policy and associated
documentation, public and key stakeholder
consultation, review and response to public
submissions, and preparation of final policy
documentation. As this is a voluntary incentive
based schemes targeting changes to construction
norms within the residential sector (particularly well
serviced areas suitable for high and medium density
housing, close to transport and social and
commercial facilities), it is assumed the private
sector will bear any increased and/or decreased
profit margins. The only cost to the State
Government would be those associated with
drafting and implementing changes to the Victorian
Planning Provisions (VPPs). Changes to local
planning schemes (to specify well serviced areas)
would be expected to be done within existing LGA
budgets.
The recurrent cost assumes that the cost of
managing the policy addition is absorbed by the
existing State Government budgets.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
intention to increase the supply of affordable
housing, and the comfort with using concessions to
developers to achieve this goal.
In response this option would increase the supply of
affordable housing.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
Then it is likely that the available supply of
affordable housing would be lower and/or
developed in areas with lower land values.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Affordable housing development incentives
SAH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 65
Contribution to needs
Need 7: Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians
The need for more affordable housing for vulnerable Victorians has been identified by Infrastructure Victoria.
Affordable housing is understood to “reduce or eliminate housing stress for low-income and disadvantaged
families and individuals” (Council on Federal Financial Relations 2016), including through the provision of the
private rental dwellings targeted by this option. An estimate of the number of low-income and disadvantaged
families and individuals is provided by Affordable Development Outcomes report, which considers the number of
Commonwealth Rental Assistance (CRA) recipients in private rental in Victoria paying more than thirty percent on
housing, namely:
- 38,380 CRA recipients paying more than 50 percent of income on housing (Victoria)
- 51,832 very-low income (Q1) CRA recipient households paying over 30 percent income in Melbourne
- 20,192 low income (Q2) CRA recipient households in paying over 30 percent income in Melbourne
(Affordable Development Outcomes 2016).
This option would address the need for affordable housing by creating incentives for developers to target the
affordable housing market. There is evidence that barriers to development influence the housing stock provided
(Grattan 2011) and that planning and zoning practices could in many cases be simplified (Productivity
Commission 2011). Additionally, the Council on Federal Financial Relations attributes a relative undersupply of
affordable housing to “restrictive planning, zoning and land release policies have the effect of limiting the
available supply of development sites for new housing” and the risk profile of tenants in affordable housing
(Council on Federal Financial Relations 2016).
By creating incentives for the development of new affordable housing, it is anticipated that this option could make
a ‘Moderate’ contribution to the need overall.
Metric 1: Reduction in housing stress for lower income households in the rental market
By increasing supply of affordable housing, this option could reduce the level of housing stress for lower income
households.
Metric 2: Reduction in average waiting time of people on the social housing register waitlist
This option is not expected to directly impact on this metric. The option may have indirect benefit by reducing
pressure on other types of affordable housing.
Metric 3: Ability to provide homeless people a pathway into housing
This option is not expected to directly impact on this metric. The option may have indirect benefit by reducing
housing cost pressure on low income earners
Affordable housing development incentives
SAH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 66
Affordable housing development incentives
SAH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 67
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
By promoting additional supply of affordable housing, this option is expected to benefit housing supply and
affordability, and support low social economic areas where households may be more vulnerable to housing
stress.
This option is anticipated to support business innovation and/or reduce business costs by reducing regulatory
barriers faced by developers to encourage development of more affordable housing. Increasing the supply of
affordable housing is considered likely to reduce state costs, for example, in the intervention in housing market,
or due to positive social outcomes associated with more secure housing supply.
Schools as community facilities
SCF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 68
Schools as community facilities SCF
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option supports the utilisation of school assets by the broader community. This could include community use
of school grounds and facilities such as indoor courts outside of school hours, as well as the integration of
spaces, early years and other facilities, that help make schools a relevant place for the whole community.
Funding of conversion packages would be made available to schools for initial infrastructure investment. An
increase in ongoing funding for maintenance and insurance etc. may also be required to cover increased use of
assets. Good governance and shared use agreements are likely to be required, and a lead broker agency will
also be needed to bring potential partners together well in advance of the design phase. This ‘lead broker’ could
be a representative from the school, local Council or State government.
We think there is evidence that integration of services leads to improved outcomes for the community and those
services. Department of Education and Training research showed that integration of two or more service
components can lead to a more joined-up experience for families, improved service effectiveness and increased
service efficiencies. There can also be significant cost savings if facilities to be used by schools and the broader
communities, such as indoor sports facilities, are delivered together. In September 2009, the Victorian
Competition and Efficiency Commission released the final report Getting it Together: An Inquiry into the Sharing
of Government and Community Facilities which identified the need for governance arrangements and
coordination to enable shared use of facilities.
Sector
Education and training
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
This option could be implemented at existing school
facilities Statewide.
Risks and Opportunities
Schools and community partners will need to
develop an appropriate governance structure to
address impacts on school security and safety,
maintaining records of the arrangements and taking
responsibility for maintenance. Community access
to school facilities must also comply with regulatory
requirements, including obtaining appropriate
planning permissions, insurance and occupational
health and safety and general safety.
This option could be developed in conjunction with
option LLH – Lifelong learning hubs, to identify
appropriate schools for increased community
access and to manage disruption to school
activities.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Department of Education and Training, Schools as
Community Facilities: Policy Framework and
Guidelines (2005)
Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission,
Getting it Together: An Inquiry into the Sharing of
Government and Community Facilities (2009)
Schools as community facilities
SCF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 69
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$750 million – $1 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$750 million – $1 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
It is assumed that all new schools and 50 percent of
Victoria's 1,524 government schools adapt
infrastructure to encourage shared community use
at an average cost to the State Government of
$1,000,000 per school.
This option is also a medium level policy change.
State Government resources will be needed to draft
policy and any necessary legislative changes,
including consideration of the implications for
insurance and other costs.
The costs for establishing appropriate governance
relationships for shared use is anticipated to be
absorbed by schools, local councils and community
groups.
In the case of new school development, it is likely
that ongoing policy resources would be required to
coordinate planning between the Department of
Education and other stakeholders.
Annual recurrent costs are assumed to be absorbed
by existing school, and community stakeholder,
budgets. Efficiency gains through shared use are
expected to free up funds sufficient to meet annual
recurrent costs.
Costing source
Department of Education and Training, Summary
Statistics for Victorian Schools (2016)
Department of Health and Human Services, 2016-
17 Community Sports Infrastructure Fund:
Application Guidelines (2015)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
public acceptance of increased community access
to school facilities, the identification of appropriate
schools and facilities, and the political impetus to
implement.
In response this option would increase community
access to sporting, cultural and technological
infrastructure.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the community would
continue access these facilities through alternative
means.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Schools as community facilities
SCF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 70
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
Community infrastructure is can be seen as “follower”, that is, it is developed in response to the needs of
communities as they establish themselves (SGS Economics and Planning 2016). Local government often has a
major role in community infrastructure development and operation
As population growth occurs in new development, residents and local government may need to develop a range
of infrastructure and services, and the State Government may also need to develop new schools.
School sites have a range of spaces and facilities which could be used by the broader community, for example,
halls, meeting spaces and recreation facilities (Department of Education and Training, 2005). Other uses of
school facilities include school-aged holiday, before- and after-school programs, providing information technology
centres for community use, and sharing libraries and performing arts centres (Department of Education and
Training, 2005). Early years facilities can also be integrated onto school sites.
Therefore, there is a strong opportunity in greenfield high growth areas to implement this option to improve
access to infrastructure, reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness community infrastructure.
The contribution to this need is rates as ‘Significant’ in all time periods.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
Shared use, and planning for development of shared use facilities, could accelerate the growth in access to
services in high growth areas.
Need 2: Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth
As detailed in Need 1, school sites can include a range of infrastructure that can be used by other groups within
the community.
To implement this option in areas with low or negative growth, shared use arrangements for this infrastructure
could be developed, and school infrastructure upgraded to meet expanded needs where necessary. Improving
the utilisation of school infrastructure could allow communities to consolidate infrastructure assets such as
kindergartens without sacrificing access to services.
This option is likely to have a ‘Significant’ contribution to the need, and the contribution is expected to grow over
time as trends to low or negative growth develop.
Metric 1: Ability to optimise infrastructure delivery while maintaining or improving service delivery within low
growth areas
This option presents the opportunity to improve the utilisation of existing infrastructure, and for consolidation of
other infrastructure that is surplus to demand.
Need 4: Enable physical activity and participation
A key benefit of this option would be the increased ability of the community to access the sporting facilities
located within schools. Such access has been demonstrated to be popular with the community. The Victorian
Competition and Efficiency Commission provided the case study of the development of a basketball stadium at
Mornington Secondary College, funded through a joint use agreement with government which enables
community access (Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2009).
As schools may not be required to earn a commercial rate of return on its facilities, the costs to individuals of
hiring school sporting facilities may be favourable in comparison to private sports centres, which could increase
their use across the community.
This option receives a ‘Significant’ rating against Need 4 in each time period.
Metric 1: Increase in access to infrastructure to encourage physical activity
This option will increase community access to a range of infrastructure to encourage physical activity, such as
sporting ovals, sports centres and swimming pools.
Metric 2: Increase in physical participation rate
Given the increased access to sporting infrastructure, this option may increase the physical participation rate
across the community.
Schools as community facilities
SCF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 71
Need 5: Provide public spaces where communities can come together
Schools have a range of spaces and facilities which could enable the community to come together, including to
use school premises for community halls, meeting spaces and recreation facilities, creating spaces to support,
before- and after-school programs, providing information technology centres for community use, and sharing
libraries and performing arts centres (Department of Education and Training, 2005). Early years facilities can also
be integrated into school sites.
These facilities and spaces may not otherwise be easily accessible within the broader community. Not all schools
in all locations will be able to offer the same range of facilities for community use, but, to the extent that this
option increases the number and variety of spaces where communities can come together, it is likely to improve
the perceived quality of community spaces within the general public.
This option receives a ‘Moderate’ rating against Need 5 in all time periods.
Metric 1: Improvements in perceived access to and quality of open and community spaces
This option may increase the number of variety of spaces available for the community to come together. As such,
it is likely to improve the public’s perceived quality of open spaces and community spaces.
Metric 2: Increase in arts participation and attendance
This option is not likely to directly affect arts participation and attendance, although it could increase the number
of facilities available for the staging of arts events.
Need 9: Provide access to high-quality education infrastructure to support lifelong learning
This option would support lifelong learning in that it would increase the number of venues with spaces designed
for teaching and learning for community groups who run courses and classes (ranging from early years to adult-
education classes).
Since this option can only be enacted in areas with appropriate facilities, it receives a ‘Moderate’ across all time
periods.
Metric 1: Increase in overall education asset utilisation
This option will increase overall education asset utilisation by using school facilities on nights and weekends.
Metric 2: Increase in education participation
This option will increase the ability for people to access classes (since there will be more potential venues
available).
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
Regional communities may be less likely to be able to access a range of services within their local communities.
This option may increase the variety of services available to the community if schools have facilities which people
would otherwise have travelled outside the community to access. These could include libraries or indoor sports
facilities
This option may increase ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas, if school computing facilities are opened up
for community access.
Access to these services would need to be managed around the needs of the school to access these facilities
however, so overall this option is not anticipated to provide a significant contribution to Need 12.
This option receives a ‘Low’ contribution rating in each time period.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
This option may increase the number and scope of services available to community members in rural and
regional areas. However, it may be unlikely that schools within rural and regional communities would have the
facilities which individuals would otherwise have travelled outside the area to access.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
This option is not anticipated to improve transport performance across the network.
Schools as community facilities
SCF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 72
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
By providing school ICT resources for community use, this option may increase the ICT connectivity of rural and
regional communities, though public access would need to be accommodated around the school’s need to use
this technology.
Schools as community facilities
SCF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 73
Schools as community facilities
SCF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 74
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
By providing additional means for the public to access community facilities, this option may be able to reduce
disruptions. It is likely to improve community access to social, sporting and recreational facilities, and may
potentially benefit regional communities by expanding access to locally located facilities. As this option is
implemented over time, this option is also expected to improve resource use (for example, of land), although the
benefits are unlikely to become appreciable.
Affordable Social housing infrastructure investment framework
SCP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 75
Affordable Social housing infrastructure investment framework SCP
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Develop and publish a 30-year infrastructure strategy for affordable housing that responds to forecast population
growth, decline and demographic change. The strategy would outline set targets for the location and numbers of
different types of housing to be made available. It would also include a pipeline of supporting funding and land
release, with the land being provided by local and state government. The strategy would address:
- public and community housing
- rationalisation of existing housing stock (as outlined in option SHA); and
- provision of new housing under several different models of delivery and management (including those
identified in options SHG, SAH, SHP1, GOM, SHD1 and CLT.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option has the potential to impact all Victorians.
Risks and Opportunities
This option could enhance the effectiveness of
other options relating to housing, for example,
options ARH, CHP, SHE, TSA and SHA)
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Affordable Development Outcomes, Draft Report to
Infrastructure Victoria – Improving Access to
Affordable Housing (2016)
Infrastructure Victoria, Draft Options Books: Need 7
– provide better access to housing for the most
vulnerable Victorians (2016)
Metropolitan Planning Authority, Policy and Strategy
– growth areas (2016)
Affordable Social housing infrastructure investment framework
SCP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 76
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
Infrastructure Victoria's operational budget is $10
million per year, and this enables them to meet their
task of providing a 30 year infrastructure strategy in
2016 as well as provide independent and
transparent advice to Government on infrastructure
priorities. The scope of this option is assumed to be
about 10-30 percent of the scope of Infrastructure
Victoria's, and has been costed as such. There
would be minimal direct recurrent costs following
strategy release.
Costing source
Department of Treasury and Finance, Victorian
Budget 16/17: Service Delivery (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
existing and forecast future demand for housing
interventions to support vulnerable households.
Vulnerable households have been identified
"defined as earning less than 80 per cent median
household income) and low-income households.
This option would likely involve planning for crisis
housing, transitional housing, public and community
housing, affordable housing and refurbishment of
existing public and community housing.
In response this option would reduce the risk of
interventions in the housing market through
integrated planning to identify potential and future
housing needs and the location of demand. The
policy development could also include new
frameworks and incentives to support investment to
meet these needs.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, then the benefits
realised from individual interventions to address
aspects of the housing market could be reduced.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Affordable Social housing infrastructure investment framework
SCP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 77
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
High population growth may increase pressure on housing affordability in the future, especially if the supply of
accommodation does not keep pace with demand. While the profile of high growth suburbs varies, it is
anticipated that in greenfield developments, such as the designated growth LGAs by the Metropolitan Planning
Authority (Casey, Cardinia, Hume, Melton, Mitchell, Whittlesea and Wyndham), there may be gaps in the supply
of housing for vulnerable Victorians, including crisis housing, transitional housing, and public or community
housing.
This option, by setting a strategic direction to address housing needs, may assist to close these gaps by
highlighting areas of undersupply for investment, or setting in place the frameworks for incentives to develop
supply. Land use planning that could be developed under this option could be particularly effected in greenfield
developments. In more established areas anticipated to experience high growth, such as the city of Melbourne,
interventions involving planning changes may be less effective.
The overall contribution of the affordable housing strategy will be highly dependent on the level of funding
provided to implement its recommendations. However, the issue of housing affordability cannot be addressed by
a single solution, and a range of housing solutions, financial support packages and additional social support
services will all be required. This option will provide the strategy to bring all elements of the solution together.
Although the strategy in and of itself cannot fully address the issue of housing affordability, it will be a critical
element of the government's response. As such, this option receives a 'Moderate' contribution rating against
Need 1 in each time period.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
The strategy may indirectly result in an increase of the supply of housing that meets the needs of vulnerable
Victorians in high growth areas.
Need 2: Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth
Areas of low or negative population growth are anticipated to have specific needs in relation to housing. Low or
negative population growth could indicate that the supply of housing is more likely to keep pace with demand for
housing, especially in the case of negative growth. The pressures on affordable housing supply may therefore be
reduced.
This option, through setting a strategic direction to address housing needs, could highlight areas where existing
housing and housing support services do not meet the demands of population change, or are in surplus to
demand. This option could also support the development of new solutions, which could be more flexible to meet
the demands of low growth communities.
Similarly to Need 1, this option receives a 'Moderate' contribution rating against Need 2 in each time period, as it
will be a critical component of any housing affordability solution.
Metric 1: Ability to optimise infrastructure delivery while maintaining or improving service delivery within low
growth areas
This option is likely to identify areas where current service models are not meeting changing demands, and allow
for the targeting of investment. This option involves policy development only, without the funding necessary to
alter where and how built solutions are provided or adapted.
Need 7: Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians
This option is to develop a strategy that would address existing and emerging needs for the spectrum of housing
from crisis accommodation to affordable housing. The strategy would identify supporting actions that government
could take, for example, establishing a pipeline of land funding and land release, or incentive planning
mechanisms. The strategy would play an important role in coordinating investment across housing needs
statewide.
The strategy in and of itself is not anticipated to respond to current demand for housing services, from crisis
accommodation to affordable housing, which is likely to come under increased pressure in the future due to
population growth. The strategy as described is for policy development not implementation of built solutions to
increase capacity, and the strategy does not appear to offer significant demand management initiatives.
Affordable Social housing infrastructure investment framework
SCP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 78
Similarly to Needs 1 and 2, this option receives a 'Moderate' contribution rating against Need 2 in each time
period, as it will be a critical component of any housing affordability solution.
Metric 1: Reduction in housing stress for lower income households in the rental market
Over time, an integrated housing policy, including planning for affordable housing may increase the supply of
affordable housing, for example, through the use of tools such as planning incentives. However, the option does
not include a funded commitment to expand supply.
Metric 2: Reduction in average waiting time of people on the social housing register waitlist
Over time, an integrated housing policy may reduce the social housing register waitlist, for example, through
expanding the supply of affordable housing or transitional housing services. However, this option concerns the
policy framework only, not funding for increased capacity.
Metric 3: Ability to provide homeless people a pathway into housing
Over time, an integrated housing policy may provide homeless people with a pathway to housing, for example,
planning for improved transitional services, or increasing capacity in public and community housing. However,
this option concerns the policy framework only, not funding for increased capacity.
Affordable Social housing infrastructure investment framework
SCP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 79
Affordable Social housing infrastructure investment framework
SCP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 80
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option intends to implement a strategy to improve housing accessibility, and has been assumed to achieve
this aim. Improved housing accessibility is likely to support low socio-economic areas, where Victorians may be
most at risk of housing related stress.
The development of a strategy to integrate the planning for different kinds of housing market interventions is likely
to result in reduced state costs through better coordination of spending.
Public housing asset rationalisation and refurbishment
SHA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 81
Public housing asset rationalisation and refurbishment SHA
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
More than 30 per cent of existing public housing is over 30 years old and was built to meet the needs of a
community that has changed. Public housing built during this time is generally suited to larger families however,
there is a greater demand from smaller households. Consequently a significant proportion of government owned
social housing assets are not fit for purpose and also in poor condition.
This option proposes to refresh and renovate suitable assets and invest in better purpose built accommodation
apartments through the sale of old unsuitable assets. Elements of the refresh could be funded and financed
under several different approaches, involving the non-government and private sectors and also involving
consideration of issues such as transfer of land ownership. These different approaches also provide opportunities
for the introduction of community owned and managed housing and private housing on the site.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
Better use/New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option would most likley affect Greater
Melbourne and the regional centres.
Risks and Opportunities
There is documented underutilisation in some
instances and overcrowding in others of public
housing and community housing (Affordable
Development Outcomes 2016). This option could
enable better use of assets.
There has been a large increase in the number of
social housing tenants receiving the Disability
Support Pension, and this option could present an
opportunity to make the current stock of social
housing more reflective of their needs.
Under this option there may also be scope for
improved allocation choices i.e. social housing
properties are advertised and tenants are given
some choice in finding and accepting a vacancy
without forfeiting their right to stay in the housing
queue, or a NSW proposal to place people in
private rental leased properties until a suitable
social housing unit is available.
Additionally, this option could provide an opportunity
for innovative investment in new social housing
facilities, particularly inclusionary zoning and mixed
purpose developments, subsidised by private sales
residencies in the same property. An example is the
‘Living Carlton’ redevelopment of three inner city
public housing sites to include both social and
private housing (Citta Property 2016).
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Affordable Development Outcomes, Draft Report to
Infrastructure Victoria – Improving Access to
Affordable Housing (2016)
Citta Property Group, Living Carlton (website,
accessed July 2016)
Council to homeless persons, Making social
housing work – better homes for low income
Victorians (2014)
Department for Family and Community Services
(NSW), Future directions for social housing in NSW
(2015)
Public housing asset rationalisation and refurbishment
SHA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 82
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$5 billion – $10 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$5 billion – $10 billion
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
There are 84,000 social housing dwellings in
Victoria that need to be maintained on an ongoing
basis (VAGO 2012). These dwellings total to a
$17.8 billion property portfolio (VAGO 2012),
meaning each property is valued on average at
$212,000. It is assumed for the capital cost
estimation of this option that 20,000 require heavy
renovation or replacement every 10 years at an
average cost of $100,000, and that this work is
delivered on a continuous rolling basis.
The recurrent cost is assumed to be 1 percent of
property portfolio valuation (for repurposed stock),
and this responds to the need for minor
maintenance and upgrading of facilities following
heavy renovation or replacement. This is assumed
to be absorbed by existing repair and maintenance
budgets for social housing.
Costing source
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO), Access
to Public Housing (2012)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
opportunity to improve the fit of the existing social
housing stock to current and anticipated future
needs.
In response, the option provides for remodelling
existing social housing to better meet the needs of
current tenants. This could include providing
targeted accommodation options for those with
disabilities, or dwellings for smaller households.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
The standard of social housing may decline but if
funds were directed elsewhere (e.g. to construction
of new public housing units) then quantity may
increase, and as such more people may have
access to social housing.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Public housing asset rationalisation and refurbishment
SHA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 83
Contribution to needs
Need 7: Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians
Affordable Development Outcomes estimates that there is a need to provide targeted affordable housing for
70,000 to 100,000 low income households (Affordable Development Outcomes 2016).
Although the contribution to the metrics supporting this need is anticipated to be low, without investment in the
existing supply of social housing it is likely that capacity would decrease as buildings age and are
decommissioned.
This option may have some benefits to supply of social housing, as Affordable Development Outcomes (2016)
estimates that close to 15 percent of public housing dwellings are underutilised. Therefore, there may be an
opportunity to increase the capacity of public housing by remodelling existing stock to meet current needs. This
could include supporting smaller households, and adapting to a higher number of tenants with disabilities.
The contribution of this option to the need is anticipated to be ‘Moderate’ in all time periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in housing stress for lower income households in the rental market
This option could contribute to a reduction in housing stress if remodelling and repurposing assets expands
capacity.
Metric 2: Reduction in average waiting time of people on the social housing register waitlist
This option could reduce waiting time if the refresh leads to the addition of an extra property (e.g. a two bedroom
house is split into two by one bedroom units) where smaller groups of people on the list can benefit.
Metric 3: Ability to provide homeless people a pathway into housing
This option is unlikely to provide a direct pathway for homeless people into housing, except in the case where
rationalisation or refresh leads to additional housing capacity.
Public housing asset rationalisation and refurbishment
SHA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 84
Public housing asset rationalisation and refurbishment
SHA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 85
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Through renovation of the existing social housing stock, this option is anticipated to improve the quality of
accommodation for existing tenants. This option is anticipated to support low socio-economic areas, where
members of the community are social housing residents.
The refurbishment is considered likely to have benefits for energy use through upgrades to the existing housing
stock. Additionally, this option may have benefits for visual amenity.
Social housing stock expansion
SHE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 86
Social housing stock expansion SHE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Provision of additional social housing stock that would be owned and operated by government or the community
housing sector. It is proposed to deliver approximately 50,000 new public housing dwellings over the next 10
years. The dwellings would be a combination of medium density apartments and townhouses with some and
stand-alone dwellings, with the majority to be studio, one and two bedroom dwellings in metropolitan Melbourne.
- Social housing is the largest single landlord holding in Victoria with 64,811 dwellings, the majority under the
management of DHHS (2015).
- 72.9 per cent are located in major cities, 22.1 per cent in inner regional areas and 5 per cent in outer
regional.
- Properties are rented at no more than 25 per cent of income on rent up to an income limit.
- Tight eligibility criteria exist.
Between 60,000 and 80,000 households require new targeted affordable rental housing outcomes, which could
be delivered as a combination of new social housing, private rental market supply and support packages. The
cost estimates provided include the capital cost estimates for developing the facilities, along with the recurrent
cost to manage the assets. The recurrent cost to provide the service is excluded from the Direct Option Cost.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
This option does not specifically target regions or
locations for additional social housing.
Risks and Opportunities
This option may provide little incentive to encourage
people to enter the private rental market even if
they have financial and other support to be able to
do so.
New social housing could be constructed to match
forecast future demographic changes of social
housing tenants. This could include housing to
accommodate emerging needs from an aging
population, better support tenants with disabilities,
and smaller households.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Affordable Development Outcomes, Draft Report to
Infrastructure Victoria – Improving Access to
Affordable Housing (2016)
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute,
Housing supply bonds – a suitable instrument to
channel investment towards affordable housing in
Australia (2012)
Council to homeless persons, Making social
housing work – better homes for low income
Victorians (2014)
Department for Family and Community Services
(NSW), Future directions for social housing in NSW
Social housing stock expansion
SHE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 87
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
>$10 billion
Capital / implementation cost
>$10 billion (~$10 - $15 billion)
Annual recurrent costs
$250 million - $500 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
5 – 10 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
In 2010, it was considered likely that new social
housing dwellings could be constructed for
approximately $260,000, based on investment from
the State Government and charitable organisations
of $400 million to expand supply by 1,550 dwellings
(VAGO 2012). This report also described planning
to separately develop 800 new dwellings for a
projected capital cost of $200 million, indicating a
cost per dwelling of approximately $250,000 (VAGO
2012).
Taking the higher estimate, and adjusting the costs
for cost inflation in the housing sector in Melbourne
(ABS 2016), it is assumed that a dwelling could be
constructed for approximately $290,000 in 2016.
Recurrent costs have been assessed at three
percent of capital cost, and this includes
maintenance and repair to dwellings as needed.
Costing source
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Catalogue
6427 6427.0 – Producer Price Indexes (2016)
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO), Access
to Public Housing (2012)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
existing and forecast future demand for affordable
housing for vulnerable households. Vulnerable
households have been identified "defined as
earning less than 80 per cent median household
income and low-income households with the
greatest levels of diminished capacity who are
otherwise at risk, or require support in order to
reduce their level of vulnerability" (Affordable
Development Outcomes (2016)).
This option would expand the supply of social
housing to ensure an adequate supply of affordable
housing is available for vulnerable Victorians.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
Existing identified excess demand would continue,
the wait list for social housing could increase, the
incidence of housing stress could increase. This
can negatively affect stability and security of
housing for people which can have flow on effects
to educational and employment outcomes for
children and adults. Additionally, development of
sense of community for vulnerable people can be
inhibited by unstable housing arrangements.
However, if this option was deferred in favour of
demand interventions in housing affordability, such
as rental assistance programs or more structural
reforms, the negative effects of deferral may be
partially mitigated.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
High
Social housing stock expansion
SHE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 88
Contribution to needs
Need 7: Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians
This option directly aims to increase supply of social (public) housing, which would then be available for the most
vulnerable people. Affordable Development Outcomes has identified a need for targeted affordable rental
housing outcomes corresponding to 70,000 to 100,000 dwellings ((Affordable Development Outcomes 2016).
This option makes a significant contribution to this need through delivering 50,000 new social housing dwellings,
expanding the supply significantly from the existing 64,811 dwellings (Affordable Development Outcomes 2016)
in the current public housing system.
This option is assessed as making a ‘Significant’ contribution to Need 7.
The benefits of additional social housing would be realised when the housing units are available for tenancy,
given the existing waitlist for spaces, and so are expected to build over the 30 year period.
Metric 1: Reduction in housing stress for lower income households in the rental market
This option may allow eligible low income households in the private rental market to transition to social housing.
Metric 2: Reduction in average waiting time of people on the social housing register waitlist
Increasing supply of social housing is likely to directly reduce wait times. This option is for a capacity expansion
of 50,000 dwellings, a substantial increase on the 64,811 dwellings (Affordable Development Outcomes (2016))
in the current public housing system.
Metric 3: Ability to provide homeless people a pathway into housing
By creating additional capacity in social housing, this option may support the transition of homeless Victorians
into social housing.
Social housing stock expansion
SHE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 89
Social housing stock expansion
SHE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 90
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected to have social benefits by providing increased availability of social housing for vulnerable
Victorians. Increasing capacity of affordable housing in the housing market is anticipated to benefit housing
supply and affordability, as well as low socio-economic communities.
Greater access to social housing could provide stability and security of tenure which in turn could improve safety
and community participation outcomes for those benefiting (between 50,000 and 120,000 households), as well as
proximity and thus accessibility to services such as health and education. Greater stability and security of tenure
for vulnerable Victorians is also anticipated to result in avoided costs to the State and Federal Governments by
reducing demand on health and justice services as households are supported to maintain connections with
education and the workforce.
Affordable housing sector planning system amendment
SHS1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 91
Affordable housing sector planning system amendment SHS1
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Amend the planning system to provide an alternative statutory approval process for affordable housing
developments to facilitate growth in supply by ensuring projects are not subject to lengthy approvals process, but
local community issues are still incorporated in the decision making process. This alternative approach would
expedite the approvals process by centralising the decision making authority and removing third party notification
and appeal rights. As the state government would take on a greater role in the local government planning
process under this option, a partnership approach would be required to balance the impact of statewide decisions
on the local community. The revision of the planning system could be introduced for a fixed or unlimited
timeframe, however the timeframe needs to be of a significant duration to give certainty to developments.
Victoria’s current planning system contains only relatively broad objectives and strategies relating to affordable
housing supply via the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), and no specific tools exist to achieve these.
This approach is put forward in the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper and was implemented on a short
term basis for Social Housing from May 2009 until June 2012, to support the delivery of the Commonwealth
Government’s Social Housing Initiative.
This option would utilise the Victoria Planning Provisions to provide public, community and private affordable
housing in strategic urban renewal precincts and other significant change areas. This would be achieved through:
- Amendment of the Victoria Planning Provisions to include a definition of “affordable housing”.
- Develop the alternative statutory approvals process addressing the conflicting issue of fast-tracking and
community consultation and appeal rights. Two examples of models that could be considered are the ‘Fast
Track Government Land Service ‘ model and the approach taken during the delivery of NRAS housing
- Identification of opportunities and targets for the inclusion of affordable housing prior to the commencement
of formal structure planning and proposed rezoning of land.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
Changing behaviour
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option could support the development of
affordable housing Statewide
Risks and Opportunities
The option may deliver an uneven distribution of
affordable housing, as the option may be less
effective in creating capacity in areas with high
value land than areas with low land value. It is
expected in areas of high land value developers will
be more prepared to trade off longer development
approval times for the likely higher returns from
providing housing in keeping with the established
market in the area, rather than affordable housing.
This option could support improved social mix in
developments by creating incentives for developers
to include affordable housing in their developments
The effectiveness of this option could be enhanced
by the development of a target for the number of
dwellings to be delivered (Australian Housing and
Urban Research Institute 2012).
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Australian Government, National Rental
Affordability Scheme (website, accessed July 2016)
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute,
Affordable housing, urban renewal and planning:
emerging practice in Queensland, South Australia
and New South Wales (2012)
Council on Federal Financial Relations, Affordable
housing working group: innovative financing
models, Issues Paper (2016)
Affordable housing sector planning system amendment
SHS1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 92
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Fast Track Government Land Service
(website, accessed July 2016, 2016a)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Plan Melbourne Refresh (2016b)
SGS Economics and Planning, Revisiting the
economics of inclusionary zoning (2015)
Department of Human Services, National Rental
Affordability Scheme (website, accessed July 2016)
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
5 – 10 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option would include the need to develop an
operating model for an alternative statutory
approvals process for affordable housing, in
addition to drafting and implementing changes to
the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs).
This option is considered to be a very large size
policy development that, from the State
Government and potential in association with
external consultants, would involve preparation of
policy and associated documentation, public and
key stakeholder consultation, review and response
to public submissions, and preparation of final
policy documentation.
As participation in the affordable housing sector
would remain voluntary, it is assumed the private
sector will bear any increased and/or decreased
profit margins.
The VCAT annual report indicates that VCAT
spends $18.23 million in 2014-15 for wages,
accommodation and depreciation.
It is assumed that three members are required for
the alternative body, supported by a staff of four
people (part and full time). Taking a share of
VCAT’s annual operating expenditure, this is
assumed to result in a recurrent cost of
approximately $500,000 – $700,000 per annum to
operate.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT),
VCAT Annual Report 2014-15 (2015)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
intention to increase the supply of affordable
housing.
In response this option would increase the supply of
affordable housing.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
Then it is likely that the available supply of
affordable housing would be lower and/or
developed in areas with lower land values.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Affordable housing sector planning system amendment
SHS1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 93
Contribution to needs
Need 7: Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians
Affordable housing is understood to “reduce or eliminate housing stress for low-income and disadvantaged
families and individuals” (Council on Federal Financial Relations 2016). This includes crisis, temporary and social
housing, as well as low cost privately provided housing.
This option would enable the development of more affordable housing by establishing an alternate assessment
process for affordable housing proposals. A faster and/or more favourable approvals process is considered likely
to incentivise developers to include affordable housing in their plans.
In some areas it is likely however that additional incentives may be required to expand the supply of affordable
housing.. For example, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute found that “planning mechanisms
alone (either mandatory or voluntary) are generally insufficient to secure a significant supply of affordable
housing in high value urban renewal or infill contexts without additional resources in the form of land dedication or
government funding (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute 2012).
This option could provide a ‘Moderate’ contribution to the need through incentivising additional development of
low cost privately provided housing.
As a planning/regulatory change, the impact of this option is expected to build over time as the new processes
are established and the private sector responds. The contribution of this option is anticipated to increase with
time as more affordable housing is supplied.
Metric 1: Reduction in housing stress for lower income households in the rental market
This option is designed to increase the supply of affordable housing for low income households, which is likely to
contribute to reducing housing stress.
Metric 2: Reduction in average waiting time of people on the social housing register waitlist
This option is not expected to directly impact on this metric. The option may have indirect benefit by reducing
pressure on other types of affordable housing.
Metric 3: Ability to provide homeless people a pathway into housing
This option is not expected to directly impact on this metric. The option may have indirect benefit by reducing
housing cost pressure on low income earners
Affordable housing sector planning system amendment
SHS1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 94
Affordable housing sector planning system amendment
SHS1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 95
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected to create incentives for the supply of affordable housing through developing a dedicated
approvals process. This is anticipated to benefit housing supply and affordability. As the inclusion of affordable
housing in development schemes under this option would remain voluntary, it is assumed that the same number
of dwellings are produced, with a greater share of dwellings designed for “affordable” markets than would
otherwise be the case, due to the approval incentive. This is expected to support low socio-economic
communities as these Victorians may face greater risk of housing related stress.
Integrated government service and infrastructure planning
SIP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 96
Integrated government service and infrastructure planning SIP
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option would formalise and simplify a whole of government infrastructure and service planning process that
would facilitate investment prioritisation at a spatial level, this could be regionally, sub-regionally or across
multiple Local Government Areas.
Integrated across government service and infrastructure planning processes are potentially a very useful forum
for the State Government to collaborate across portfolios with local governments and potentially the
commonwealth government to integrate infrastructure planning and prioritisation. Discussions that occur across
Government and at a spatial level can yield innovative approaches to better utilisation of existing infrastructure
and a more collaborative approach to larger scale future planning.
This is a governance reform option that requires an authorised, resourced and accountable lead agency to
coordinate three levels of government to jointly plan for infrastructure to develop short, medium and long term
infrastructure for priority areas. The priorities would require an evidence base and clear lines of reporting. The
priorities would be based on shared principles for managing growth, or even decline, and would require sharing
evidence and service plans within and across government.
This process is separate from the Victorian Government's recently announced Regional Partnerships. While
these partnerships will facilitate stronger engagement with community and business to identify local priorities, it’s
also important that Government has improved capacity to service plan together. Sometimes this planning will
involve confidential information, such as plans for new infrastructure that may for example have an impact on
land values. There are a number of probity reasons for why this information should not be made available to
community in early stages of government infrastructure planning.
This option could enable joint infrastructure and service planning:
- For a sector need (e.g. for health, housing or transport planning)
- To coordinate planning for growth (e.g. planning for rapid growth in greenfield or established areas)
- Planning for areas experiencing population decline.
- To respond to identified local priorities, such as priorities as those identified through Regional Partnerships
Sector
All
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option could be implemented statewide.
Risks and Opportunities
A delivery risk may be that key stakeholders could
be reticent to share service planning data. The
success of this option will also depend on its
organisational design and the receptiveness of
leaders at all levels of government to the planning
structure.
Opportunities include improved efficiencies in
delivering infrastructure planning and better land
use. Others entail major opportunities for health,
education and social infrastructure planning to be
streamlined and consistent across metropolitan
Melbourne and potentially all of Victoria.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Department of Transport, Planning and Local
Infrastructure, Plan Melbourne (2014)
Integrated government service and infrastructure planning
SIP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 97
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$25 million – $50 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option is not assumed to require the creation of
a new government agency, or development of
policy documentation. As such, no capital costs
have been included in this option.
Subregional planning groups would need to be
rolled out across Victoria, with input from key
departments. Recurrent costs assume 4-6
additional level 6 VPS staff would be employed to
run the groups, with up to 6-8 level 7 VPS
designates acting as department liaisons across
government.
Costing source
Community and Public Sector Union, VPS Wage
Rates (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
shift towards coordinating agencies in delivering
plans and projects.
In response this option would by streamlining
planning and delivery of infrastructure across
different tiers of government, and reduce duplication
of efforts.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, alternatives ways of
managing and delivering infrastructure are likely to
be explored.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Integrated government service and infrastructure planning
SIP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 98
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
This option is intended is allow for more efficient and coordinated planning, and can be seen as an extension of
the approach taken with Plan Melbourne and the establishment of the Metropolitan Planning Authority. The
coordination discussed in the option is relevant to areas of high population growth and greenfield development
where significant new infrastructure is needed. The opportunities to stage and align investment are high.
For other growth areas, such as the City of Melbourne, the form of new infrastructure needs to respond to
existing land use, service delivery and infrastructure. Potential for staging may be limited. This may reduce the
ability of such a body to implement an overarching plan.
As a planning option, the contribution against the need is anticipated to be small initially, and increase over time
as more development occurs under the planning regime. This option receives a 'Very low' contribution rating in
years 0-5, while subregional infrastructure and service planning is in its infancy. The contribution rating increases
to 'Low' in years 5-10 and again to 'Moderate' in years 10-15 as the cumulative benefits of subregional planning
are accrued relative to the existing planning framework. This option receives a 'Significant' contribution rating
against Need 1 in years 15-30, as subregional planning is anticipated to benefit high growth areas in particular.
Metric 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
Better planning structure may have a high contribution against this metric, although there is the risk that more
protracted processes could lengthen the time taken to build new infrastructure.
Need 2: Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth
As population’s decline, infrastructure challenges are more likely to relate to making sure existing infrastructure
supports communities in an efficient way, rather than providing new infrastructure. Meeting the needs of areas
with low or negative growth is likely to require flexibility and innovation in service provision to cater to changing
local needs. There is likely to be less of a role for coordinating and centralising planning between three levels of
government. The option is assumed not to include coordination of service delivery, for example, of education
services.
Subregional infrastructure planning is anticipated to provide substantial benefits to low or negative growth areas,
over and above the current planning framework. This option receives a 'Very low' contribution rating against Need
2 in years 0-10, which increases to 'Low' from year 10 on.
Metric 1: Ability to optimise infrastructure delivery while maintaining or improving service delivery within low
growth areas
The challenges of planning for optimisation of services to low growth LGAs are unlikely to be solved purely by
infrastructure, so this option has a low contribution to the metric.
Need 4: Enable physical activity and participation
As many of these activity inducing options may be smaller-scale interventions, the overall contribution towards
the need is deemed to be low. There may however be some benefits for infrastructure which crosses multiple
LGAs (such as bike paths) due to better coordination.
This option receives a 'Very low' contribution rating against Need 4 in years 0-5, which increases to 'Low' from
year 5 on.
Metric 1: Increase in access to infrastructure to encourage physical activity
There is potential for this option to increase the efficiency in which infrastructure which promotes activity is
provided, however it is assumed this will not be as beneficial as options which directly address this.
Metric 2: Increase in physical activity rates
If activity inducing infrastructure is provided more efficiently, this may increase the participation rate. However,
the net benefit from this option is assumed to be measured by the number of community facilities above which
would be provided without this governance system which is assumed to be minimal.
Integrated government service and infrastructure planning
SIP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 99
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
The option is for changes to planning, which in the short term will have a very low contribution to improving
access. Over the long term, the contribution of the option the need is anticipated to deepen as the changes to
planning influence project selection, development and benefit capture. It is assumed in assessing the contribution
that coordinating body or the three levels of government lead policy development that priorities access to middle
and out metropolitan employment centres.
This option receives a 'Very low' contribution rating against Need 11 in years 0-5, which increases to 'Low' in
years 5-10, and again to 'Moderate' from year 10 on.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
By focusing on planning, this option may influence demand, but is more likely to influence supply. For example,
this option could contribute to planning for changes to transport services or the long term development of
employment centres. Better coordination between the three levels of government for long term projects could
result in better transport infrastructure and higher benefit realisation from transport projects.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
Better coordination of the three levels of government, over time, may contribute to improved transport
performance by improving the process of project selection, implementation and benefits management.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
The planning structure in this option could contribute, through better alignment of government investment, to
improved economic activity and therefore better access to jobs. The option is assumed to be limited in scope to
infrastructure and land use planning. Coordination between the three levels of government for policy and service
delivery, in for example, health, is outside the scope of the option.
This option receives a 'Very low' contribution rating against Need 12 in years 0-5, which increases to 'Low' in
years 5-10, and again to 'Moderate' from year 10 on.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
Investment in large scale projects to accommodate journeys from major employment centres and rural and
regional centres, such as major highways or the regional rail network, is often led by State and Federal
Government. This option, and the potential to align local government with the other two levels of government,
may increase benefit realisation.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
Better coordination of the three levels of government, over time, may contribute to improved transport
performance by improving the process of project selection, implementation and benefits management.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
Better coordination of the three levels of government, over time, may contribute to improved ICT connectivity in
rural and regional Victoria by improving the process of project selection, implementation and benefits
management.
Integrated government service and infrastructure planning
SIP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 100
Integrated government service and infrastructure planning
SIP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 101
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
The coordination may help projects realise their benefits, as multiple levels of government work together to
achieve agreed outcomes. This could enhance social and environmental aims of other options. As this option
would work through improving the effectiveness of other projects, the direct impacts of the option on different
criteria is hard to quantify
Better realisation of project benefits, and coordination of funding from multiple sources, may result in avoided
costs for the State Government. As the option is for planning only, not the delivery of infrastructure, other
economic benefits have not been assumed
SmartBus network extensions and service increases
SNE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 102
SmartBus network extensions and service increases SNE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Expand the existing SmartBus (Premium) network to connect employment centres with more residential
catchments with a higher frequency public transport network. It will focus on increasing the percentage of
Melbourne residents who can access non-central employment centres within 30 minutes. In addition to more
SmartBus routes, existing services will be enhanced by improving the frequency and efficiency of the bus
network and increasing peak hour priority.
This option expands the existing SmartBus orbital network, with additional routes covering the inner and western
suburbs and connections to Melbourne Airport. Providing additional SmartBus services will increase bus mode-
share, potentially reduce congestion on key arterial roads/freeways as people shift from car to public transport
and increase access to non-central city employment centres. Providing additional public transport bus services to
the airport is likely to increase bus mode-share and improve access.
Extensions of SmartBus services should be prioritised on high-patronage local bus routes or routes in close
proximity to major transfer points and activity centres. This option may also entail the reorganisation of some
SmartBus routes to better connect with activity centres rather than providing a theoretical one-seat ride around
the perimeter of the region. Route additions and alterations that could support these goals include:
- Extend routes 905, 906, 907 and 908 into the Docklands to serve emerging high-intensity employment and
population clusters
- Splitting orbital bus 903 into two separate routes (one from Altona and one from Mordialloc) both
terminating at Melbourne Airport
- Upgrade peripheral routes 513 and 828 to SmartBus standards
- Add route 246 as the first SmartBus-quality ‘inner orbital’
- Upgrade routes 216 and 220 into radial SmartBus routes.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
This option would affect the outer metropolitan
areas of Melbourne, especially in the north and
west.
Risks and Opportunities
Removing one-seat rides by splitting the larger
orbital routes may not be popular with some people.
There may also be a risk in choosing where the new
routes will go, as a benefits from this option will be
higher if routes are well designed.
Expanding this high-quality bus service would
encourage multimodal public transport travel.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), 'SmartBus'
(website, accessed 2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Bus Patronage and
Origin Destination Summary 2008-09 to 2011-12
(2013)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
KMPG, Arup & Jacobs, Transport modelling for
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
SmartBus network extensions and service increases
SNE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 103
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$750 million – $1 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
$10 million – $25 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The capital cost assumes 30 new routes will be
applied, with each route requiring additional busses
to operate at a cost of $200,000 per bus. In addition
to the bus fleet purchase, infrastructure works are
assumed to total $300 million.
The annual recurrent cost provided assumes 100
new buses operate 7 days a week for 48 weeks of
the year (the additional four weeks are provided for
servicing). Fuel consumption is assumed to be 120
litres per day per bus (three kilometres per litre) and
fuel cost is assumed to be $1.25 a litre.
Driver, management, administrative wages, stabling
and maintenance facilities are assumed to total $10
million.
Costing source
Newman, Doncaster Rail: What are its prospects?
(2012)
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
population growth in outer suburbs, requiring high
quality public transport services and connections to
the heavy rail network.
In response this option would increase the supply of
the public transport network, and promote
multimodal journeys.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred car dependency in the
outer suburbs would continue.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
SmartBus network extensions and service increases
SNE
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 104
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
Presently of the top five highest population growth areas in Victoria over the next 30 years, only one is serviced
by a SmartBus (the 901 provides services through Epping, although does not service the adjacent high-growth
areas to the north). Expansion of the SmartBus presents a large opportunity for the expansion of services to
reach these areas which will need a high quality public transport connection in the near-and-mid-term.
This option is expected to have a ‘Significant’ contribution to Need 1, increasing from ‘Moderate’ after five years
due to forecast future population growth, which is expected to increase demand for services.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
Providing a SmartBus service to high growth areas will increase the supply of high quality public transport to
these areas.
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
SmartBuses provide a vital service of orbital transport connections, connecting the radial heavy rail lines with
both activity and employment centres. For this reason, SmartBuses are more useful for local trips (within the
same metropolitan region) than the heavy rail network which is more conducive to city bound trips.
This option is expected to make a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 11 in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
This option will increase the supply of public transport to middle and outer ring suburbs.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
As SmartBus are generally designed to connect employment centres to the heavy rail network, this option would
increase access to those currently not connected (such as the future East Werribee employment centre).
SmartBus network extensions and service increases
SNE
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 105
SmartBus network extensions and service increases
SNE
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 106
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option proposed a substantial expansion to the smart bus network, designed to improve access to non-CBD
employment centres, which is expected, due to the design of the option, to improve access to jobs. Additional
benefits of access to social infrastructure are also expected. This option is expected to improve the resilience of
the transport network through service expansion.
This option is anticipated to encourage mode share shift to public transport. Buses are more environmentally
friendly mode of transport than cars, and so this option is anticipated to benefit resource use, greenhouse gas
emissions and air pollution.
School demand management
SOO
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 107
School demand management SOO
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option proposes to review and improve the tools available to manage localised variation in demand for
school placement.
This could include improving perceptions of the less desirable schools through better information, and/or targeted
funding to address the causal factors behind some schools receiving less demand. This would improve the ability
of the network to meet demand by relieving pressure on some schools and increasing the use of underutilised
resources and excess space at others. Mechanisms for a network of schools to work together to lift the
performance of the entire network could also be explored, such as a hub and spoke approach, with a high
performing lead school assisting other schools. This would help to address why sometimes one school within a
network may be perceived as more desirable and attract more enrolments, leaving adjacent schools with spare
capacity and would also support sharing of school facilities, resources and even teachers.
Sector
Education and training
Option type
Changing behaviour/Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option could be applied Statewide
Risks and Opportunities
A risk is that this program may not be
communicated as well as possible to potential
students and parents.
An opportunity is that less popular schools may be
supported to become more attractive.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Deloitte and Aurecon, Infrastructure Capability
Assessment Education, advice to Infrastructure
Victoria (2016)
Grattan Institute, Schools crisis comes with massive
waste of tax dollars (2016)
School demand management
SOO
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 108
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
<$1 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
5 – 10 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
Ongoing costs to the State Government are
expected to be absorbed within existing budgets.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by a
decision to address the pressure placed on popular
schools and the underutilisation of schools with
fewer enrolments.
In response this option would assist to reduce the
imbalances in enrolments between schools. Some
students may be more able to attend their local
school, while less popular schools might be more
able to attract students.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred some schools would
remain underutilised and less desirable and other
schools would continue to operate over capacity.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
School demand management
SOO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 109
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
This option considers a number of alternative actions to address demand for school infrastructure in high
population growth areas. The impacts of this option will most likely be felt most keenly within high population
growth areas in metropolitan locations.
As this option will not explicitly increase system capacity, it is unlikely to have a substantial impact on overall
access for education services within high population growth areas, especially where demand exceeds supply. As
a result, this option receives a 'Low' contribution rating to Need 1.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option may improve access to infrastructure for students in high growth areas, who are currently unable to
attend their local school due to demand from neighbouring suburbs. This is a significant issue within inner
Melbourne suburbs, where there is particular demand placed on more desirable schools. In some cases, higher
income families may not be prepared to send children to schools that are perceived to be servicing
disadvantaged families.
Need 9: Provide access to high-quality education infrastructure to support lifelong learning
Many existing public schools are overcrowded. It is also likely that a number of new schools will be required to
meet demand from population growth (Grattan 2016). Given these trends, and the high costs of maintaining
underutilised government schools, this option proposed measures to more evenly spread demand for schools.
This option could also support increased access to high-quality education through funding support for schools to
improve performance, and so make them more attractive to parents.
The effort required to improve school performance and reputation may be substantial, and may need to be
supported into the medium term (>10 years). The Grattan Institute studied a number of so-called “turnaround”
schools, and argued that five steps are: school leadership, teaching practices, measuring student learning and
innovating with teaching, school culture and community support (Grattan 2014).
There have been examples in Melbourne of schools closing and re-branding to attract more students, such as
Albert Park College or Auburn High. In these instances, higher demand for enrolments and improved student
outcomes have resulted. These have often involved substantial cultural change accompanied by new staff, and in
some cases, large scale investment in school facilities.
This option has been assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ overall contribution rating in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in overall education asset utilisation
This option directly targets this outcome using a range of tools.
Metric 2: Increase in education participation
This option may have a limited impact on participation, as this option affects primary and high schools, and the
current school leaving age is 17.
School demand management
SOO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 110
School demand management
SOO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 111
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
If this option is mainly implemented through improving less attractive schools that are underutilised, there may be
marginal increase to access to education and supporting low-socioeconomic areas, with Government potentially
saving money on not needing to build new schools. If students go to school closer to where they live, there is
increased opportunity for environmental benefits (although again not significant enough to register).
Sport and recreational facility strategic investment
SRF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 112
Sport and recreational facility strategic investment SRF
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
As sport and recreation infrastructure around the state comes to the end of its useful life and areas of population
growth continue, investment is required to:
- upgrade and increase the capacity of existing sport and recreation facilities through the application of a
number of different approaches (including for example, better use of technology, synthetic surfaces etc. to
enable more intensive and longer use); and
- maintain and renew existing sport and recreation facilities to reflect the needs of a diverse community and
support increased participation
- deliver new sporting and recreation infrastructure, including for high-performance.
The government currently contributes funding towards community sport and recreational facilities though a
Community Sports Infrastructure Fund (around $35 million in 2016-2017). This program allocates grants to local
communities across a number of categories including pools but also to undertake the planning in the first
instance, in addition to the Community Sports Infrastructure Fund.
This option would require government to take a view across local government areas informed by the best quality
data reflecting key trends in participation to establish the priorities for refocussing this investment across local
government areas.
Sector
Cultural, civic, sporting, recreation and tourism
Option type
Better use/New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option affects Victoria statewide on a regional
basis.
Risks and Opportunities
Performance of the option will depend on
organisational design and receptiveness of
stakeholders to the governance structure.
Improved efficiencies in delivering sport and
recreation infrastructure, for example, reducing the
likelihood of oversupply of one infrastructure type
due to the current grant program approach.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Inside Edge, Melbourne East Sport and Recreation
Strategy (2016)
SGS Economics and Planning, Community Sport
and Recreation Futures Paper 2014-2024 (2014)
Victorian Auditor General, Local Government
Service Delivery: Recreational Facilities (2016)
Sport and recreational facility strategic investment
SRF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 113
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$500 million – $750 million
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
$10 million – $25 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
10 – 15 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
Costing of this option is based on the Community
Sports Infrastructure Fund, which started in 2015
and will provide around $35 million per year to
improve community sports facilities. It has been
assumed that this expansion includes a capital
budget of approximately $370 million over a 10 to
25 year period to allow for investment in six
metropolitan regions and seven regional areas.
Additional funding of $25 million is assumed to be
needed to support Sport and Recreation Victoria to
develop appropriate governance frameworks,
planning and money for data collection and
analysis.
Recurrent costs assumes annual maintenance and
upkeep equivalent to three percent of capital cost,
which would address the need for maintenance and
upkeep.
Costing source
Department of Health and Human Services website,
Apply now for 2015-18 round of the $100m
Community Sports Infrastructure Fund (2016)
Community Sports Infrastructure Fund – State
Government of Victoria (2015)
What could influence this option?
This option would be influenced by demand for local
sport and recreational facilities, including where
facilities are not fit for purpose.
In response this option would provide a strategic
framework to consider, at a subregional level, the
need for maintenance, greater capacity in existing
facilities or new investment.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, then adaption,
upgrades and investment in new sport and
recreational infrastructure could occur in a less
coordinated fashion.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Sport and recreational facility strategic investment
SRF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 114
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
There will be an additional demand for community sport and recreation facilities of between 23 percent – 28
percent depending on facility type by 2024 (SGS Economics and Planning 2014). Areas with high population
growth, especially those in Melbourne’s growth areas, are anticipated to create the highest additional demand for
additional sport and recreation facilities.
The Auditor General has noted that there is limited strategic planning at the regional level for recreational
infrastructure provision (VAGO 2016). Currently there is little coordination of future development to ensure that
scarce resources are allocated efficiently, this is particularly important in the rate capping environment. The
Auditor General has recommended the Sport and Recreation Victoria should assist Councils to improve regional
strategic planning to achieve this goal (VAGO 2016).
The Eastern Group of Councils have been working together to look at infrastructure provision from a regional
perspective creating The Melbourne East Sport and Recreation Strategy (Inside Edge 2016). This strategy
provides a regional planning and development framework to identify the key stages and criteria for assessing
infrastructure projects and their suitability as regional facilities.
An effective framework needs to be developed to implement the planning and provision of facilities from a
regional perspective. This framework will:
Identify priorities within the region for sport and recreation facilities
Enable collaboration and strategic partnerships between stakeholders on regional projects
Provide a formal governance and leadership structure to facilitate effective implementation of the framework
and deliver infrastructure priorities from a regional perspective.
This option is likely to address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth by clearly identifying
existing and future infrastructure gaps on a regional level. Taking a regional approach to infrastructure provision
will ensure that scarce resources are allocated more efficiency to reduce infrastructure duplication. As
infrastructure gaps are generally greater in high population growth areas, these areas are likely to be prioritised.
This option receives a ‘Moderate’ rating across all time periods.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option is likely to improve access to services within high growth LGAs by prioritising sport and recreation
facility investment throughout Victoria to where it is most needed. This option would prioritise the facility types
most needed and prioritise the region in which they should be located or upgraded. High growth LGAs are likely
to be targeted under these criteria therefore improving services in these areas.
Need 4: Enable physical activity and participation
Participation rates in physical activity are linked to a number complex array of inter-related factors which fall into
three broad categories, the culture and demographics of the population base, the social environment in which
sport and recreation facilities operate and the physical environment in which sport and recreation facilities
operate (SGS Economic and Planning 2014). Evidence suggests that investment in the right type of sport and
recreation facilities in the right locations will encourage increased participation.
Currently sport and recreation and recreation facilities are aging across the state while population increases are
providing additional demand for facilities. The adoption of a regional approach to sport and recreation planning
will allow the pooling of resources increasing the efficiency of resource allocation (VAGO 2016). Additionally
there is a changing trend in the types of facilities being demanded requiring funding to be directed to certain
types of facilities.
This option is likely to enable physical activity and increase participation by identifying the types of sport and
recreation facilities demand by location and then target infrastructure investment to best allocate scarce
resources to cater to the needs of the most people.
This option receives a ‘Moderate’ rating across all time periods’.
Metric 1: Increase in access to infrastructure to encourage physical activity
This option is likely to increase community access to infrastructure to encourage physical activity by prioritising
infrastructure provision in areas which have the highest need for upgraded or new sport and recreation facilities
Sport and recreational facility strategic investment
SRF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 115
(no facilities, wrong type of facilities or inadequate facilities). It may also prioritise the types of sport and
recreation facilities that are most in demand, catering for the greatest number of people.
Metric 2: Increase in physical participation rate
Evidence suggests that provision of in demand sport and recreation facilities will increase the physical
participation rate. By targeting infrastructure investment on the right type of sport and recreation facilities in the
right locations, it is anticipated that the physical participation rate will increase.
Sport and recreational facility strategic investment
SRF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 116
Sport and recreational facility strategic investment
SRF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 117
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Through investment in sporting and recreational infrastructure, this option is expected to have strong benefits for
access to access to social, sporting and recreation facilities. This would support greater physical activity, and so
could support better health outcomes. In addition, this option could have benefits for amenity.
Stormwater harvesting and re-use
SRH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 118
Stormwater harvesting and re-use SRH
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option involves harvesting stormwater at Greenfield sites in Melbourne and regional cities for use across a
range of purposes.
During rainfall events a significant amount of water is currently collected in urban drainage systems and released
into waterways or the ocean. This option considers harvesting of this resource for fit for purpose uses. Methods
to capture and re-use stormwater range from installation of rainwater tanks at the household level to development
of stormwater treatment systems that include wetlands, distribution systems and treatment technologies. This
option proposes inclusion of stormwater harvesting projects in new urban developments. For stormwater to be
managed effectively as a water resource, regulatory guidance, governance arrangements and long term water
resource planning implications will also need to be considered. This option therefore also proposes clearer
incorporation of stormwater as a water resource in planning instruments and corresponding provision of technical
and public health and safety guidance for increased uptake of stormwater harvesting projects.
Harvesting stormwater during wet periods for use in drier periods can reduce reliance on mains water supply,
free up water in storages for other uses, assist to mitigate the impacts of droughts, improve the health of
waterways by directly mitigating against the impacts of urban stormwater runoff and assist to minimise impacts of
storm events on drainage infrastructure.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option directly affects water supply systems in
Melbourne and regional cities. It indirectly affects
the water supply systems statewide through the
State water grid.
Risks and Opportunities
Smaller local stormwater harvesting systems can be
more difficult to manage and they can pose a
greater risk of system failure and public health risk.
Smaller local stormwater harvesting can however
increase local resilience to climate change.
Stormwater harvesting systems have the additional
benefit of being low cost technologies.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering, Water Recycling in Australia (2004)
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive
Cities, Kalkallo: a case study in technological
innovation amidst complex regulation (2015)
Environment and Communications References
Committee, Stormwater management in Australia
(2015)
Morgan, C., and May, A., Delivering integrated
outcomes in partnership: An integrated water
management strategy for growth areas in Sunbury
(n.d.)
Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and
Innovation Council Working Group (PMSEIC),
Water for Our Cities: building resilience in a climate
of uncertainty (2007)
Yarra Valley Water, Kalkallo Stormwater Harvesting
(website accessed July 2016)
University of Melbourne, Stormwater Harvesting
and the Potential for New Dams in Victoria (2016)
Zinger, Y., Deletic, A., Fletcher, T.D., Breen, P.,
Wong, T., A Dual-mode Biofilter System: Case
study in Kfar Sava, Israel, 12th International
Conference on Urban Drainage, Porto Alegre/Brazil
(2011)
Stormwater harvesting and re-use
SRH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 119
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$250 million – $500 million
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The cost of this option is based upon seven urban
and rural urban water corporations in Victoria
implementing one stormwater harvesting project
each being equivalent in scale and capacity to that
of Yarra Valley Water’s stormwater harvesting
facility at Kalkallo. This facility captures and treats
365 million litres of stormwater. A total capital cost
of between $20-40 million for each facility is
assumed. This is based upon Kalkallo receiving a
federal government grant of $9.7million which
consisted of up to 50 percent of total capital cost.
The annual recurrent cost estimate is calculated at
$17,430 per system plus $100,000 for maintenance
per system per year.
Costing source
Yarra Valley Water, Kalkallo Stormwater Harvesting
(website accessed July 2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
water shortages, grants, changes in regulations that
would facilitate the development of large-scale
stormwater harvesting, as well as changed
perceptions of stormwater reuse.
In response this option would improve the use of
current water demands such as public gardens
through large-scale roll out of stormwater
harvesting, and thereby reducing demand on
potable water.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the use of stormwater
may not be achieved on a large scale, resulting in
ongoing environmental detriments from stormwater.
This option is expected to provide an incremental
capacity expansion in water supply for rural and
urban water businesses which could improve their
resilience.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Stormwater harvesting and re-use
SRH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 120
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
With the exception of Perth it is estimated that less than three percent of rainwater and stormwater in Australia is
used (Environment and Communications References Committee 2015). Stormwater harvesting has the ability to
augment water supply by providing an alternative to potable water for non-drinking water uses. Given regulatory
changes, treated stormwater has the potential to be used for potable uses in the future (University of Melbourne
2016).
The benefits of stormwater harvesting are greatest when it is harvested and used close to the source. This is due
to the cost of transporting stormwater, the environmental benefits of preventing stormwater entering rivers and
streams and other benefits such as ‘urban greening’. Decentralised stormwater systems such as household
rainwater tanks or localised systems such as the Kalkallo Stormwater Harvesting project provide the most
promising opportunities (University of Melbourne 2016).
Using Ballarat as example, during the millennial drought large amounts of water were imported from distant areas
and irrigation districts. Over the drought period, in many years the amount of stormwater runoff exceeded the
metered water use in the city. Better utilisation of stormwater in this instance may have increased the water
security of Ballarat.
This option has the potential to manage threats to water security in regional and rural areas by capturing more of
the rainfall available in the local area for use. Therefore this option is rated ‘Moderate’ across all time periods.
This option is rated ‘Moderate’ across all time periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
This option is likely to reduce the vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages by augmenting the
non-potable water supply by increasing the amount of stormwater captured. Stormwater may be used to
substitute potable water, reducing demand on existing water supply.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option is unlikely to increase the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems as storm water is unsuitable for
irrigation purposes due to the generally large storage requirements for irrigation uses and seasonable mismatch
between rainfall patterns and irrigation demand.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
This option is unlikely to increase the total water availability for non-urban uses such as irrigation. In general,
such regional uses require large storages of stormwater to accommodate the seasonable mismatch between
rainfall patterns and irrigation demand .
Need 17: Improve the health of waterways and coastal areas
Stormwater runoff, particularly from urban areas is often highly polluted and is the dominant source of
degradation of Melbourne's creeks and streams. The health of creeks and streams has flow on affects for coastal
sites particularly through the delivery of nitrogen and other pollutants (University of Melbourne 2016). Before
urbanisation around 90 percent of rainfall would have evaporated, absorbed by trees and plants, or soaked into
the ground. Due to the large proportion of impervious surfaces in urban areas around 90 percent of rainfall is now
running into creeks and streams. This water is often highly polluted and causes erosion in the river (Environment
and Communications References Committee 2015). As this option entails capturing, treating and controlling the
release of stormwater, this option will mitigate erosion associated with highflows, and minimise nutrient loading
impacts, which reduce the health of waterways. Therefore this option has the potential to significantly improve the
health of waterways and coastal areas.
This option will make a ‘Significant’ contribution across all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase of waterways in good or excellent condition
Stormwater is a major contributor to pollution in waterways, particularly in urban areas. Harvesting stormwater
and using it to supplement water supply or treating it before releasing it into waterways has the potential to
moderately increase the health of waterways.
Metric 2: Improvements in coastal water quality
Stormwater runoff from urban areas can degradate marine habitats. Harvesting stormwater and using it to
supplement water supply or treating it before releasing it into waterways has the potential to significantly increase
the health of coastal sites.
Stormwater harvesting and re-use
SRH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 121
Stormwater harvesting and re-use
SRH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 122
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Large-scale storage of stormwater would benefit water security during droughts moderately benefiting resiliency
to water scarce events for the serviced population. Similarly, assuming seven stormwater harvesting facilities are
built and operational, a moderate number of beneficiaries would benefit in terms of their water needs and
security. This option is also likely to moderately benefit regional and rural areas particularly given the importance
of water security to these communities and areas. Environmentally, the option would moderately improve
efficiency of water use and improve ecosystems and habitats. All the above benefits have been rated as
moderate given the scale of population and need that seven facilities would cater for.
School regional level maintenance contracts
SRM1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 123
School regional level maintenance contracts SRM1
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
There is a significant cost required to maintain ageing school infrastructure. This option is intended to reduce
school facility maintenance costs by achieving economies of scale in the procurement of maintenance and
cleaning contracts on a regional level. Schools would be encouraged to work together to find efficiencies, obtain
better value contracts and to collect data so that better planning and budgeting of maintenance can be achieved
in the future.
Under the existing model, individual schools engage in maintenance and cleaning contracts. Economies of scale
could be employed at a region level to centralise control over these costs. Procurement could be led by the
Department of Education and Training, with work/contract package boundaries negotiated on a regional and local
level. The delivery would also be managed and facilitated by the department. It is recommended that a pilot is run
to test the model, develop standards and gain greater visibility of the cost both to maintain the portfolio of schools
and to implement this model statewide.
Sector
Education and training
Option type
Changing behaviour/Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option could be implemented across school
regions.
Risks and Opportunities
If the needs of different schools in a region are too
varied economies of scale may be difficult to
realise.
The framework implemented to centralise school
maintenance and cleaning contracts could be
potentially be adopted by other government
services to achieve cost savings while maintaining
service quality.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Department of Education and Training (DET),
Annual Report 2014-15 (2015)
Victorian Auditor-General's Office (VAGO), School
Buildings: Planning, Maintenance and Renewal
(2008)
Victorian Registration & Qualifications Authority,
Guidelines to the minimum standards and other
requirements for registration of schools including
those offering senior secondary courses (2016)
School regional level maintenance contracts
SRM1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 124
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
5 – 10 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
To trial this option, it is likely that additional
Department of Education and Training resources
would be needed to develop and evaluate the trial.
To implement the option at scale, regional groups of
schools would need to combine to agree on the
services to be provided develop procurement
processes, run tenders and manage contracts.
It has been assumed that as schools are already
performing these functions separately existing
resources could be redeployed to implement this
option.
The recurrent cost of managing contracts under the
new procurement models is expected to be
absorbed by current school budgets, with an
additional FTE at the VPS level to support contract
management.
Costing source
Stakeholder Consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
government demand to implement more efficient
funding of school maintenance.
In response this option would trial a new
procurement model school maintenance and
cleaning contracts.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred schools would continue
to maintain their own facility management contracts.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
School regional level maintenance contracts
SRM1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 125
Contribution to needs
Need 9: Provide access to high-quality education infrastructure to support lifelong learning
This option is intended to reduce school facility maintenance costs by achieving economies of scale in the
procurement of maintenance and cleaning contracts.
In 2015, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development spent $240 million on maintenance
(DET 2015). Cost savings from regional level maintenance contracts may reduce the deficit of required
maintenance work in many schools, however on an aggregate scale this is deemed to have a lower impact.
This option receives a ‘Low’ contribution rating against Need 9 in each time period.
Metric 1: Increase in overall education asset utilisation
This option is unlikely to substantially increase overall asset utilisation.
Metric 2: Increase in education participation
This option is unlikely to substantially increase the proportion of the population accessing education
opportunities.
School regional level maintenance contracts
SRM1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 126
School regional level maintenance contracts
SRM1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 127
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option targets government cost savings and is assumed to achieve them. This option is not anticipated to
have other appreciable economic, social or environmental impacts.
Stormwater quality management
SRQ
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 128
Stormwater quality management SRQ
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option is a regulatory review and guidance update to enable development of more comprehensive and
targeted stormwater quality management measures. Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) principles can be
better incorporated into regulatory frameworks and technical guidance on adopting these principles reviewed to
reflect current research and better enable site specific implementation.
Stormwater quality management measures would be applied to both existing and greenfield developments.
Poor quality stormwater, including that with pollutants and sediments, can negatively impact river health and
aquatic and marine ecosystems. Over time this affects biodiversity and yields from water catchments. While there
have been significant developments in stormwater quality management in Victoria over recent decades, there is
benefit in having a more comprehensive and consistent approach to improving stormwater quality.
Regulation can for example require renewal of ageing infrastructure in line with WSUD principles. In addition to
improving stormwater quality, this option will increase local resilience to storm events by reducing stormwater
runoff flowrates.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
Changing behaviour/Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option affects rivers and streams Victoria wide.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk that the full benefits of stormwater
quality management infrastructure will not be
realised without sufficient on-going maintenance.
There is an opportunity to incorporate aesthetic and
social aspects in implementing this option and in
doing so benefit both communities and the
environment.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering
(ATSE), Time to use our stormwater, says ATSE
(website accessed August 2016)
Christopher J. Walsh, Tim D. Fletcher, Matthew J.
Burns, Urban Stormwater Runoff: A New Class of
Environmental Flow Problem (2012)
City of Kingston, Integrated Water Cycle Strategy
(2012)
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive
Cities, Water Sensitive Urbanism (Program B)
(website accessed August 2016)
CSIRO, Urban Stormwater: Best Practice
Environmental Management Guidelines (2006)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DELWP), Third Index of Stream Condition
report (n.d.)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DELWP), State Environment Protection
Policy (Waters) Review (2015), (website accessed
July 2016)
Environment and Communications References
Committee, Stormwater management in Australia
(2015)
University of Melbourne, Stormwater Harvesting
and the Potential for New Dams in Victoria (2016)
Stormwater quality management
SRQ
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 129
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The cost is based upon regulatory review and
improved integration of WSUD into appropriate
frameworks.
The recurrent cost is based upon resources to
revise appropriate frameworks and technical
guides. This is expected to be minimal and covered
within existing budgets.
Costing source
Australian Government Department of the
Environment, Australian guidelines for water
recycling: managing health and environmental risk
(phase 1) (2006)
State Government Victoria website, Yarra & Bay:
Stormwater (2016)
City of Melbourne Urban Water website, Water
capture and reuse (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by a
demand for stormwater reuse and the need for
quality measures.
In response this option would reduce risk through
ensuring the quality of stormwater and therefore
should contribute to the increased use of
stormwater for non-potable uses. In turn, this would
lessen demand on potable uses, and similarly
further ensure that potable water is being used
where it is required.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the variable quality of
stormwater, may discourage such a wide use of
stormwater, and therefore not reduce the demand
on potable water.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Stormwater quality management
SRQ
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 130
Contribution to needs
Need 16: Help preserve natural environments and minimise biodiversity loss
Stormwater runoff, particularly from urban areas is often highly polluted and is the dominant source of
degradation of Melbourne's creeks and streams. The health of creeks and streams has flow on affects for coastal
sites particularly through the delivery of nitrogen and other pollutants (University of Melbourne 2016).
Before urbanisation around 90 percent of rainfall would have evaporated, been used by trees and plants, or
soaked into the ground. Due to the large proportion of impervious surfaces in urban areas around 90 percent of
rainfall is now flowing into creeks and streams. This water is often highly polluted and causes erosion in the river
(Environment and Communications References Committee 2015)
For urbanized areas, stormwater management should seek to mimic water quality and flows of non-urbanised
streams. Standards for stormwater management should require the provision of a filtration system to treat the
water to a standard similar to that of an undeveloped catchment. Additionally, stormwater management systems
should be required to reduce outflow to levels which mimic stream flows in undeveloped catchments, this
requires harvesting some of the water and not returning it to the stream (Walsh et al. 2012).
This option further improves the health of waterways and coastal areas by integrating water sensitive urban
design (WSUD) principles in regulatory frameworks and guiding implementation to improve regulation,
implementation and accountability. This option has the potential to ensure consistency in addressing stormwater
quality across the state.
This option is rated ‘Moderate’ across all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in the volume and improve the quality of Victoria’s natural habitat areas
This option may increase the volume of preserved natural habitat by improving the water quality of rivers and
streams and returning streamflow to natural levels. This will assist in the revegetation of natural habitat. This
option may improve the quality of preserved natural habitat areas by removing pollutants which promote weed
growth and kill native species. A return of streamflow’s to natural levels may reduce erosion in these areas.
Metric 2: Reduction in indigenous biodiversity losses
This option may reduce indigenous biodiversity losses by improving the quality of water released into rivers and
streams. Poor water quality can cause excessive competition from introduced weeds.
Need 17: Improve the health of waterways and coastal areas
The outflow of stormwater into Victoria’s rivers and streams from urbanised areas is resulting in a loss of
biodiversity and ecological function due to poor water quality and stream flows which are not consistent with
natural non-urbanised areas (Walsh et al. 2012).
This option may help preserve natural environments and minimise biodiversity loss by assisting to return rivers
and streams to a natural state with regards to water quantity and quality. Therefore, water quality and stream
flows support preserving natural environments and minimise biodiversity loss. The full effect of the option on
rivers and streams is explored further in the related discussion under Need 17.
This option is rated ‘Moderate’ across all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase of waterways in good or excellent condition
This option may increase the percentage of Victoria’s water ways in good or excellent condition by providing
better guidance for developments in urbanized areas on how to better treat and retain water flows to mimic non-
urbanised stream flows and water quality.
Metric 2: Improvements in coastal water quality
This option may increase the number of coastal sites in good condition by improving the quality of water out flow
into coastal environments from creeks and streams; therefore it would have a moderate impact.
Stormwater quality management
SRQ
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 131
Stormwater quality management
SRQ
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 132
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option would moderately benefit the reduction of polluted water entering creeks and streams associated with
stormwater runoff. While this option is likely to moderately benefit stormwater quality, it will not notably contribute
to reducing the consumption of water. Inadvertently it may enable the broader uptake of stormwater harvesting
and reuse through stronger standards and regulations relating to quality; however as this is a secondary benefit,
it is not reflected in this ESE assessment.
Unlocking school resources with technology
SRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 133
Unlocking school resources with technology SRS
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
The days of schools focusing on “chalk and talk” are over. Technological advances support new ways of learning
through; individualised instruction, collaborative group learning, project based pedagogies, collaboration for
knowledge creation and delivering feedback and formative real time assessment. Use of digital technologies by
students can take pressure off school assets and classroom spaces, with students able to undertake self-directed
learning at home or in other learning spaces. Students can also connect, interact, share and learn with others
outside of their classroom or school through virtual learning that is either synchronous (all students log in at the
same time) or asynchronous (students access in their own time) giving them access to greater subject choice
(e.g. Specialist Maths) and accelerated learning opportunities.
This policy can be rolled out across the school network, including collaboration with Catholic and Independent
schools. A strong focus would be placed on regional schools, in particular those with low enrolment numbers.
Digital technologies can re-shape teaching and learning in many ways. This option focuses on the extent to which
digital technology can be used to take pressure off school assets, encourage school-to-school learning and
increase government and non-government sharing. A capital injection would be required to sustain and
supplement existing digital infrastructure for government schools across the state under this option. This would
include; access to the NBN and high speed reliable Wi-Fi within schools, access to hardware for teachers to
record and present online lessons and material, video conferencing, cloud suites and online content (e.g. virtual
labs) and equity funding to subsidise disadvantaged students to purchase devices.
Sector
Education and training
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option would most likely affect Greater
Melbourne and the regional centres.
Risks and Opportunities
The full potential of improved ICT connectivity may
not be realised if teachers are not trained in how to
use the equipment practically and in how to
incorporate technology into the delivery of
education. Greater implementation of ICT
technology may also require additional technical
support specialists to ensure the continued viability
of technology use within the school system.
Attracting and retaining suitably qualified specialists
to more regional and remote communities may be
difficult.
Access and use of ICT outside the school
environment may improve its effectiveness within
schools. As such, greater use of ICT to promote
and enable learning outside of formal school
settings could complement the benefits provided by
this option.
This option could be prioritised to schools where
there is not sufficient curriculum offer now, such as
rural schools.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Grattan Institute, Schools crisis comes with massive
waste of tax dollars (2014)
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Levine, A., & Haywood, K,
The 2010 Horizon Report: Australia–New Zealand
Edition (2010)
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training and Youth Affairs, National Framework for
Rural and Remote Education (2001)
Trinitas Pty Ltd, Delivering the promise (2010)
Rural and Remote Education Advisory Council,
Future Uses of Technology in Rural and Remote
Schools Report (2014)
Unlocking school resources with technology
SRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 134
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$750 million – $1 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$100 million – $250 million
Annual recurrent costs
$25 million – $50 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
As of March 2016 there were 1,524 government
schools in Victoria that accommodated 340,844
primary school students over an average class size
of 22.3 students and 221,458 secondary school
students over an average class size of 21.3
students. Teaching staff including principles at
government schools was 41,570 at this time. This
means that the average school consisted
approximately 370 pupils and 30 teaching staff. It
also means there were approximately 25,681
government school class rooms.
- Assuming each school is upgraded to a
wireless network, and that each network is
capable of handling 750 devices on the
network at any one point through 15 access
points, total cost would be around $17,000 per
school, or near $26 million.
- Assuming each teacher receives a laptop
and/or tablet at a cost to government of $1,250
per hardware package, then investment would
be approximately $52 million.
- Assuming each class room is provided a
projector and screen at an average combined
cost of $2,000, then investment would be
approximately $51 million.
- The policy development component of this
option is assumed to cost between $1-2
million.
This option is in addition to the $924 million stated
in the 2016-17 State Budget to deliver upgraded
schools and new schools to address population
growth.
Annual recurrent costs are assumed to be 20
percent of capital cost, reflecting the short lifespan
of technology.
Costing source
Victoria State Government Department of Education
and Training, Summary Statistics for Victorian
Schools (2016)
Secure Edge Networks website (2016)
Department of Treasury and Finance, Victorian
Budget 2016-17 (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by a
policy decision to implement ICT across all schools.
The implementation of the technology would
optimise the performance of existing school
infrastructure, by increasing the education
opportunities offered to regional and remote
communities, and by assisting to reduce pressure
on school infrastructure in metropolitan areas. A
secondary trigger for this option could be sustained
population growth which increases the demand for
school places beyond their current capacity.
In response this option would increase the supply of
education to regional and remote communities, and
assist to increase capacity within metropolitan
areas.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, the disparity in
educational outcomes between rural and regional
students compared to metropolitan students could
increase. The demand for school places in
metropolitan areas would continue to grow, and in
certain locations could lead to students travelling
increasing distances to access education.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Unlocking school resources with technology
SRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 135
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
The Victoria in Future forecast indicates that the majority of areas with high projected population growth are
located within Melbourne, though a number of more rural and regional communities, such as Ballarat, Hume and
Latrobe-Gippsland are also identified as high growth (DELWP 2015).
The Grattan Institute notes that Melbourne’s outer growth corridors will house more than half of all new students
projected to enter the education system over the next ten years. In particular it anticipates that Wyndham,
Cardinia, Melton, Whittlesea, Hume and Casey will each need at least 10 new schools within the decade to
accommodate more than 10,000 new students (Grattan Institute 2014).
Melbourne’s five most central local government areas are also projected to experience rapid growth. The greatest
challenge in metropolitan areas is the high price and scarcity of land. Many existing schools are already
overcrowded, and appropriate sites for school developments need to be included in development plans (Grattan
Institute 2014).
This option is likely to address infrastructure demands in regional and metropolitan areas with high population
growth. It may provide improved connections to education for students in outer growth corridors, and could
relieve pressure on school assets and classroom spaces considerably in more densely populated metropolitan
areas.
This option receives a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 1 in each time period.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option is anticipated to improve access to services and increase service capacity in high growth areas. It
may provide improved connections to educational opportunities for students, particularly within inner city
Melbourne in which current school capacity is limited and land acquisition can be difficult.
Need 2: Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth
The challenges to providing traditional education services in regional and remote areas discussed under Need 12
are exacerbated when these services are provided to low or negative growth regional communities. Population
densities may be lower, or it may be more difficult to attract staff or scale services to meet community needs.
This option could expand access to education services in low growth areas, as ICT could enable students to
access a wider range of teachers and subjects than might otherwise be possible. These benefits are further
explored under the discussion in Need 9. As for schools and students in other areas, access to ICT would need
to be supported through appropriate training of supervising teachers.
This option is anticipated to make a ‘Moderate’ contribution to the need.
Metric 1: Ability to optimise infrastructure delivery while maintaining or improving service delivery within low
growth areas
This option could improve access to education services for those in low growth areas.
Need 9: Provide access to high-quality education infrastructure to support lifelong learning
The use of ICT for instructional delivery, combined with face-to-face instruction, has been demonstrated to
improve curriculum learning, resulting in higher test scores in some subjects compared to traditional instruction
alone (Johnson et al 2010).
For example, the use of ICT could allow multiple schools to access high performing teachers or additional
subjects located on other campuses, especially small rural areas or low performing schools. Potentially shared
teaching could occur between non -government and government schools.
The major beneficiaries of this option are likely to be students within regional and remote communities.
Traditional educational instruction is difficult within these areas, and the expansion of ICT infrastructure available
to these students may complement existing distance education techniques, and improve access to and delivery
of high-quality education (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2001). ICT
provides an opportunity to deliver courses that cannot practicably be delivered now, to redress the lower
participation and retention rates that reduce the job prospects of their young people, and to retain their best
teachers (Trinitas, 2000).
Unlocking school resources with technology
SRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 136
This option is anticipated to provide significant benefits to students in both regional and metropolitan
communities. It receives a ‘Significant’ rating in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in overall education asset utilisation
This option may increase the utilisation of distance education infrastructure by connecting regional and remote
students to these services more effectively. This option may also allow schools to collaborate to collectively
provide specialised subject offerings, increasing the utilisation of teachers with specialised skills.
Metric 2: Increase in education participation
This option is anticipated to increase the proportion of the population accessing education opportunities. In
particular, it is likely to provide more opportunities to regional and remote communities.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
As discussed in Need 9, the major beneficiaries of this option are likely to be students within regional and remote
communities. This option could help address gaps in qualified teachers or the availability of certain subjects. In
doing so, this option would improve access to education services for students in regional and rural areas.
This option is focussed on increasing the adoption of ICT within schools. It is not anticipated to have substantial
impacts on the supply or management of demand for transport system capacity, nor is it considered likely to
improve transport performance across the network.
This option is anticipated to have a moderate contribution to the need.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
This option is not anticipated to increase the supply or management of demand for transport system capacity.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
This option is not anticipated to improve transport performance.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
This option is intended to improve the ICT connectivity of schools within rural and regional Victoria. To the degree
that it lays the foundation for further technology roll-out, it may improve ICT connectivity in rural and regional
Victoria more generally.
Unlocking school resources with technology
SRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 137
Unlocking school resources with technology
SRS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 138
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option may reduce disruptions in the delivery of education, by providing students with greater access to
learning opportunities outside the classroom. It is anticipated to benefit a relatively large population, being all
students across the state. It is likely to increase access to education services across the state, with particular
benefits to students in regional and remote communities.
Small scale solar energy regulation
SSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 139
Small scale solar energy regulation SSE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Reviewing and updating regulations to streamline planning processes for the installation of solar PV on industrial
and commercial buildings. This option would also improve the information provided to businesses on the process
of installing solar PV and potential for grid connections where these are being considered.
Sector
Energy
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
This option is applicable across the state.
Risks and Opportunities
This option may not address other barriers to
expanded use, for example, potential changes to
local government or other regulation.
This option presents an opportunity to encourage
the scaling-up of the solar PV to the commercial
and industrial sectors, through information
dissemination.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO),
Emerging Technologies Information Paper, (2015)
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO),
National Electricity Forecast Report 2016, (2016)
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and
Electranet, Renewable Energy Integration in South
Australia (2014)
Clean Energy Council (CEC) and NSW Office of
Environment and Heritage, Guide to Installing Solar
PV for Businesses in NSW (2016)
Climateworks, Commercial buildings emissions
reduction opportunities (2010)
Grattan Institute, Sundown, sunrise: how Australia
can finally get solar power right (2015)
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),
The Power to Change: Solar and Wind Cost
Reduction Potential to 2025 (2016)
Small scale solar energy regulation
SSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 140
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
Costing of this option is based on development and
provision of guidelines, standards and information
only. The revision of regulations to speed up the
planning process of solar PV installation would
likely be a small change, with most of the cost
associated with providing information to Victorian
households and businesses.
The recurrent costs of managing the streamlined
planning process for solar PV installation requests
would be done by LGAs, thus cost to the State
Government has been assessed as minimal.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
This option would be influenced by the potential to
use information to improve adoption of small scale
solar PV by industrial and commercial users.
In response this option would induce change
through providing information to users.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred there would be less
guidance for installing solar PVs, especially for
commercial and industrial buildings. This may not
particularly affect the number of PVs installed, if
other measures are in place.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Small scale solar energy regulation
SSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 141
Contribution to needs
Need 18: Transition to low carbon energy supply and use
This option encourages the further installation and use of solar PVs in commercial and industrial buildings. This is
expected to increase installation rates. Where it is installed, electricity supplied from small scale solar is likely to
reduce the demand for centrally generated electricity (i.e. electricity from major power stations) which is
emissions intensive. It is understood that the regulation would also be designed to promote investment
effectiveness, for example, ensuring installation at technically appropriate locations.
Increased use of small scale solar PV is likely to bring forward changes to the composition of energy supply. The
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) forecasts that the adoption of small scale solar by 2035-36, under
AEMO’s assumptions, would “reduce grid demand around noon to levels that may create challenges for the
operation of large thermal generators” (AEMO 2016). Other forms of generation, for example gas peaking plants,
may instead be required to balance the intermittent supply from small scale solar PV (AEMO and Electranet
2014). In the future, storage may also be possible, which could further enhance the contribution of the option to
the need,
The incremental expansion of capacity directly resulting from this option, aside from other factors such as
growing awareness of energy efficiency cost savings and changes to building standards is considered likely to be
small. This option does not include subsidies or other incentives to encourage uptake.
This option has been assessed as having a ‘Low’ contribution in all time periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in Victoria's greenhouse gas emissions
This option would likely contribution to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, however the contribution is not
expected to be substantial.
Need 19: Improve the resilience of critical infrastructure
By encouraging further installation of PVs through improving guidance, this option provide further redundancy in
energy supplies, should a shock impact the energy network.
Although the option would improve the redundancy of electricity generation, the National Electricity Market is
currently considered to be oversupplied, and redundancy is further provided through ‘mothballed’ power stations
that could be brought back into operation if demand conditions improve (AEMO 2016). Additionally, the energy
supply system is highly regulated to minimise the risk of shocks, so this option is expected to have minimal
resilience benefits.
In addition, and as discussed in relation to need 18, the amount of additional generation installed by this option
may not be significant.
Accordingly, this option is rated as ‘Low’ for all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in the resilience of critical infrastructure to disruptions
By encouraging further installation of PVs through improving guidance, this option provides further redundancy in
energy supplies, should a shock impact the energy network. The energy network is highly regulated so that a
shock does not affect energy distribution, as surplus capacity in generation exists, and solar PVs provide only
intermittent supply.
Metric 2: Increase in the resilience of critical infrastructure to climate change
This option is considered to make only a minimal contribution to improving the resilience of critical infrastructure
to climate change.
Small scale solar energy regulation
SSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 142
Small scale solar energy regulation
SSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 143
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is anticipated to result in small scale and voluntary uptake of solar PV by commercial and industrial
users. The impacts of the option are anticipated to be broadly neutral.
School and tertiary education cooperation
STE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 144
School and tertiary education cooperation STE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Encourage partnerships between schools and tertiary education providers to facilitate the sharing of infrastructure
through specific educational programs, strengthening pathways for school students to transition to tertiary
education. This option would include using existing schools, particularly in regional and remote areas to provide
Vocational and Educational Training.
Commonwealth and state governments are currently encouraging such partnerships through the Trade Training
Centres and Technical Schools programs. The option includes the need to address regulatory barriers that can
prevent the sharing of schools such as the workforce arrangements required for VET teachers working in a
school setting and duty of care requirements for school aged students.
Sector
Education and training
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
Shared use of school facilities for vocational
education and training could be implemented
statewide
Risks and Opportunities
There has been a history of uncertain funding in the
TAFE sector which, if continued, could pose a risk
for future partnerships.
This option could broaden the educational
opportunities in regional areas.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Department of Education and Training (DET),
Victorian Training Market Report 2015 (2016)
Regional Cities Victoria, Submission to VET
Funding Review (2015)
Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and
Industry (VECCI), Reforming the Victorian
Vocational Education and Training System: VECCI
Higher Education Taskforce Report (2015)
School and tertiary education cooperation
STE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 145
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
<$1 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
5 – 10 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option is considered to include a medium size
policy/regulatory development component that
would involve preparation of policy and associated
documentation, exhibition and key stakeholder
consultation, review and response to public
submissions, and preparation of final policy
documentation.
Ongoing costs to the State Government would likely
be minimal.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
demand for VET education which is not able to be
accommodated within existing capacity.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of the VET sector, particularly within regional and
rural areas.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
5 – 10 years (2021 – 2026)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred students who may wish
to undertake further study may not be able to
access education opportunities.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
School and tertiary education cooperation
STE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 146
Contribution to needs
Need 9: Provide access to high-quality education infrastructure to support lifelong learning
Increasing the productive capacity of the Victorian education and training system was identified as a priority focus
by the Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI, 2015). Enabling the use of school
assets for VET courses, this option may increase the capacity of the system, while providing greater access to
education infrastructure.
This option could also help the vocational education sector adapt and respond to changing market conditions and
student demand. There has been structural reform to the TAFE sector in the past five years, including stronger
private sector involvement in course provision and changes to funding, such as the launch of the Federal VET
FEE-HELP scheme. Government subsidised enrolment in TAFE courses has fallen across Victoria in the past
five years, a trend seen nationwide (DET 2016). The shared use of buildings could allow TAFE course providers
additional operational flexibility.
This option is assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in overall education asset utilisation
This option is likely to increase the overall utilisation of school assets, by delivering additional services within
existing facilities.
Metric 2: Increase in education participation
To the extent that this option encourages potential students to undertake VET study who otherwise would not
have done, this option may increase the proportion of the population accessing education opportunities.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
This option could improve the quality of buildings and equipment used to provide Vocational Education in regional
and rural areas. A high percentage of enrolments in higher education facilities in some regional cities are drawn
from regional catchments, particularly in areas such as Bendigo and Gippsland. Retention of students in smaller
catchment communities is contributes to the economic and social well-being with the regions. Disengagement is
a very real possibility given the complexity of travel and remote learning (Regional Cities Victoria, 2015).
Given the extent of travelling involved from more remote rural communities, access for these students would be
enhanced through improvements to transport corridors across regional Victoria and improved public transport
options between and within regional cities.
As discussed in relation to Need 9, a number of changes have occurred in the Vocational Education and Training
market in the past five years. Government subsidised enrolment in TAFE course has fallen across regional
Victoria in the past five years, a trend seen across the State and Nationwide. (DET 2016). The shared use of
buildings could allow TAFE course providers additional operational flexibility to continue to provide services in
regional and rural areas.
This option is assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
This option may reduce the demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys to and from service
centres, if vocational education is provided within existing schools in these locations.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
This option may reduce the distance required to be travelled by students in regional and rural areas to access
education services. However, it is not anticipated to improve transport performance to a substantial degree.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
Overall it is unlikely to improve ICT connectivity in rural and regional Victoria.
School and tertiary education cooperation
STE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 147
School and tertiary education cooperation
STE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 148
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
By increasing educational opportunities to students, particularly in rural and regional areas, this option may
improve innovation over the long run. It may also have broader societal benefits, in that it increases community
access to education opportunities, and targets rural and regional communities in particular.
Strategic transit-oriented centres and corridors
STO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 149
Strategic transit-oriented centres and corridors STO
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option is to develop a strategy to achieve Transit-oriented development in urban areas. Transit-oriented
development is the intensification of housing and businesses around existing (or proposed) major public transport
infrastructure. This option would designate and prioritise a set of strategic public transport corridors that are
suited for transit oriented development. Existing examples include Sydney Road Brunswick, St Kilda Road and
Chapel St Prahran. This option is to prioritise the intensification of National Employment Centres such as La
Trobe, Sunshine and Monash, and Major Activity Centres, such as Box Hill, and their supporting transport
corridors.
This would include:
- zones that enable residential and mixed use intensification of key station precincts, along tram lines, and
the bus network.
- consideration of demand management measures to maximise access to rail infrastructure and reduce
congestion.
Sector
Transport
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Melbourne Wide
This option would apply to specific areas in
Melbourne, potentially including National
Employment Centres such as La Trobe, Sunshine
and Monash, and Major Activity Centres, such as
Box Hill, and their supporting transport corridors.
Risks and Opportunities
There is often community resistance to residential
intensification in existing established suburbs,
including along transport corridors.
This option assumes that some infrastructure would
need to be upgraded in the established areas.
It remains a complex process to collect
contributions from developers towards the cost of
upgrading and retrofitting existing infrastructure.
The effectiveness of this option in greenfield areas
depends on the commitment to investing in new
public transport services.
There are opportunities to align this option with the
development of major and emerging employment
centres.
This option could be combined with the option SIP
when applied to growth areas.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
University of Melbourne and Monash University,
Intensifying Melbourne: Transit-Oriented Urban
Design for Resilient Urban Futures (2014)
UN-Habitat, Transforming Cities with Transit-
Robert Cervero You Tube (2015)
Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO),
Developing Transport Infrastructure and Services
for Population Growth Areas (2013)
Strategic transit-oriented centres and corridors
STO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 150
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$10 million – $25 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option is considered to include a medium size
strategy (including reviewing the existing planning
controls with a view to reducing barriers to
densification along transport rich corridors) and
policy development component that, from the State
Government, would involve preparation of policy
and associated documentation, public and key
stakeholder consultation, review and response to
public submissions, and preparation of final policy
documentation.
It is expected that the implementation of this policy
would be undertaken by State and local
governments for a period between 10 – 25 years,
and that the strategy would require regular review to
respond to changed market conditions.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
increasing land pressure and prices, congestion
and the need to utilise land use and transport more
efficiently.
In response this option would improve utilisation of
transport systems, by increasing trip capture and
aligning population growth with where transport
systems can best absorb additional capacity.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred there would be missed
opportunities to better align urban development
projects with major transport projects and upgrades.
This would likely result in continuity of current use of
transport modes, with implications for congestion,
economic growth, and travel times.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Strategic transit-oriented centres and corridors
STO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 151
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
Growth area LGAs have a lower level of access to public transport than more established areas of Melbourne,
and there are significant investment backlogs to provide these services (VAGO 2013). This option could improve
access to transport infrastructure by ensuring that residential and commercial infrastructure is planned in
response to existing and future transport projects.
Many growth LGAs are sites of greenfield development, and so have a high potential for benefit from this option.
Implementing the option in under-developed areas means that there may be a greater opportunity to align
planning changes with transport planning to support intensification along transport corridors. In these areas, there
is also the potential to design active transport infrastructure to support the use of public transport.
Examples of potential high growth areas include LGAs in Melbourne’s north, where planning changes could be
used to maximise access to potential public transport investments such as the South Morang Tram extension.
The Mernda rail extension is another example of a project where access to public transport could be further
enhanced by planning amendments supporting densification along the rail corridor.
This option is considered to have the highest contribution to greenfield growth LGAs. The contribution to the
needs of more established LGAs where high growth is expected, such as the City of Melbourne, is expected to
be lower due to the reduced opportunities to effect change through planning, relative to greenfield or under-
developed sites.
This option is considered to have a ‘Moderate’ contribution to the need, assuming that public transport services
are expanded to accommodate greenfield growth areas.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option could improve community access to and use of public transport where new services are provided to
support growth areas.
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
This option would encourage greater efficiency of integrating land use development with transport capacity and
therefore has the potential to manage demand for trips, through reduction of unnecessary trips associated with
mixed-land use and trip capture, and secondly developing land use and population densities that can support
more frequent and higher quality services and network connections. This would also be reliant on other options
that would specifically address network capacity and so forth, and therefore this option is rated as moderate for
managing demand for journeys to and from the central city.
This contribution is anticipated to remain constant over the 30 year period.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
The strategic development of areas that are well-serviced by mass-transit can contribute to meeting growing
demand for access to the central city. Therefore this option is rated as moderate.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
This option would support other initiatives that can improve transport performance, through better integration of
future development with the mass-transit network. As it requires alignment with other options, by itself it is rated
low for this metric.
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
This option would integrate further development with transport, including around major employment and transport
hubs such as Box Hill. Therefore this option is rated as moderate.
This contribution is anticipated to remain constant over the 30 year period.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
This option would assist in meeting this metric, but by itself would not increase supply or management of demand
for transport and therefore would make a low contribution to this option.
Strategic transit-oriented centres and corridors
STO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 152
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
This option would assist in meeting this metric, but by itself would not improve transport performance across the
network and therefore would make a low contribution to this option.
Strategic transit-oriented centres and corridors
STO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 153
Strategic transit-oriented centres and corridors
STO
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 154
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Over time, this option is likely to encourage densification in the vicinity of public transport networks. By increasing
access to public transport, this option may positively impact on access to jobs, and to social infrastructure.
The densification supported by this option is also anticipated to have benefits for housing supply and affordability.
This option may have positive environmental impacts through encouraging mode shift from passenger vehicles to
public transport by making public transport more accessible and convenient.
Transit oriented developments also benefit resource use by supporting impact communities more efficiently
served by investments in infrastructure.
South Yarra Metro station
SYM
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 155
South Yarra Metro station SYM
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Provide a new station in the proximity of the existing South Yarra Station, on the alignment of the Melbourne
Metro Rail Project (MMR). The additional station would increase the number of journeys for which people could
travel to and from South Yarra without interchanging, increase the number of trains stopping at South Yarra, and
allow interchanges to occur at South Yarra which would otherwise occur elsewhere in the network.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Metropolitan
This option is likely to affect public transport users
in the southern subregion in particular. Depending
on their travel intentions, public transport users may
be positively or negatively impacted, while road
users may experience slight benefits.
Risks and Opportunities
This is a high cost project with complexity and
extensive disruption or risk regarding working in
brownfields region.
Direct interchange access from existing South Yarra
station to additional South Yarra station on
Melbourne metro alignment, resulting in additional
journey options.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources, Melbourne Metro
Business Case (2016)
Public Transport Victoria, Melbourne Metro Rail
Project – South Yarra Metro Station: Customer
Outcomes and Economic Assessment Report
(2015)
South Yarra Metro station
SYM
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 156
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 billion – $3 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$750 million – $1 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$25 million – $50 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
High
The capital cost is based on the direct interchange
to South Yarra station which is defined in the
Melbourne Metro Business Case.
Annual recurrent costs are assumed to be three
percent of capital cost. This is higher than other
heavy rail options because the capital is directly for
a station (as opposed to rail) which, as a high traffic
zone, would require a more significant proportion of
investment to maintain operation.
Costing source
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources, Melbourne Metro
Business Case (2016)
What could influence this option?
This option could be influenced by a higher than
expected growth in passenger numbers using South
Yarra station.
In response this option would for passengers
utilising the station and provide additional options to
interchange, which could allow for more journey
choices for some passengers.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
10 – 15 years (2026 – 2031)
NOTE: this option is directly tied to the construction
of Melbourne Metro, and adding this station to the
scope could delay the project delivery. This would
be from the need to gain further statutory approvals
and other planning/design/construction
requirements (including land acquisition).
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred passengers would need
to use other interchange stations on the network to
change between services.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
South Yarra Metro station
SYM
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 157
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
The impact of the new South Yarra platform on the Dandenong (Melbourne Metro) line will depend on the
destination of passengers' travel (Public Transport Victoria 2015). Passengers travelling by rail to or from the
South Yarra area are likely to benefit from the additional rail services to South Yarra and a direct connection to
the Dandenong rail corridor. Similarly, road users may benefit due to reduced congestion. However, travel times
of passengers travelling on the Dandenong line going through South Yarra will increase. Overall, Public
Transport Victoria considers there to be a net decrease in benefits to existing public transport users of
approximately 1,500 travel hours a day by 2031 (Public Transport Victoria 2015).
This option is not anticipated to contribute strongly to addressing infrastructure demands in high growth areas. It
is anticipated to increase travel times in aggregate, and as such receives a 'Very low/Negative' contribution rating
in each time period.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
Public Transport Victoria anticipates that this option would increase travel times for over 100,000 passengers per
day, increasing aggregate daily travel times per 1,500 hours. This option is not anticipated to address
infrastructure demands in high growth areas.
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Similar to the reasons mentioned above for Need 1, this option is not anticipated to significantly improve access
to the central Melbourne. Although there may some benefits to road users and new users of the public transport
system, overall travel times are anticipated to increase by 1,500 travel hours by day by 2031 (Public Transport
Victoria 2015).
This option receives a 'Very low/Negative' contribution rating in each time period.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
Public Transport Victoria anticipates that this option would increase travel times for over 100,000 passengers per
day, increasing aggregate daily travel times per 1,500 hours. This option is anticipated to decrease the supply of
transport system capacity to accommodate journeys to the central city.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
This option is anticipated to worsen transport system performance, by 1,500 travel hours per day by 2031.
South Yarra Metro station
SYM
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 158
South Yarra Metro station
SYM
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 159
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is associated with localised benefits to access for those in the catchment area of the station. While
these benefits are positive for those in the catchment area, they are considered to be marginal. Given it is
anticipated to aggregate journey times, this option may increase the number of households with a journey to work
of more than 45 minutes.
Technology enabled healthcare
TEH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 160
Technology enabled healthcare TEH
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Telehealth and other substitutes for face to face interactions.
The ability to substitute traditional face to face service demand requires the development of a statewide
technology solution that enables activity like videoconferencing and remote monitoring. It would be underpinned
by a secure network (established in Option 10) and enable technologies to ‘plug-in’ and share information.
Additional upfront investment in establishing minimum capability in mobile healthcare is required.
To date, the Department of Health and Human Services has developed a Telehealth Strategy that outlines the
proposed way forward for telehealth in public health services. In addition, in 2016/17 the Government allocated
$5m in output funding to grow telehealth services in specialist clinics.
The cost estimates provided include the capital cost estimates for developing the IT infrastructure and solution
(primarily funded by the State Government) along with the recurrent cost to maintain the solution (funding from
the Commonwealth and State Government).
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
This option could be implemented statewide.
Risks and Opportunities
The health workforce will need to support to adjust
to the change in service delivery.
There may be legal barriers to service adoption.
This option will not be appropriate for all patients,
and so care needs to be taken to provide
alternatives. For example, vision or hearing
impaired patients may need additional support to
use services effectively, or may prefer other
treatment options.
This option may be more suitable for certain kinds
of health services than others, and so there is an
opportunity to target the implementation of
telehealth services.
There is the opportunity to improve utilisation of
community health infrastructure, such as general
practitioner practices, by using them as sites for
patients to access telehealth services.
Certainty of evidence
High
Evidence base
BMC Health Services Research, A comprehensive
evaluation of the impact of telemonitoring in patients
with long-term conditions and social care needs:
protocol for the whole systems demonstrator cluster
randomised trial (2011)
British Medical Journal (BMJ), Cost effectiveness of
telehealth for patients with long term conditions
(Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth
questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in
a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial
(2013a)
British Medical Journal (BMJ), Effect of telehealth
on quality of life and psychological outcomes over
12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator
telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of
patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster
randomised controlled trial (2013b)
UK Department of Health, Whole system
demonstrator programme: Headline findings –
December 2011 (2011)
Department of Health & Human Services, Travis
review – Increasing the capacity of the Victorian
public hospital system for better patient outcomes
(2015)
Health Outcomes International, Evaluation of the in-
home telemonitoring for vetrans trial (website
accessed July 2016)
Grattan Institute, Access all areas: New solutions
for GP shortages in rural Australia (2013)
PwC, Health Options Paper – advice to
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Technology enabled healthcare
TEH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 161
Queensland Parliament (Health and Community
Services Committee), Inquiry into telehealth
services in Queensland (2014)
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$100 million – $250 million
Capital / implementation cost
$50 million – $100 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
The Queensland Department of Health 2012-13
Annual Report stated that $30.9 million over four
years would be provided to establish a Rural
Telehealth Service. The capital cost assumption for
this option is based on two investments of this value
being made in Victoria over the next 30 years, one
to address current demand, and another to address
demand at a future point.
It is assumed that approximately several million in
operating expenses would be required each year to
manage and update the case management system.
Costing source
Queensland Government Department of Health,
2012-13 Annual Report (2013)
Victorian Auditor-General's Report, Digital
Dashboard: Status Review of ICT Projects and
Initiatives (2015)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by a
decision to explore the use of telehealth service
delivery to increase access to healthcare services,
potentially with the aim of improving access in
regional areas.
In response this option would increase the
availability of telehealth services for remote access.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, then current identified
regional issues of access to some health services
could continue, and patients across the state may
continue to need to travel to health care centres like
hospitals to receive consultation with specialists.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Technology enabled healthcare
TEH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 162
Contribution to needs
Need 3: Respond to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, particularly due to ageing
This option responds to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, from, for example, aging of the population
or increased incidence of chronic and complex disease, by through technology. This is proposed with two main
aims. The first is to improve access to health services by remote technology such as videoconferencing. The
second is to improve quality of care through services such remote monitoring
Telehealth services can improve access to healthcare, largely by reducing the burden of travel on patients to
access services. This is especially true of health care services that are not commonly provided in local
communities, such as outpatient clinics at hospitals or other specialised services (Queensland Parliament 2014).
Reduced travel minimises the disruption that patients face to access healthcare, and can lower the cost of
providing services if travel would otherwise be subsidised (Queensland Parliament 2014). This finding is different
to results seen from large-scale trials in the United Kingdom (BMJ 2013a), and likely reflects the increased
burden of travel in Australia, both on the patient and in terms of travel costs.
It has been noted that telehealth services may not be appropriate or cost effective for health services that are
provided locally, for example, the services of general practitioners (Health and Community Services Committee
2014). Additionally, some health services may be better suited to telehealth access (for example, dietetics) than
others (physiotherapists).
The evidence for the second mechanism of the option, remote monitoring, is mixed. The Whole Systems
Demonstrator Evaluation was a large scale trial (>3000 patients) in the UK of the use of technology to support
remote monitoring of changes in an individual’s condition (i.e. falls sensors) and management of health care
conditions (for example blood glucose levels for diabetic patients) (BMC 2011). While early findings from the trial
were extremely positive (UK Department of Health 2011), published results concluded that there were limited
benefits from the intervention and that it was unlikely to be cost effective (BMJ 2013a, BMJ 2013b). In their
literature review, the journal authors also found mixed evidence for the benefits of telemonitoring (BMJ 2013a,
BMJ 2013b). The evaluation of monitoring using technology does not appear to be as advanced as access,
although a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs is currently under evaluation (Health Outcomes
International 2016).
The contribution to the option is anticipated to be ‘Moderate’, as while telehealth services have a lot of potential
and there is evidence of their effectiveness, they may not be appropriate across all health services or patients.
Metric 1: Improvements in access to health services
This option can have strong advantages to access to services such as hospital/sub-acute services, particularly
for those who live a long distance from these services, or who experience mobility challenges. This has been
found to be especially effective in delivering outpatient clinic services (Queensland Parliament (Health and
Community Services Committee) 2014).
Metric 2: Increase in efficiency of health services
This option could improve the efficiency of health services through reducing the need for clinicians to travel.
Need 2: Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth
Victorians in regional and rural areas may experience lower availability of health services (Grattan 2013), and are
likely to experience longer travel times to access specialist health services than Victorians in urban areas. These
issues are amplified for areas where population is declining or growing only slowly, as there is even less likely to
be the density to support full utilisation of health infrastructure. In addition, these populations may also have high
needs, as decline or low growth in population may not occur evenly across all age brackets. For example,
population declines can result in a growth in the proportion of aging residents as those from younger age groups
move away.
Telehealth services may offer the flexibility to help support Victorians in low growth communities, through remote
delivery of health services. Telehealth services can provide patients with remote access to services, such as out-
patient clinic, reducing the need for patients to travel (Queensland Parliament 2014). Telehealth services could
potentially benefit patients through remote monitoring of their conditions, however, the evidence base for this
remains unclear, as discussed in relation to Need 3.
This option could enable innovation to support the ongoing provision of services in areas with low or negative
growth. Its contribution to the need has been assessed as ‘Significant’ in each time period.
Technology enabled healthcare
TEH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 163
Metric 1: Ability to optimise infrastructure delivery while maintaining or improving service delivery within low
growth areas
This option has been shown to support better access to health services for regional and remote communities.
Through ICT, Victorians in low growth LGAs could have improved access to a number of specialist health
services.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
Victorians in regional and rural areas may experience lower availability of health services (Grattan 2013), and
experience longer travel times to access specialist health services than Victorians in urban areas.
As discussed in relation to Need 3, Telehealth services have been used in other jurisdictions to specifically target
access for those in regional and rural areas to health services. Telehealth services can provide virtual link to
services, reducing the need for patients to travel and so improving ease of access. This is especially true of
health care services that are not commonly provided in local communities, such as outpatient clinics at hospitals
or other specialised services (Queensland Parliament (Health and Community Services Committee) 2014).
Expanded use of telehealth services in Queensland has been shown result in reduced patient travel, avoided
patient retrieval and transfer, reduced clinician travel and avoidance of unnecessary hospital admissions
(Queensland Parliament (Health and Community Services Committee), Inquiry into telehealth services in
Queensland 2014).
Telehealth services may also have benefits through remote monitoring of patients, however, as discussed in
relation to Need 3, the evidence for benefits is mixed.
This option does not specifically address the metrics chosen to establish an option’s contribution to need 12,
however, by improving access to vital health services the option is considered likely to have a ‘Significant’
contribution.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
This option is not expected to make a contribution to this metric.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
This option is not expected to make a contribution to this metric.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
The investment required to deliver this option may benefit ICT connectivity more generally.
Technology enabled healthcare
TEH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 164
Technology enabled healthcare
TEH
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 165
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected to have strong benefits for access to healthcare by using ICT to reduce the need of
patients to travel to receive services. Regional and remote communities in particular are expected to benefit.
Over time, improved access is anticipated to result in better community health. By reducing the burden of travel
on patients, they may seek to use services more frequently and avoid the need for major interventions such as
hospitalisation. Through this, and the reduced need to provide patient transport services, the government is
expected to avoid costs.
Major Hospital Redevelopments
THR
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 166
Major Hospital Redevelopments THR
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option provides for major hospital development projects over the next 30 year period. In Victoria we have
several major hospital campuses that provide a combination of statewide services for highly unique or complex
conditions and specialist services. Typically these facilities are updated on an incremental basis, but at times due
to the aged state of the asset or an identified health service gap, these facilities are redeveloped on existing or
new hospital sites as a consolidated major development project. Projects in this category would have a capital
value in excess of $500 million. Recent examples include:
- New Royal Children’s Hospital project
- Bendigo Hospital Redevelopment
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre
- The planned Victorian Heart Hospital
Existing facilities that are in need of major redevelopment or replacement in the medium term include the Alfred
Hospital and Royal Melbourne Hospital. In the longer term a new facilities will be required to support population
growth or a new statewide specialist health service. The cost estimates provided include the capital cost
estimates for developing the infrastructure (which could be funded from private sector, State and Commonwealth
Government funds) along with the recurrent cost to maintain the solution.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
Better use/New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Melbourne central subregion
Statewide
This option will most directly affect hospitals in inner
Melbourne. As these hospitals provide services to
the whole state, the benefits are considered to
accrue across Victoria.
Risks and Opportunities
Renovating or incrementally expanding hospitals
presents operational challenges and may be higher
risk than greenfield development.
There is the opportunity to explore the trend
towards centres of excellence seen in other health
systems NHS, Five Year Forward View (2016) in
the implementation of this option.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Department of Health & Human Services, Travis
review – Increasing the capacity of the Victorian
public hospital system for better patient outcomes
(2015)
NHS, Five Year Forward View (2016)
PwC, Health Options Paper – advice to
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Major Hospital Redevelopments
THR
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 167
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
>$10 billion (~$20 - $25 billion)
Capital / implementation cost
$3 billion – $5 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$500 million – $1 billion
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
5 – 10 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
Cost estimates have been developed assuming the
redevelopment of three major hospitals in
Melbourne.
The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre is
being delivered with a total investment of $1 billion,
a similar cost to the new Royal Children's Hospital.
It is assumed that three new health centres of
similar size to the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer
Centre and Royal Children's Hospital will be
required over the next 30 years.
Recurrent cost repair and maintenance costs of
have been based off an assumption of $430,000
per annum per new hospital, based average repair
and maintenance costs for principal referral
hospitals Australia (AIHW 2015).
It is noted that for hospitals, as with other buildings,
there are a number of trade-offs that can be made
between construction and ongoing maintenance
costs, and maintenance costs will also depend on
the nature of the facility built.
Costing source
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW),
Hospital Resources 2014-15 (2015)
Department of Human Services and Department of
Treasury and Finance, Partnerships Victoria Project
Summary: The new Royal Children's Hospital
Project (2008)
The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Annual
Financial Report 2014-15 (2015)
Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Project
website, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre
Project (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
opportunity to refurbish existing hospitals to meet
demand more effectively in the future.
In response this option would lead to the
refurbishment of several large inner-city hospitals
that provide specialised services to the whole state,
to allow them to play this role in the future more
effectively.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
5 – 10 years (2021 – 2026)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, the role played by major
hospitals may reduce in effectiveness over time.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Major Hospital Redevelopments
THR
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 168
Contribution to needs
Need 3: Respond to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, particularly due to ageing
Over the next 30 years Victoria’s population is forecast to grow strongly, placing increased pressure on the health
system. Demographic factors, such as the aging of the population and the increased prevalence of chronic and
complex diseases, are also anticipated to increase demand on the healthcare system.
Major hospital sites such as the Alfred Hospital and the Royal Melbourne Hospital have a large scale of
operation. These hospitals, and others like the Royal Women’s or the Royal Children’s Hospital support highly
specialised medical services and accommodate other functions such as teaching and research. These hospitals
currently meet Statewide needs as they have the depth to provide services for unique or complex conditions.
There is international evidence of better medical outcomes when specialisation of complex services is supported
(PricewaterhouseCoopers 2016).
This option involves supporting a ‘centre of excellence’ model through investment to expand or replace existing
hospitals to address demographic changes.
This option receives a 'Moderate' contribution rating against Need 3.
Metric 1: Improvements in access to health services
By refurbishing, expanding or replacing existing hospitals this option is likely to have a 'Moderate' contribution to
this metric.
Metric 2: Increase in efficiency of health services
This option proposes adapting the existing supply of hospital services to better support current medical practice
and address future areas of demand. This could enable efficiency gains as hospitals facilities could better match
their sites.
Major Hospital Redevelopments
THR
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 169
Major Hospital Redevelopments
THR
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 170
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected to have benefits for access to healthcare, by supporting and enhancing the role currently
played by major hospitals into the future. Existing large inner-city hospitals are able to support a significant
specialisation and so provide services to the whole state. Additionally, they are able to support other functions
such as specialist training and research. By maintaining and repurposing capacity, this option is considered to
have benefits for the resilience of the healthcare system and its ability to meet future demand.
Tram network extensions
TNE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 171
Tram network extensions TNE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Extend tram lines and complete network links with other major transport and destination hubs.
Extending the tram network contributes to amenity and the attractiveness for businesses and people to relocate
to new areas and supports higher land use densities. Tram extensions to train stations promote multimodal travel
and mode shift. This increases people’s ability to access employment, services and activities in their local areas.
Priorities for implementation include:
- connections with heavy rail and other public transport; e.g. The extension of route 5 Malvern to Darling
railway station
- connections to major activity centres; e.g. The extension of Route 48 North Balwyn to Doncaster shopping
centre
- high-demand connecting bus corridors; e.g. The extension of Route 75 Vermont South to Knox shopping
centre
- ‘missing’ tram network links and connections; e.g. The extension of Route 82 Footscray to Docklands.
Another example of strategic network extension is represented by the potential for an inner-orbital tram route
from Nicholson street, along Brunswick Road and southbound on Royal Parade to the planned Parkville Station
from Melbourne Metro 1, which would help relieve the congested tram routes 1 and 8 (Lygon Street) as well as
offer the opportunity for improved connections into Melbourne CBD.
This option supports enhanced access to the central city and middle and outer metropolitan major employment
centres.
Sector
Transport
Option type
Better use/New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
This option will affect areas potentially within reach
of the existing Melbourne tram network.
Risks and Opportunities
Much of the construction of this option will occur in
existing road corridors, however the risk of this is
assumed to be managed during the planning phase.
There is an opportunity to upgrade multimodal
interchanges with other forms of transport.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Department of Treasury and Finance, Release of
costing of election commitment – Fill missing tram
links (2014)
Public transport users association, Policies:
Extending Melbourne's Network (2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Tram network extensions
TNE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 172
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 billion – $3 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$1 billion – $3 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$25 million – $50 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
Cost assumptions used were similar to that of the
Department of Treasury and Finance which were
used for the Greens Fill missing tram links policy.
Cost assumptions are as follows:
Cost per kilometre of tram extension, inclusive of
overhead works is $15 million per kilometre; each
Disability Discrimination Act compliant tram stop
(located approximately every 300 metres) costs
$1.7 million; each tram terminus costs $5 million;
extensions over five kilometres require a $5 million
substation each five kilometres; it costs $2.8 million
per major intersection to accommodate new tram
infrastructure. Without exact tram alignment known
for this option it is assumed an average total cost of
$24 million per kilometre of track.
The capital cost estimate assumes that tram
extensions total 50 kilometres.
Annual recurrent costs have been calculated at
three percent of capital cost.
Costing source
Department of Treasury and Finance: Release of
costing of election commitment – Fill missing tram
links (2014)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
potential demand for tram services, which may
optimise the performance of the local road
networks.
In response this option would increase the supply of
the tram network.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, public transport around
Melbourne may not improve at a sufficient rate.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Tram network extensions
TNE
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 173
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
Besides the Melbourne CBD which is already very well serviced by the tram network, all of the highest population
growth areas in Victoria are in the outer suburbs of Greater Melbourne. Of the top five growth LGAs in terms of
absolute population in the next 30 years (DELWP 2015), only Hume and Whittlesea (both in Melbourne's outer
north) are within 10km of an existing tram line, however the majority of growth in Hume will be in the Bulla /
Sunbury areas which are more than 10km away from the route 59 tram in Airport West. This means the only
smaller-scale tram extension to service a growth area would be the route 86 tram from Bundoora RMIT to South
Morang and the Whittlesea growth area.
The Whittlesea growth area is currently experiencing extremely fast development, which may be accelerated by
the Mernda rail extension (due 2019). On a slightly smaller scale, urban infill growth areas through the middle
and inner suburbs may benefit from improved public transport connections.
This option is considered to have a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 1 in all time periods.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
Trams can provide excellent connections between activity centres which can provide vital public transport links in
high-growth areas.
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Using the tram network to access the central city becomes less viable the further away from the CBD the line
goes. For middle and outer suburban tram lines, potential tram extensions would be used more for local trips or
as connections to the heavy rail network rather than directly accessing the central city. If the ends of tram lines
are extended, trams may reach capacity earlier up the line meaning it reduces the ability of people living in the
inner-suburbs to use the network during peak times. This may be resolved through more frequent services or
higher-capacity trams.
Densification of the inner suburbs have been planned around existing train and tram lines, and even though
these will play a more important role in the future the extensions included in this option may not prove to be more
effective over time.
This option has been assessed as having a ‘Low’ contribution to Need 10 in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
Filling missing links in the tram network will improve access to the central city, especially through the ability to
transfer to the heavy rail network.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
The increased use of public transport will reduce the number of private vehicles on the road, reducing congestion
and increasing network efficiency.
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
A key factor in the perceived success of a tram extension in a middle and outer metropolitan suburbs is
connecting to a high-activity generator (such as a major shopping centre, train station or university). Many of the
trips taken on trams in middle and outer suburbs are local journeys, which has the potential to reduce localised
traffic and improve congestion at peak times.
As the outer-growth suburbs develop, there may be a greater need for high quality public transport connections to
allow residents to move between local activity centres.
This option is anticipated to have a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 11.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
Tram extensions will increase the provision of public transport to middle and outer employment centres.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
Arterial road congestion may reduce due to public transport mode shift in the middle and outer suburbs.
Tram network extensions
TNE
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 174
Tram network extensions
TNE
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 175
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
By increasing the reach and improving the efficiency of the Melbourne tram network, residents of middle and
outer ring suburbs will be able to access a high quality form of public transport for trips to jobs, education,
healthcare and social opportunities. Due to the quantum of this option, this has the potential to increase mode
shift from personal vehicles to public transport and reduce congestion and localised pollution.
Real time public transport information
TNI
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 176
Real time public transport information TNI
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Develop an ICT platform that can coordinate real time data from all public transport operators to allow private
software developers to create applications that will support commuters to make real time and plan multi-modal
decisions about their journey. This data could be made publically available through Victoria’s Open Data
Directory based on the Transport for London example.
It thereby has the potential to reduce and spread peak period demand and assist passengers to better deal with
disruptions on the network. This will improve the comfort of services to passengers, reduce barriers to accessing
public transport and increase the utilisation of existing transport infrastructure.
Sector
Transport
Option type
Changing behaviour/Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option could have Statewide impacts.
Risks and Opportunities
The development of a new network may struggle to
successfully integrate and coordinate data from
different transport modes and operators. This could
lead to project delays and cost overruns.
To make a contribution to the need, this option
would need to outperform existing private and
public sector transport information tools.
This option implies better monitoring of the use of
transport systems, which should support better
identification of the communities transport needs for
project development.
Additionally, there may be opportunities for
passengers to contribute their own real time
observations to the system as they may be more
responsive to incidents than VicRoads or PTV.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Waze, Waze Live Map Portal (website, accessed
July 2016)
Transport for London, Open Data Users Portal
website accessed July 2016)
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census 2011
Real time public transport information
TNI
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 177
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$10 million – $25 million
Capital / implementation cost
$10 million – $25 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option represents an IT based coordination tool
designed to disseminate transport information
across a wide spectrum of public users.
Associated costs include the cost of maintaining the
website plus the labour needed to collect and
organise the data on an ongoing basis.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
peaks in demand spread unevenly across networks
and time, with substantial instances of excess
demand.
In response this option would improve utilisation of
the transport system, by providing travel time
information to passengers which may spread
demand across non-peak periods and assist
passengers to deal with disruptions on the network.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the private sector may
develop products that achieve similar outcomes.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Real time public transport information
TNI
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 178
Contribution to needs
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
This option focuses on managing demand for the existing transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
around Melbourne. It is inferred that if demand is better managed then transport performance may be able to
improve with lower average travel times across the network.
This option is aimed at reducing information asymmetry between commuters and PTV such that commuters have
access to information across the network in real time so they can make optimal decisions for their journeys.
The 2011 census found that 43 percent of people use some form of timetabled public transport to access central
Melbourne for work (~200,000 people). The beneficiaries of this option would therefore be a subset of these
people who currently are not making the most efficient public transport journey choices everyday due to either
their gaps in knowledge of the public transport system, or are hindered by unexpected disruptions (e.g. significant
train delays). The success of this option (in improving overall transport performance) also relies on the individual
having the propensity to actively use the tool / application (requiring an applicable level of technological literacy)
and then their willingness to break any journey habits they have made.
For the people that meet this criteria, the benefits are expected to be high (assuming the communication tool
significantly outperforms existing tools) and will continue to be strong provided that the program evolves and
adapts to ongoing changes in technology. There may also be benefits to commuters in the reduction of any
perceived barriers to using public transport (understanding services, reliability, etc.).
Although there will be significant customer service benefits from this option, the contribution to the need would be
dependent on the increase in the performance of the overall transport network from these people making
changes (if and when they are necessary). On the assumption that this group of people (and potential average
journey time savings and comfort improvements) is fairly small, this option is rated as ‘Low’ across all time
periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
This option addresses demand management, providing users with information that may prompt some travellers to
change their journey mode or time.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
Providing real time information during disruptions, allowing travellers to change their plans, could improve the
measured performance of transport networks. If the option is effective at demand management, for example,
peak spreading, it will also contribute against this metric.
Real time public transport information
TNI
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 179
Real time public transport information
TNI
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 180
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is assumed to offer more accessible information than real time ICT information services currently
available from private sector providers with high market share. Travellers are projected to use better information
to choose their route and mode of travel, potentially resulting in less peak demand, mode shift, and reduced
disruption on the network. This option will allow businesses and commuters to make better use of existing
transport networks, and improve access to a range of services and community activities.
As the option targets demand management, without improvements to public transport capacity or service levels,
this option is not anticipated to result in large positive environmental impacts.
Transport network price regime
TNP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 181
Transport network price regime TNP
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Overall pricing review to manage demand for travel at peak/non-peak times across the entire transport network to
achieve a number of objectives:
- most efficient use of assets
- spread the peak/traffic volume
- encourage public transport use (including optimising most affordable public transport: buses)
- capture true cost of transport types, particularly private vehicle use
- encourage less car use to the central city and major employment centres
- incentivise heavy vehicle use of roads during determined times
- reduce travel time and improve travel time reliability for private vehicles and freight.
Pricing options could include fixed tolls on particular roads, satellite-enabled tolling, and variable tolls based on
demand (e.g. peak-pricing).
Sector
Transport
Option type
Changing behaviour
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option could affect the transport network
throughout the State.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk is that community sees the option as
revenue raising rather than demand and usage
management.
This option could disproportionately affect low-
SEIFA communities as they are more likely to be
located further from the CBD and spend more time
on roads (or be more likely to use
freeways/motorways) or public transport. This would
need to be taken into account during option
implementation.
Potential to drive cultural changes with school and
work start and finish times, encouraging greater
flexibility in the workplace. Also extensive list of
opportunities to reduce congestion and travel times,
improve cost recovery for roads and public transport
services (mainly trains), encourage greater use of
buses etc.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Liu, Y. and Charles, P., Spreading peak demand for
urban rail transit through differential fare policy: A
review of empirical evidence (2013)
Murray, P. Congestion pricing for roads: An
overview of current best practice, and the economic
and transport benefits for government (2012)
Smith, M., Public Transit and the Time-Based Fare
Structure: Examining the Merits of Peak Pricing for
Transit (2009)
KPMG, Arup & Jacobs, Transport modelling for
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Transport network price regime
TNP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 182
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
The Australian Automobile Association 2016-17
Pre-Budget Submission recommends that
Infrastructure Australia lead a public inquiry into
transport market reform and road user charging at a
cost of $10 million over two years. An investigation
undertaken by a similar body (e.g. Infrastructure
Victoria) with a focus on Victoria's transport network
is expected to cost 20-50 percent of this value over
a two year period.
Costing source
The Australian Automobile Association, 2016-17
Pre-Budget Submission (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by a
significant increase in road congestion leading to
community support for transport pricing.
In response this option would improve the utilisation
of the transport system, by providing clear signals to
users of the costs of their decisions, assisting to
allocate network capacity to the highest value
activities.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred congestion on the road
network could worsen, increasing travel times and
lowering productivity.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Transport network price regime
TNP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 183
Contribution to needs
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Overall, this option is expected to have significant impact on meeting the growing demand for access to the
Melbourne CBD. The main effects of the TNP on commuters to the CBD will likely be to spread their demand for
public transport and roads across the peak and into the off-peak time period. Most of the proposed measures are
pricing or policy based rather than infrastructure based so can be implemented relatively quickly and contribution
to the need within the next 5 years.
As this option aims to change behaviours, it must be noted that this takes time and people's responsiveness to
price changes is likely to be "sticky" i.e. they will not substitute from road to public transport (e.g. car to bus)
immediately. Once behavioural change is achieved (expected to be after 5-10 years), contribution to needs will
be more significant, mainly through increasing the accessibility of central Melbourne and reduced number of
trucks and freight vehicles on the roads into central Melbourne during peak times.
This option is assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution in the 0-5 and 5-10 year time periods, with a rating of
‘Significant’ for all other periods. These ratings recognise that it will have a modest impact during the
implementation phase, but the contribution should be more significant after this time.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
The introduction of peak and non-peak pricing for public transport and road users is aimed at managing demand
for transport and roads, mainly to and from the CBD. Price changes are aimed at inducing behavioural changes
such that commuters either travel earlier/later than normal, or encourage mode shift or mode sharing whereby
more public transport is used, especially buses. Additionally, demand for transport by freight (trucks) would likely
be better managed with specified travel times and restrictions during peak times.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
The price regime is aimed at reducing congestion in Melbourne during peak times such that transport
infrastructure can perform better as it is under less stress. Incidents that may occur can be better managed and
affect less people if congestion is reduced.
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
This option is expected to have similar impacts as to those discussed under Need 10, albeit that the effects are
anticipated to be more modest. It is expected that the effects are more moderate given middle and outer
metropolitan areas are generally less congested than the CBD and roads and public transport into the CBD
during peak times, so there is less scope for the TNP to have a significant effect.
This option is assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 11 in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
There will be similar effects when compared to accessing the inner-city, although expect less impact on middle
and outer metropolitan employment centres as congestion is currently not as bad to access these areas as it is
for the CBD.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
Since congestion is less of an issue in these areas than much of the inner-city, the effect of this option on
network-wide transport performance will be smaller than areas for closer to the central city.
Need 13: Improve the efficiency of freight supply chains
This option is expected to have significant impact on improving efficiency of freight supply chains. The main
effects of this option on truck freight across Melbourne during peak hours will likely be to spread use of roads
across the peak and into the off-peak time period. Network pricing may enable freight operators more control to
plan the timing of their runs according to urgency or service, improving resource use. If the option reduces
congestion freight operators are likely to benefit through reduced vehicle running costs per trip and the potential
to schedule more trips in a day, improving labour productivity.
Transport network price regime
TNP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 184
This policy can be implemented relatively quickly and potentially have a moderate contribution to this need within
the next 5-10 years if it leads to more efficient supply chains with lower costs (e.g. fuel) as less time is spent in
congestion and traffic. Benefits are expected to increase over time as firms may need to adjust their supply
chains and logistics plans to take full advantage of new pricing regimes. The most significant contributions to the
need will come once firm supply chains and logistics are optimised with the new regime.
This option is rated as ‘Moderate’ in years 0 –10 and ‘Significant’ from years 10 – 30.
Metric 1: Reduction in cost of the total freight task (origin to destination)
Cost of total freight task may be decreased if trucks and freight vehicles spend less time in congestion and traffic,
and hence use less fuel. Although it is possible there may be an increase in inefficiencies and "dead weight loss"
from excess capacity if trucks and freight vehicles are not able to drive during certain times. Eventually (5+ years
after introduction of the option) firms may be able to alter their supply chains to suit the regulated times for
transportation of freight such that the dead weight loss is minimized.
Transport network price regime
TNP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 185
Transport network price regime
TNP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 186
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is likely to reduce congestion and pressures on roads and public transport by spreading demand
across the peak and non-peak periods. It is likely to have positive environmental impacts from reduced pollution
from less stop start mode driving in congestion, and some reduced demand for fuel if there is substitution away
from private vehicle use due to the cost. Supply chain costs and disruptions are both likely to be reduced due to
spread of demand. Social outcomes are expected to be largely neutral except the potential negative impact on
low SEIFA communities who may have to travel further distances and the increase in cost of travel in peak is a
higher proportion of total income than for a high-SEIFA index community.
Torquay rail extension
TRE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 187
Torquay rail extension TRE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Extend the regional passenger rail network to Torquay. The new rail line would extend to Torquay as a spur line
off the Geelong-Warrnambool rail line between the existing Marshall and Waurn Ponds Stations. This extension
will connect the growth areas around Armstrong Creek and Torquay with the regional city of Geelong and the
central city in Melbourne. By constructing this rail extension it will be possible to reduce reliance on private
vehicles in these new growth areas and enable more efficient access to jobs and services in Geelong and
Melbourne.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
This option stretches from Waurn Ponds (south of
Geelong) through to Torquay via Armstrong Creek.
Risks and Opportunities
The staged approach may reduce the efficacy of
this option, as people may not use the transport
connection if it is not as high quality as a heavy rail
service.
This creates the opportunity to further develop
Armstrong Creek through to Torquay.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Geelong Region Alliance, 'Regional Rail
Connections' (2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV) website (2016)
V/Line, 'Performance and capacity' (2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
KMPG, Arup & Jacobs, Transport modelling for
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Torquay rail extension
TRE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 188
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$250 million – $500 million
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
Costing assumptions for this option account for
construction of road and rail grade separations and
train stations (including capacity for car parking).
Costing further assumes fully electrified single track
is procured from Waurn Ponds Station to just north
of existing Torquay.
Annual recurrent cost has been calculated as $10
per train service kilometre, which is expected to
cover most costs associated with running the
service, such as power, wages, train stabling and
maintenance. Services per day following the
extension of approximately 12 kilometres has been
estimated at 50 (25 in both directions), or annually
at 18,250.
Costing source
Public Transport Victoria (PTV) website, Network
Statistics (2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Annual Report
(2014/15)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
demand for public transport from Torquay to
Geelong and through to the city.
In response this option would increase the supply of
public transport along the Surf Coast.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
15 – 30 years (2031 – 2046)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred it may limit the future
development of these areas.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Torquay rail extension
TRE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 189
Contribution to needs
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Considering the distances involved and at a high level assessment, a single-seat service to the city from Torquay
would take approximately one and a half hours. This is roughly equivalent to commuting from Seymour or
Ballarat and significantly less time than from Bendigo and Traralgon, all of which are part of V/Line's commuter
rail service. This demonstrates that this service could have potential as a commuter line as many Victorians make
similar journeys to the city daily.
Even with a staged approach (where a BRT or light rail service could be implemented), this would still remain a
potential commutable journey to access jobs and education in Melbourne.
The areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay are both predicted to experience moderate growth over the next 30
years putting them in the top 20 areas of growth in Victoria, however much of this growth is forecast to occur in
the longer term. This growth in population can be used as a proxy for public transport demand. However,
considering the likely near term growth in the catchment area, and the number of people likely affected relative to
other options to address Need 10, this option is considered to have a ‘Low’ rating. The option’s contribution is
expected to increase over time as population in the catchment area grows.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city.
This would increase the demand catchment for trips to the inner city as the Torquay / Armstrong creek catchment
is a potentially commutable journey.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
More services would need to be provided along this corridor since Geelong trains are already nearing capacity
during the peak periods.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
As these towns have the potential to become the future outer-suburbs of Geelong, there will need to be a high-
quality public transport connection to improve the mobility of people living in these areas and reduce the reliance
on private car travel.
As Geelong's population grows, the number of jobs and services will also grow. This will mean access to this
regional centre will become more vital in the future. There are a number of ways this access could be provided by
public transport, for example, bus services. The ability of this option to provide and increase in service quality or
capacity compared to existing bus services or the potential to improve bus services in the area is questionable.
This option is considered to make a ‘Low ‘contribution to Need 12. The option’s contribution is expected to
increase over time as population in the catchment area grows.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
This extension would allow the future population of Armstrong Creek and Torquay to access the jobs, service,
education and social opportunities available in Geelong.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
This will increase the catchment of the regional rail network.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
This option does not impact ICT connectivity in rural and regional Victoria.
Torquay rail extension
TRE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 190
Torquay rail extension
TRE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 191
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
As a new transport connection, this rail line will increase access to jobs, education, social and healthcare
opportunities in Geelong and Melbourne. Due to the relatively low current population of these areas, this option is
unlikely to have appreciable benefits. Potentially the option may have dis-benefits, as rail services need to meet a
usage threshold to outperform other transport modes in terms of environmental benefits.
As stated in the option description, a staged approach to this transport corridor may be a more viable approach to
connect this area to the regional rail network. By 2046, the areas of Torquay and Armstrong Creek may have a
large enough population to justify a heavy rail connection, however additional feasibility studies will need to be
conducted.
Transitional accommodation stock expansion
TSA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 192
Transitional accommodation stock expansion TSA
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Provision of supported short-term accommodation with access to support services intended as a stepping stone
to more permanent housing. This accommodation is intended to be a temporary option with tenants actively
working with their support provider to apply for long-term housing
This option would include the provision of:
- two supported accommodation developments (see Common Ground) in metropolitan Melbourne of up to 70
units (predominantly studios with common areas).
- 20 new community housing sector managed rooming house style accommodation providing up to eight
beds per property
- eight youth foyers (6 metro, 2 regional) to accommodate up to 40 young people in each facility.
In 2012-13 Victorian Transitional Housing Managers had 166,525 contacts with households who were homeless
or at risk of homelessness. Of those accessing homeless support services in Victoria in the 2013/14 financial
year, nearly one third were turned away due to lack of accommodation. Twenty seven percent of people
accessing homeless support services in the same year were already homeless (26,679 people), requiring an
urgent accommodation response.
The youth foyers are specifically recommended as between one half and one third of all young people exiting
state care will experience homelessness in the first two years after leaving care.
The cost estimates provided include the capital cost estimates for developing the facilities, along with the
recurrent cost to manage the assets. The recurrent cost to provide the service is excluded from the WOL cost.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
This option has a direct spatial context as the
accommodation will have a specific location,
however the catchment area for the accommodation
is expected to be large.
Risks and Opportunities
Without development of appropriate 'exit points'
from transitional accommodation this option could
be ineffective at contributing to the overall need of
providing better access to housing for the most
vulnerable Victorians.
This option presents opportunities to explore a
range of different transitional housing models
across the state, including women only facilities,
scattered-site models or other kinds of targeted
facilities.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Affordable Development Outcomes, Improving
access to affordable housing for vulnerable
Victorians – advice to Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Baker, C, Niolon, P, & Oliphant, H, A descriptive
analysis of transitional housing programs for
survivors of intimate partner violence in the United
States (2002)
Casey S, Snakes and Ladders: Women's pathways
into and out of homelessness (2001)
Commonwealth Government, The Road Home: A
National Approach to Reducing Homelessness
(2008)
Fischer, R. L., Toward Self-Sufficiency: Evaluating a
Transitional Housing Program for Homeless
Families. Policy Studies Journal (2000)
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
and US Department of Health and Human Services,
Transitional housing and services: A synthesis.
Practical lessons: The 1998 National Symposium
on Homelessness Research (1999)
Transitional accommodation stock expansion
TSA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 193
Washington T, The Homeless Need More Than Just
a Pillow, They Need a Pillar: An Evaluation of a
Transitional Housing Program (2002)
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$100 million – $250 million
Capital / implementation cost
$50 million – $100 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The capital cost estimate for this option is based on
two projects:
- The Elizabeth Street Common Ground supportive
housing development opened in 2010 cost $46
million to build and provides 131 studio apartments
over six floors for homeless and low-income earning
Victorian's, and 30 two bedroom apartments for low-
income families over three floor (Grocon 2010)
- The Shepparton Youth Foyer will have 40
individual, self-contained units as well as extensive
common area and support services. It will be
developed at a cost of $7.5 million (MMG 2014).
Annual recurrent costs are calculated at three
percent of capital cost for maintenance and $2
million for staffing, administrative and other
operational costs.
Costing source
Grocon website, Premier opens new Melbourne
CBD affordable housing (2010)
MMG website, Shepparton accommodation project
to start this year (2014)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
documented shortfalls in the availability of crisis
accommodation, and support services to assist
those in crisis accommodation achieve access to
housing.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of housing stock devoted to crisis accommodation,
and provide support services to those using the
capacity.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred people would continue
to be turned away from transitional housing
facilities, contributing to increased homelessness in
Victoria. Homelessness has high costs in terms of
the emotional wellbeing of those experiencing
homelessness, social cohesion and demands on
other services (i.e. hospitals, justice) that could be
avoided/minimised through better transitional
housing support.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
High
Transitional accommodation stock expansion
TSA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 194
Contribution to needs
Need 7: Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians
The number of people being turned away from transitional housing services due to lack of capacity (Affordable
Development Outcomes 2016) indicates that there may be a need for more transitional accommodation.
Transitional accommodation and support services would support homeless Victorians, and Victorians at risk of
homelessness,
Demand for transitional housing is influenced by conditions in the housing market, and by individual
circumstances. For example, reduction in affordable housing stock is likely to result in increased demand for
transitional services, by increasing the number of Victorians unable to afford to remain in the private rental
market. This option could therefore be strengthened by implementation in combination with other measures to
address housing affordability. The accommodation and support detailed in this option may help Victorians
struggling with housing access and affordability to avoid, or transition out of, homelessness.
Events unrelated to market forces, such as marriage breakdown, domestic violence or mental illness could also
result in demand for transitional housing. This option is anticipated to have a significant benefit in such instances,
by providing both accommodation and support services to allow vulnerable Victorians to avoid, or transition out
of, homelessness.
This option receives a ‘Low’ contribution in the construction phase (0 – 5 years), however once the complete hard
infrastructure (accommodation facilities) and soft infrastructure (support services) of this model are implemented
(0 – 5 years) the contribution increases to ‘Significant’ up to years 15 – 30.
Metric 1: Reduction in housing stress for lower income households in the rental market
This metric is not directly applicable to this option.
Metric 2: Reduction in average waiting time of people on the social housing register waitlist
This metric is not directly applicable to this option.
Metric 3: Ability to provide homeless people a pathway into housing
This option aims to provide accommodation for people in transition, either from homelessness to permanent
housing, or for people who can no longer afford private rental housing. As such, this option presents a direct path
out of homelessness for people, particularly with the inclusion of proposed support services.
Transitional accommodation stock expansion
TSA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 195
Transitional accommodation stock expansion
TSA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 196
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected to benefit safety through expanding the supply of crisis accommodation, which is
anticipated to allow Victorians to avoid, or reduce the duration of, an experience of homelessness. This is also
expected to result in avoided State costs, by limiting adverse outcomes from homelessness such as increased
hospital visitation or increased interaction with justice services. The option is also considered to improve the
resilience of social services to address sever housing stress by expanding the capacity to provide crisis
accommodation and transition services.
Sub-sets of the community living in low socio-economic areas are likely to be more exposed to severe housing
stress and so may be more likely than other groups to benefit from this option.
Train station car parking improvement
TSC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 197
Train station car parking improvement TSC
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Construction of new or expanded rail station car parks to increase capacity of park-and-ride facilities across the
regional and metropolitan networks. Recently completed car park expansion projects include Syndal, South
Morang and Donnybrook stations. The benefits include potential reductions to road congestion through mode
shift to train services and improved access to the central city for employment and services.
Works should be prioritised based on the potential demand considered in conjunction with the potential impacts.
Car parking should be encouraged at stations adjacent to freeways or in growth areas with established car-
oriented development patterns, but should be implemented with caution (and flexible design) in areas with the
potential to develop into high-intensity activity nodes (i.e. so as not to hinder the objective of walkability). Flexible
design standards can include (for surface carparks) using smaller (building-scale) footprints framed within a well-
defined urban-scale street network, and (for multi-level parking) building any new structures to a high urban-
design standard potentially capable of being built upon (or converted) for active uses.
Examples of urban stations with high patronage and large numbers of people arriving at the station by car
(increasing the likelihood of undesirable on-street parking) are:
- Footscray station (143 car parks with ~2,000 arrivals by car)
- Laverton station (947 car parks with ~3,500 arrivals by car)
- Dandenong station (414 car parks with ~2,200 arrivals by car).
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option has the potential for Statewide
application, but is initially expected to focus on
urban areas.
Risks and Opportunities
Appropriate land may not be available at stations
with the highest demand for car parking.
Alternatively, some sites could require significant
land acquisition, increasing the estimated costs
substantially.
Additional car parking capacity may not meet
demand, and so fail to resolve parking issues.
Station car parks may also have the potential to
cause localised traffic bottlenecks, reducing amenity
for the community and residents.
This option presents the opportunity to shift journey
mode share towards train and away from cars.
This option could provide improved access to the
CBD and inner city areas for people in outer
suburban areas and regional areas.
There is the potential to examine additional
commercial or redevelopment opportunities as the
car parks are developed.
This option could help ensure that expensive
investments in rail infrastructure are highly utilised,
and may reduce the need for future road
investments.
Certainty of evidence
High
Evidence base
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Regional Railway
Station Car Park Audit DRAFT (October /
November 2014),
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Metropolitan
Railway Station Car Park Audit DRAFT (October /
November 2014)
Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO),
Coordinating Public Transport (2014)
Train station car parking improvement
TSC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 198
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$100 million – $250 million
Capital / implementation cost
$100 million – $250 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The Syndal Station Multi-Deck Carpark Project
consisted provision of 250 car parks over a four
level facility at a cost of $10.8 million, meaning the
cost to build each inner/middle metropolitan urban
car park was $43,200 on average (PTV 2016).
South Morang's temporary gravel car park provided
an additional 450 car parks at a cost of $1.25
million, meaning the cost to build each middle/outer
metropolitan car park was approximately $2,800
(PTV 2016). Assuming that 10 inner/middle
metropolitan urban car parks with 250 car parks and
10 middle/outer metropolitan car parks with 450 car
parks are built throughout Infrastructure Victoria's
30 year strategy, and assuming that costs for
Syndal and South Morang are appropriate, then
total capital costs would total $120.5 million.
Annual recurrent cost is assumed to be three
percent to account for maintenance, operation and
surveillance. This is higher than other heavy rail
options because the capital is directly for a station
(as opposed to rail) which, as a high traffic zone,
would require a more frequent investment to
maintain operation.
Costing source
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Station Car Park
Upgrades (website, accessed July 2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
population growth and rising demand at stations for
car parking and access to the rail system.
In response this option would improve utilisation of
the rail network by commuters.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, residents who rely on
cars as a secondary mode to travel to and from
train stations would have less incentive and ability
to switch to rail as a primary mode. Road
congestion would be worse than if the option was
implemented.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Train station car parking improvement
TSC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 199
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
This option has the potential to significantly improve access to rail passenger services for both regional and outer
suburban residents. In particular, for those in high growth outer suburban LGAs, the addition of parking at
stations will increase the ability of people to access the CBD and other inner city areas by rail, reducing travel
times, costs and stress for those that would otherwise rely on private vehicles.
This option is particularly relevant some fast growing outer suburban areas where stations may have minimal or
insufficient parking. While an estimated 60 percent of regular parking is currently available for outer urban
stations (PTV 2014), this will need to be addressed to account expected growth rates in LGAs such as Melton,
Wyndham and Casey, all of which are some of the highest growth areas in Victoria. The scale of the benefits may
be modest however, due to the scale of the proposed investment, and service frequency and quality of peak rail
services to these areas.
This option is expected to make a 'Low' contribution to Need 1 in all time periods due to the scale of the
investment proposed.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option could enhance rail access for high growth areas in outer Melbourne and regional cities, where rail
infrastructure exists or is planned for the future.
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
In 2008, it was found that parked cars at all train stations typically exceeded available space for parking by 50
percent, with the overflow parked in the surrounding areas (VAGO 2014). This option would therefore likely
improve access to central Melbourne by increasing access to the train network with additional parking spaces.
Additional car spaces may be needed to achieve additional access due to existing car-orientated development
patterns, or the lack of connectivity between different public transport modes.
This option is likely to improve service capacity, both as a result of improving commuter access to stations, and
by reducing road traffic as a result of mode shift to rail. Positive outcomes as a result of this option include
reduced traffic on the road network, cheaper and faster transport options for outer suburban residents, and an
improvement in the mobility of workers in outer suburban areas, improving their incomes and productivity through
being to access high value city-based employment. The scale of the benefits may be modest however, due to the
scale of the proposed investment, and capacity constraints on many peak rail services.
This option is expected to make a 'Low' contribution to Need 10 in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
This option will enhance the capacity of the transport system to meet demand through the provision of car
spaces. In particular, it will enable more commuters to use trains to reach the Melbourne CBD through
encouraging mode shift to trains.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
This option should improve the performance of the road network, by reducing traffic owing from outer suburban
areas to inner urban areas and the CBD as more people are able to switch from private vehicle to rail for journeys
to work and other trips
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
This option will provide some support for improved access to employment centres throughout metropolitan
Melbourne. It is expected however, that most benefits will accrue to employment centres located on or near the
rail network, including Sunshine, Dandenong South and Monash.
This option may also have some benefits for greater transport efficiency by encouraging mode shift to rail from
private vehicles, and reducing cars on the road for work and other trips. It is expected to largely benefit the
employment zones located on or near the rail network.
Train station car parking improvement
TSC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 200
This option is anticipated to have a ‘Very Low/ Negative’ contribution to Need 11 in all periods, given that some
middle and outer employment centres are not located close to the rail network, and benefits may be limited to
centres that are.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
This option could improve the supply of transport services to metropolitan employment centres.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
This option could improve service performance at stations where additional car parking is provided.
Train station car parking improvement
TSC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 201
Train station car parking improvement
TSC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 202
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected to improve access to public transport (heavy rail), and in doing so, encourage mode shift.
In doing so, this option is anticipated to have benefits for access to jobs, and social infrastructure. However,
based on the investment proposed, these benefits are not expected to be appreciable. Similarly, through
encouraging mode shift, this option is likely to have positive but not appreciable impacts on greenhouse gas
emissions, energy use and resource use.
‘TravelSmart’ programs
TSP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 203
‘TravelSmart’ programs TSP
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Government to undertake ‘TravelSmart’ programs to encourage alternative travel options that can enable better
use of our transport assets. Alternative travel options include walking, cycling and carpooling.
Sector
Transport
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
The option is likely to be most effective in middle
and outer metropolitan Melbourne.
Risks and Opportunities
Increased flexibility in the workforce (for example
flexi-time and all roles flex programs) could reduce
incentives to car pool.
Factors external to the option, such as petrol prices,
may increase the attractiveness of TravelSmart
programs and could be targeted in marketing to
support the programs.
This option could be combined with other options
that improve the size or quality of active transport
networks to improve their effectiveness.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Astle, R. and Simmons, G., The potential for
carpooling as a more sustainable transport option,
Australasian Transport Research Forum (2010)
Commonwealth Department of Environment and
Heritage, Evaluation of Australian TravelSmart
projects in the ACT, South Australia, Queensland,
Victoria and Western Australia 2001 – 2005 (2005)
Department of Transport, Planning and Local
Infrastructure, Plan Melbourne (2014)
DeGruyter, C., Investigating a CBD-wide carpooling
scheme for Melbourne, Australasian Transport
Research Forum (2006)
Harbutt, P. and Meiklejohn, D., the Development of
the Victorian TravelSmart Program, Australasian
Transport Research Forum (2003)
The Government of Western Australia Department
of Transport, Evaluation Summary: TravelSmart
Local Government program (2011)
‘TravelSmart’ programs
TSP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 204
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The initial cost of establishing the body is expected
to be below $1 million
Western Australia's TravelSmart program has an
estimated benefit-cost ratio of 2.5:1. With stated
benefits of $1.6 million to the WA community and a
financial return to the WA government of $0.86
million, annual cost is calculated around $1 million.
The scope and scale of Western Australia's
TravelSmart program has been applied to the
costing of this option in Victoria.
Costing source
The Government of Western Australia Department
of Transport, Evaluation Summary: TravelSmart
Local Government program (2011)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
desire to promote mode choice and increased
efficiency of personal car use to better achieve the
potential of existing networks.
In response this option would attempt to induce
change in travel behaviours by promoting change.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
Increasing demand for access to transport networks
could support the changes that the option seeks to
achieve, for example, congestion on roads could
encourage greater use of active transport.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
‘TravelSmart’ programs
TSP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 205
Contribution to needs
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
TravelSmart was a Victorian State Government program designed to change travel behaviour, targeting schools,
workplaces and communities with the goal of reducing vehicle trips and vehicle kilometres travelled (Harbutt and
Meiklejohn 2003). The program sought to change behaviour through direct contact with individuals to promote
travel behaviour changes such as modifying trip destinations or active transport and carpooling (Harbutt and
Meiklejohn 2003). The program included deep engagement with communities, schools and workplaces by
TravelSmart teams to promote different travel choices (Harbutt and Meiklejohn 2003). In Western Australia, the
TravelSmart program was implemented by local councils, and included development of infrastructure to enable
behaviour change (The Government of Western Australia Department of Transport 2011). This program achieved
a positive benefit cost ratio of 2.5:1, with benefits from reduced vehicle use and reduced congestion (The
Government of Western Australia Department of Transport 2011).
The results from TravelSmart projects across Australia during their measurement periods are mixed, but overall
demonstrate a reduction in the use of passenger vehicles (Commonwealth Department of Environment and
Heritage 2005). The TravelSmart programs were generally resource intensive and localised interventions. These
programs have been mostly discontinued in favour of other initiatives.
For access to the central Melbourne, barriers to active transport (walking or cycling) include access to
infrastructure, perceptions of safety, trip length, travel time and after trip facilities (such as bicycle lockers, or
showers). A TravelSmart style program may address perceptions of safety and increase community
understanding of available infrastructure. However, this option does not address infrastructure availability
(network and after trip facilities), trip length or travel time.
Barriers to increased use of carpooling to access central Melbourne include convenience, the presence of non-
car alternatives such as public transport, safety concerns and the ability of individuals to identify carpooling
matches.
Barriers to increased use of public transport include service availability, service quality and capacity, especially
during peaks.
The reintroduction of or use of programs similar to TravelSmart could address growing demand for access to
central Melbourne through promoting mode shift to active transport, or increased carpooling. However, the
potential for city-wide gains in the absence of additional investment in transport networks and supporting
infrastructure may be limited. There may be a further need to coordinate TravelSmart style interventions in a
catchment area or along a transport corridor to achieve benefits for access to the central city.
The contribution of TravelSmart style programs to the need has been assessed as ‘Very Low/ Negative’ in all
time periods, especially compared to other options to address Need 10.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
This option is anticipated to have the potential to make a small contribution to management of demand for
passenger vehicle travel to the central city.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
Through encouraging mode shift, or more effective use of passenger vehicles, this option could improve transport
performances.
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
This option could encourage more effective use of passenger vehicles through carpooling, and encourage mode
shift to active transport (for a description of former TravelSmart projects, refer to the related discussion under
Need 10).
The ability of this option to address the need for access to middle and outer metropolitan employment centres
would likely vary by the centre. Where the trip length to employment centres is relatively short for employees, and
active transport networks are present, mode shift to active transport could play a role in managing demand. This
could be achieved through the option by promoting awareness of existing infrastructure and safety of use. The
same principles apply to use of public transport. As discussed in Need 10, barriers of gaps in infrastructure,
perceptions of safety, trip length, travel time and after trip facilities (such as bicycle lockers, or showers) may still
prevent widespread uptake.
‘TravelSmart’ programs
TSP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 206
Access to other centres may be best supported by road, and here, carpooling could play a role in managing
demand for access. In comparison to access to the central city, issues with the availability or service quality of
public transport may favour the use of carpooling to middle and outer metropolitan Melbourne. The option could
influence the use of carpooling through raising awareness and assisting individuals to identify carpooling
matches, for example, through supporting development of a car pooling app.
For example, in an assessment of the suitability for carpooling, Melbourne’s outer suburbs such as Dandenong
South, Campbellfield, Laverton North and Melbourne Airport were identified as areas with potential for mode shift
(Astle and Simmons 2010). The authors identify areas based on existing high numbers of long distance single
vehicle trips and minimal alternative transport options to passenger vehicles (Astle and Simmons 2010).
The contribution of this option to the need is anticipated to be 'Low'. The contribution of this option is likely to
increase as travel demand to these areas grows in line with their expansion.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
This option could support demand management for transport system capacity in terms of passenger vehicles.
However, difficulty is anticipated in aligning trip origins and destinations.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
Through encouraging mode shift, or more effective use of passenger vehicles, this option could improve transport
performances.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
Victoria’s regional and rural areas play an important role in the State’s economy, and are home to many
Victorians. As in metropolitan Melbourne, the transport network includes roads, public transport and
walking/cycling paths. Access to the transport network, and the ability of the transport network to meet the needs
of regional and rural Victorians, may be reduced in comparison to Melbourne due to issues of coverage and
services quality.
TravelSmart programs are understood to promote greater use of active transport and carpooling (or a more
detailed description of former TravelSmart projects, refer to the related discussion under Need 10).
Barriers to active transport (walking or cycling) include access to infrastructure, perceptions of safety, trip length,
travel time and after trip facilities (such as bicycle lockers, or showers). The option would address some of these
barriers (safety, awareness of existing infrastructure), but does not have scope to address others.
This option could improve transport access in regional and rural areas by encouraging more effective use of
passenger vehicles (carpooling). Promoting mode shift to active transport options could also improve access if
knowledge is identified as a barrier to their use.
Barriers to increased use of carpooling include convenience, the presence of non-car alternatives such as public
transport, safety concerns and the ability of individuals to identify carpooling matches. This option could address
some of the issues of convenience by supporting communication tools to help match drivers to passengers, or
ease communication between existing pairs. Other aspects that affect convenience, for example, alignment of trip
origin and trip destination for driver and passenger, are not expected to be addressed by this option. Such
convenience issues are anticipated to be more acute in regional and rural areas, although this could vary by trip
purpose.
In regional and rural areas, issues of trip length and travel time are likely to present larger barriers to the use of
active transport than in metropolitan.
The contribution of this option against Need 12 has been assessed as ‘Very Low/Negative’ across all time
periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
This option could support demand management for transport system capacity in terms of passenger vehicles.
However, difficulty is anticipated in aligning trip origins and destinations.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
‘TravelSmart’ programs
TSP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 207
This option could improve the performance of the transport network in terms of the effectiveness of passenger
vehicles. As congestion is a smaller issue in regional and rural areas as compared to metropolitan Melbourne,
benefits from increased use of active transport are not anticipated to be substantial.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
This option does not specifically address this metric.
‘TravelSmart’ programs
TSP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 208
‘TravelSmart’ programs
TSP
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 209
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option targets the efficiency of the transport networks that are used to access employment and social
infrastructure. In doing so, the option is likely to have benefits for access. However, as the option is assumed to
not involve changes to the road or active transport networks, these benefits are not considered likely to be
appreciable. The option is assumed to have benefits for access to local trip destinations like social, sporting and
recreational infrastructure.
Tidal and wave energy
TWE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 210
Tidal and wave energy TWE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Generating an energy supply from ocean resources (tides and waves). This option involves converting the energy
in tidal movements and ocean waves or swells into electricity. Tidal energy and wave energy are fundamentally
different technical solutions. Wave energy is still fairly novel whereas there are large scale tidal projects are being
considered around the world, albeit at high cost. These include tidal barrages (effectively hydro projects) and sea
bed tidal projects.
Sector
Energy
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option would be implemented at a suitable
location on the Victorian coastline, and would have
Statewide impacts through the supply of electricity.
Risks and Opportunities
The technology used for this option is high cost and
still in trial use only in many countries, so the
evidence to support its adoption is low.
Depending on the technology used, there could be
localised impacts on amenity.
Geoscience Australia notes that for wave energy,
“the lack of control over the timing, rate or level of
delivery can impact significantly on their potential as
an electricity source” (Geoscience Australia 2016)
Tide and wave energy could be further developed to
maximise the potential of the resource.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
AGL Energy, Macarthur wind farm (website,
accessed 2016)
Australian Renewable Energy Agency, Perth Wave
Project (2012)
Geoscience Australia, Ocean Energy (2009)
(website, accessed 2016)
International Renewable Energy Agency, Wave
energy: technology brief (2014)
Yale Environment 360, Why Wave Power Has
Lagged Far Behind as Energy Source (2014)
Tidal and wave energy
TWE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 211
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$50 million – $100 million
Capital / implementation cost
$50 million – $100 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
5 – 10 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
LCOE (Levelised Cost of Energy) reflects net
present investment, operations & management and
fuel costs incurred in the energy production process
over the life of the project. To facilitate comparison
between alternative options of varying scale, it is
"levelised" as $/MW.h (CSIRO 2015).
Tidal current is estimated to have a LCOE of
between $350 and $450 per MWh. Tidal Wave
technology is still in its infancy, as such cost
estimates are based on a delayed implementation
of any projects till around 2030. Current LCOE
ranges are in the range of $110 – $300 AUD
(CSIRO 2015).
Tidal wave costs, based off a 10MW demonstration
project, are expected to range between 70 and 100
million dollars (Ernst and Young 2010, Reserve
Bank of Australia 2016).
Tidal barrages were assumed not to apply to
Victoria, due to lack of appropriate sites.
Costing source
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Marine
& Ocean Energy Development: An Introduction for
Practitioners in APEC Economies (2013)
CSIRO, Unlocking Australia’s Energy Potential
(2015)
Ernst and Young, Cost and financial support for
wave, tidal stream and tidal range generation in the
UK (2010)
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),
Wave Energy Technology Brief (2014a)
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),
Tidal Energy Technology Brief (2014b)
Reserve Bank of Australia, Exchange Rates –
Monthly – January 2010 to latest complete month of
current year (2016)
Tidal Energy Today, ETRI Projections for tidal and
wave 2010-2050 (website accessed July 2016).
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
intention to invest in the development of new
renewable technologies.
In response this option would increase investment
in the tidal and wave energy sector
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, then more mature
generation technologies could be used to provide
electricity, including more developed renewable
options.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Tidal and wave energy
TWE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 212
Contribution to needs
Need 18: Transition to low carbon energy supply and use
Victoria’s energy supply is currently dominated by fossil fuel generation, in particular, emissions intensive brown
coal. Infrastructure Victoria has identified the need to transition away from these sources to lower carbon energy
supply, in response to the challenges of climate change. This option would support the need by developing an
alternative, low emissions, form of energy supply from tidal or wave energy.
Assessments of tidal energy resources by Geoscience Australia suggest that there is some potential from sites in
Bass Strait, although the resources in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory are considered
stronger (Geoscience Australia 2016). Assessments of wave energy resources by Geoscience Australia identify
shelf waters off Victoria as suitable sites for harvesting wave energy.
A wave energy generation facility has been completed in Perth and connected to the electricity supply network.
At the time (2015), this was the first commercial use of the technology. The development will ultimately have
three megawatts of capacity, sufficient to power 1,500 to 2,000 households. By contrast, the largest windfarm in
Australia has 420 megawatts of capacity, sufficient to power 220,000 households (AGL Energy 2016). Tidal and
wave energy is considered to be further away from commercial use than other forms such as wind and solar
(Yale 360 2014).
The option is considered likely to make a ‘Low’ contribution to the need, due to the uncertainty of the technology
and the likely cost of implementation.
This option’s contribution to the need is considered stable in all time periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in Victoria's greenhouse gas emissions
This option could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by displacing existing fossil fuel generation, however, there
are technological and cost challenges to implementing the option at a scale likely to have an impact.
Tidal and wave energy
TWE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 213
Tidal and wave energy
TWE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 214
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option supports investment in what is currently a very high cost form of renewable energy. The option does
not specify how much energy would be generated from tidal sources, however assuming a supply of 10 MW the
impacts of this option are likely to be limited.
The option is likely to have marginal benefits to greenhouse gas emissions, resource use and energy use by
expanding the supply of renewable energy in Victoria. The option would likely reduce reliance on fossil fuel
generation. Water use and water air and waste pollution would likely also benefit. There could be localised
impacts on visual amenity associated with this option.
Implemented at such as small scale, this option may have limited negative impacts on business costs, gross
state product and the community through increasing the use of high cost generation sources.
Compact urban development
UDC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 215
Compact urban development UDC
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option is to apply planning zones that enable residential intensification on land near existing infrastructure,
such as public transport along the Principal Public Transport Network and activity centres, in Melbourne and
specific regional cities, for example Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat. In particular the intensification should be
prioritised around transport infrastructure that has capacity for additional demand.
This should involve:
- determining criteria to apply higher density zoning provisions in walkable proximity to stations and services,
in consultation with Local Government.
- reviewing the existing planning controls to reduce barriers to densification in well serviced areas.
- a consistent application of zones across Melbourne and the Regional Centres to maximise access to
existing infrastructure (outside of areas with protected heritage or environmental values).
Overtime, local infrastructure upgrades and renewal may be required to accommodate additional growth.
Sector
Transport
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option has spatial application to regional
centres that lend themselves to infill development,
as well as areas of metropolitan Melbourne,
particularly along those train lines stated in the
option description.
Risks and Opportunities
Infill development can meet with community
resistance, particularly in established suburbs, and
needs to be undertaken with sensitivity to the
surroundings.
The option presents an opportunity for more people
to live closer to jobs and infrastructure and for
government to make significant budget savings
from leveraging existing infrastructure.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
SGS, Comparative costs of urban development: a
literature review (2016)
KPMG, Economic Appraisal and Demand Modelling
2016)
Compact urban development
UDC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 216
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$10 million – $25 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option is considered to include a medium size
strategy (including reviewing the existing planning
controls with a view to reducing barriers to
densification along transport rich corridors) and
policy development component that, from the State
Government, would involve preparation of policy
and associated documentation, public and key
stakeholder consultation, review and response to
public submissions, and preparation of final policy
documentation.
It is expected that the implementation of this policy
would be undertaken by State and local
governments for a period between 10-25 years, and
that the strategy would require regular review to
respond to changed market conditions.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
pressure for housing and growth in metropolitan
Melbourne and regional centres.
In response this option would increase the supply of
housing in areas that have infrastructure capacity to
absorb more growth.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred Melbourne will continue
to sprawl with cost implications for providing
infrastructure. SGS (2016) literature review found
that providing infrastructure in greenfield areas cost
2-4 times more than in already established areas
depending on the capacity of existing infrastructure
to support additional people.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
High
Compact urban development
UDC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 217
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
This option would assist to direct a proportion of growth to established areas that have the capacity to absorb
additional growth. This includes areas along train lines that have capacity for additional passengers. A literature
review has found that development for an additional 25,000 residents could be between two to four times more
expensive in greenfield areas compared to infill development, depending on the capacity of existing infrastructure
to support additional people (SGS Economics and Planning 2016). The increased costs occur as access to
services for infill development is more likely to be able to be accommodated by existing infrastructure.
This option would contribute to addressing infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth by
directing growth into areas that can more readily accommodate development.
This option is assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 1 in all time periods.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option has the potential to indirectly improve access or increase service capacity within high growth LGAs by
directing growth to areas where access can be better provided through existing infrastructure.
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
This option will moderately benefit demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne, by encouraging
denser future growth along train lines and activity centres that have capacity to accommodate future demand.
This option is assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution to Need 10 in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
Given that the population of Melbourne is growing, by directing growth along train lines that have capacity to
absorb additional demand, and thereby direct growth away from lines that do not, this option will make a
moderate contribution.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
This option, being a land use option will not by itself improve transport performance across the network to access
central Melbourne. It would need to be paired with transport options to have an integrated impact.
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
This option could moderately benefit demand for access to middle and outer metropolitan employment centres,
by encouraging denser future growth along train lines and activity centres that have capacity to accommodate
further demand.
The contribution of this option to Need 11 may be limited by the strength of transport links to middle and outer
metropolitan major employment centres.
The contribution of this option to Need 11 has been assessed as ‘Moderate’ in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
This option will not increase supply or increase the transport system capacity. It will assist in coordinating
development with where there is existing capacity along the transport network, and in that sense, manage
demand.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
This option, being a land use option will not by itself improve transport performance across the network to access
middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres.
Compact urban development
UDC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 218
Compact urban development
UDC
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 219
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option would moderately benefit number of households with a journey to work of greater than 45 minutes
through densification of housing developments along train lines. It is anticipated that there would be moderate
benefits in terms of costs incurred by the State as utilising infill areas is indicated as being 2-4 times cheaper than
providing a similar amount of infrastructure to greenfield development, where existing infrastructure has the
capacity to support increased demand (SGS, 2016). This will also have a moderate benefit for housing supply.
Urban density can also have moderate community health benefits by encouraging active travel such as walking
and cycling as different uses are close to each other. Directing population growth to areas where current
infrastructure will adequately meet needs of same growth will reduce requirement to procure new infrastructure in
growth areas. This is assumed to result in comparative reduction of resources required against base case and
will have a number of environmental benefits.
Green Infrastructure
UFF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 220
Green Infrastructure UFF
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option seeks to deliver a governance mechanism and policy framework to deliver and improve green
infrastructure across Victoria’s urban and regional cities and towns in partnership with local government and the
private sector.
The Australian Standard describes green Infrastructure as ‘The network of natural and built landscape assets,
including green spaces and water systems within and between settlements. Individual components of this
environmental network, such as gardens, parks, recreation areas, highway verges and waterways, are
sometimes referred to as ‘green infrastructure assets’.
The benefits of this infrastructure include:
- Creating space for activity to address obesity and diabetes rates, reduced fitness particularly in young
children
- Creating space to address social exclusion noting the aging population and the increasing importance of
positive mental health
- Opportunities for walking and cycling for transport
- Providing shade to mitigate the heat island effect to address the challenges of climate change and heat
related death
- Protecting and enhancing natural environments and support biodiversity by providing the critical
connections within and between ecosystems
- Reducing emissions and addressing air quality, including acting as a carbon sink
- Providing a more efficient and effective means of managing stormwater to protect against flooding
- Delivering energy savings through natural temperature regulation
Because of the multiplicity of benefits, there is no clear ownership for this infrastructure, and despite the efforts of
local government to focus on this, the delivery of green infrastructure can often be ad hoc and opportunistic
rather than strategic and holistic.
Sector
Science, agriculture and environment
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Melbourne and regional cities
This option is applicable to all built environments
across the State.
Risks and Opportunities
Evaluation and monitoring of funded projects could
be needed to manage benefits.
This option presents significant opportunities to
reduce the heat island effect and health issues
associated with it.
Certainty of evidence
High
Evidence base
Bowen, K. J., and Parry. M., The evidence base for
linkages between green infrastructure, public health
and economic benefit (2015)
City of Melbourne, Urban Forest Strategy (2014)
City of Melbourne, Resilient Melbourne Strategy
(2016)
Greening the West website (accessed July 2016)
Standards Australia, Australian Standard 5334-
2013: Climate change adaptation for settlements
and infrastructure – A risk based approach (2013)
Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation
Research, Urban Heat Reduction through Green
Infrastructure (GI): Policy Guidance for State
Government (2015)
Green Infrastructure
UFF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 221
Ellaway et al, ‘Graffiti, Greenery, and Obesity in
Adults: Secondary Analysis of European Cross
Sectional Survey’, British Medical Journal (2005)
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$250 million – $500 million
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option supports expanded investment in green
infrastructure. This option is assumed to function in
a similar way to the Commonwealth 20 Million
Trees Programme, which will allocate $70 million
dollars of funding over six years through competitive
grants to individuals and organisations, including
the private sector (National Landcare Programme
2016). It has been assumed that local government
is eligible for grants under this option.
To implement the option, it is considered likely that
policy development would be needed to establish
criteria for funding grants, and that resources would
need to be allocated within State Government to
running a grants process, evaluating submissions
and monitoring outcomes.
Much of the policy drafting would involve spatial
analysis to determine areas where green space is
ageing and/or lacking. The City of Melbourne's
Urban Forest Strategy provides a good benchmark
for how this study could be conducted.
An implementation cost for expansion of green
infrastructure is assumed to include the following:
- $100 million for supporting Land acquisition
- $70 million for tree planting
- $50 million for other categories of project, such
as land remediation, fencing and asset
removal
- $50 million for pathway delivery, appropriate
seating and supportive infrastructure.
Annual recurrent costs would involve ongoing
monitoring of programme outcomes, and upkeep of
green infrastructure. These costs are expected to
be absorbed by existing State Government and
participant resources.
Costing source
National Landcare Programme, 20 Million Trees
Programme, (website, accessed July 2016)
City of Melbourne, Urban Forest Strategy: Making a
Great City Greener 2012-2032 (2012)
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
increasing stresses on the urban tree canopy and
the prevalence of urban heat island effects and
associated issues.
In response this option would increase the
resilience of urban biodiversity and the urban area
through cooling effects.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred Melbourne and other
urban areas may experience high levels of tree loss
in the following 30 year period. These areas will
also be further exposed to urban heating along with
associated health and economic issues.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
High
Green Infrastructure
UFF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 222
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
As detailed in the related discussion under Need 4 and 16, access to green spaces and greenery has physical
and mental health benefits (Beyond Blue and Deakin University, 2010) and the construction of green
infrastructure is likely to have environmental benefits.
To the extent that Melbourne’s high growth LGAs have a relative lack of green infrastructure, this option is likely
to benefit the community and environment. It is considered likely that funding provided by this option will be
targeted to areas with a relative deficit of green infrastructure, and that councils in high growth areas, as well as
other organisations, would be able to apply for funds. The existing amount of green infrastructure is expected to
vary by high growth LGA however.
This option is considered likely to have a ‘Moderate’ contribution against Need 1.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option could improve access to green infrastructure in high growth LGAs with a relative undersupply of
green infrastructure by increasing the funding pool for programs.
Need 4: Enable physical activity and participation
Evidence demonstrates that access to green spaces and greenery has physical and mental health benefits
(Beyond Blue and Deakin University, 2010). Areas that lack green spaces often have higher rates of people who
do not exercise regularly and higher rates of associated health problems (Ellaway et al, 2005). Through funding a
range of initiatives, this option has the potential to enhance both reserves and parklands but also streetscapes
that create amenity and encourage physical activity such as biking, running, walking, community events, and
gatherings.
This option is assessed as having a contribution of ‘Moderate’ to the need in all time periods,
Metric 1: Increase in access to infrastructure to encourage physical activity
This option would increase access to green spaces and revitalise existing infrastructure such as streets and
buildings and by doing so activate areas that encourage people to be there whether for physical exercise or other
activities. Therefore this option would make a moderate contribution.
Metric 2: Increase in physical participation rate
This option would improve amenity of spaces that may encourage people to be active, but will not necessarily
increase physical participation rates, particularly if not accompanied by programs and other initiatives. A study
(Mourato et al. 2010 in Bowen and Parry, 2015) undertaken in the UK found that an increase in green space
attributed to a 1 percent increase in physical participation rates which had economic benefits of 2 billion pounds
per year. This economic benefit was most notably attributed to the health of elderly persons, which suggests that
given an ageing population, greening of spaces may have the most impact on activity levels of the elderly.
Overall green infrastructure makes a low contribution to increasing physical participation rates.
Need 16: Help preserve natural environments and minimise biodiversity loss
Green infrastructure can significantly contribute to improving urban biodiversity and natural environments. Local
government areas in Melbourne are among those with the lowest urban tree canopy ratios in Australia (City of
Melbourne, 2016).
The lack of species diversity is another pressing concern. For example 35 percent of trees in the City of
Melbourne are comprised of just three species (City of Melbourne, 2015), while 44 percent of total trees in the
City of Melbourne are anticipated to be lost in the next 20 years. Lack of species diversity, ageing of trees, the
stresses of climate change and population growth, impermeable surfaces, pests and diseases weaken urban
biodiversity and environments. Greening in private spaces is also reducing due to expansion of building
footprints.
Existing initiatives to improve green infrastructure include: guidelines, projects and forums. Extending the urban
forest initiative commenced by the City of Melbourne to the broader metropolitan Melbourne is a key action under
the Resilient Melbourne Strategy (2016). At present, initiatives are currently undertaken by a range of
organisations including local councils, Parks Victoria, DELWP, water authorities, community groups and regional
partnering groups such as Greening the West. This option would support these activities by increasing available
funding.
Green Infrastructure
UFF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 223
This option is expected to provide a ‘Moderate’ contribution across all time periods.
The contribution to this need will become more pertinent over time as areas loose trees, and stresses increase
due to climate change, building and density pressures.
Metric 1: Increase in the volume and improve the quality of Victoria’s natural habitat areas
This option would significantly increase the volume of Melbourne metropolitan and regional centres preserved
natural habitat by firstly addressing the decline of biodiversity and tree canopy in Melbourne and regional centres.
As a proportion of Victoria’s overall habitat coverage and quality, that in Melbourne and regional centres may be
proportionally smaller. This option would significantly improve the quality of natural habitat areas through
encouraging scaling-up and knowledge sharing of existing initiatives such the City of Melbourne’s urban forest
strategy which aims to diversify species, reduce canopy loss and increase the resilience of habitats to stresses.
Metric 2: Reduction in indigenous biodiversity losses
This option has the potential to reduce loss and increase indigenous biodiversity, particularly as stresses such as
drought, heat waves, pests and diseases pose risks. Encouraging knowledge sharing of indigenous species,
including increasing species diversity would significantly contribute to meeting this metric.
Need 17: Improve the health of waterways and coastal areas
Increasing green infrastructure (specifically tree canopies) can have benefits to the health of waterways by
reducing water and nutrient flows into stormwater (City of Melbourne 2014). Trees mitigate the effect of heavy
rainfalls, and can absorb chemicals like nitrogen, phosphorus and heavy metal content through their root system
(City of Melbourne 2014).
Through implementation of this option there could be the opportunity to fund wetlands, rain gardens and green
roofs, which are also anticipated to benefit stormwater flows (City of Melbourne 2014).
This option is assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution in all time periods.
Metric 1: Increase of waterways in good or excellent condition
This option could mitigate the impacts of stormwater flows that affect waterway health. In addition, expansion to
the urban tree canopy, and other interventions, could reduce the amount of pollution washed into waterways
during stormwater runoff events.
Metric 2: Improvements in coastal water quality
This option could reduce the impacts of pollution from stormwater, and improve the health of waterways,
contributing to improvements also in coastal water quality.
Green Infrastructure
UFF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 224
Green Infrastructure
UFF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 225
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Green infrastructure will have highly beneficial impacts upon environmental and social factors. This option is
anticipated to have beneficial impacts on improving amenity and increasing the quality of habitats and
ecosystems through street planting, green walls and roofs and connected green corridors. This option is
anticipated to also have beneficial impacts for improved water use in parks such as natural filtering and storage
system at Trin Warren Tam-boore in Royal Park. Benefits apply to all including mental and physical health
benefits. Lower socio-economic neighbourhoods tend to have fewer facilities for outdoor physical activity and
fewer natural elements (Beyond Blue, 2010) and therefore this option is anticipated to benefit these
neighbourhoods. Reducing the urban heating during heat waves is also anticipated to reduce associated health
costs on the state.
Urban planning and approvals processes for health facilities
UPA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 226
Urban planning and approvals processes for health facilities UPA
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Many health services are delivered by the not-for-profit and private sector providing their own infrastructure. The
provision of aged care services in particular are largely undertaken by the not-for-profit and growing private
sector market. At present the sustainability of the aged care sector relies on the continued investment by these
parties, which is largely constrained by the Commonwealth’s bed licensing arrangements.
Current planning requirements impact the availability of land suitable for development in metropolitan Melbourne
and often result in a long approvals process. This also impacts the appetite for continued private sector
development. The private and not-for-profit sector has indicated sufficient access to capital to meet this need.
This option proposes to change the regulatory planning process to fast track the development approvals process
for health facilities.
Sector
Health and human services
Option type
Changing behaviour
Location and spatial context
This option affects the development approvals
process statewide.
Risks and Opportunities
A fast track development approvals process such
as VicSmart may lead to low quality design
outcomes due to lack of scrutiny, development in
the wrong areas and increased community
opposition if third party appeal rights are removed.
A fast track development approvals process such
as VicSmart may lower the barriers to entry to
health facility market enticing more entrants. This
may increase the provision of health facilities to
meet the growing demand.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
State Government of Victoria, Plan Melbourne
Refresh: Discussion Paper (2015)
State Government of Victoria, Plan Melbourne
(2014)
Department of Health and Human Services, Health
2040: A discussion paper on the future of
healthcare in Victoria (2015)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Property Council of Australia, Development
Assessment: 2015 Report Card (2015)
RPS Australia, The 5A’s of Retirement Living –
towards proactive planning policy (2015)
Urban planning and approvals processes for health facilities
UPA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 227
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This is considered a large size regulatory option
that would involve initial policy drafting, consultation
with key stakeholders, and final policy
implementation. This process is expected to involve
public servants and private sector consultants.
The recurrent cost assumes that the cost of
managing the policy addition is absorbed by
existing LGA capacity.
Costing source
Consultant assumptions
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
increasing demand for health facilities driven by an
increase in the ageing population.
In response this option would increase the supply of
health facilities by encouraging investment in the
industry.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the provision of health
facilities may be reduced as they may not present
the best investment option when compared to
alternatives such as residential dwellings.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Urban planning and approvals processes for health facilities
UPA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 228
Contribution to needs
Need 3: Respond to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, particularly due to ageing
The proportion of people aged over 65 in Victoria is forecast to increase and the number of people in this age
bracket likely to almost triple from 2011 to 2051. Into the future there will be an increasing need for health
facilities to cater for the growing ageing population (Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning 2015).
The definition of residential aged care facility under the Victorian Planning Provisions is: accommodation and
personal or nursing care for the aged. Aged care facilities may also include health or other facilities for the
residents. The Victorian planning approvals system currently includes specific provisions that exempt residential
aged care facilities from planning approval requirements on appropriately zoned land. Therefore, depending on
whether the health facility forms part of an aged care facility, in certain locations, planning approval made not be
required for health facilities.
A protracted and complex planning approvals process adds to the cost and creates uncertainty for developers
looking to invest in health facilities, this may discourage provision of health facilities. By making the planning
approvals process for health facilities quicker and easier, evidence suggests that it may make health facilities a
more attractive investment option (Property Council of Australia 2015).
Some potential options for streamlining the planning approvals process include: review planning controls to
potentially exempt health facilities from planning permit requirements in appropriate zones or designated areas.
Remove the need for public advertising or third party appeal rights for health facility applications. Fast track the
planning permit approvals process for health facilities through a code based system such as VicSmart (RPS
Australia 2015).
VicSmart has been implemented to expand the range of developments that are code assessable. Small scale
routine developments that qualify for VicSmart gain the benefit for a 10 day permit turnaround. VicSmart provides
a framework which could be expanded to provide code based assessment for other development types such as
health facilities (Property Council of Australia 2015).
These options may make health facilities more attractive investments options for developers increasing
investment in the sector. This may lead to an increase in the capacity of health facilities, reducing pressures on
existing health infrastructure.
This option receives a ‘Low’ rating against Need 3 over all time periods, as the speed of the development
approvals process is not the only limitation on the provision of health facilities.
The planning system in Victoria is currently undergoing reform and the State Government is looking at
streamlining the development approvals process. While this is rated as a low contribution, this is potentially a low
cost option which could be included in current or future planning reform.
Metric 1: Improvements in access to health services
This option may encourage increased provision of health facilities due to potential reduced cost and time of the
development process.
Metric 2: Increase in efficiency of health services
This option may reduce the lead time and cost of delivering new health facilities by shortening the development
process and reducing the holding cost of land.
Urban planning and approvals processes for health facilities
UPA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 229
Urban planning and approvals processes for health facilities
UPA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 230
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is targeted at increasing the supply of health services for aged care. The option is assumed to enable
increased investment in the aged care sector, improving access to health and health and safety outcomes by
providing appropriated care for the aging population.
This option is also anticipated to result in avoided state costs. By creating incentives for the private sector to
provide aged care services, this option may relieve pressure on state funded health services such as hospitals.
Victorian data analytics centre
VDA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 231
Victorian data analytics centre VDA
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Strengthen the data analytics capability of the recently announced Victorian data agency. This agency would then
identify and develop the processes needed (e.g. algorithms/software) to make big data usable for operational
management platforms and for planning purposes, including performance reporting. For example, it would apply
advanced and predictive analytics to transport data (including from fixed public assets and probe data from
vehicles) to enable real time, dynamic, centralised management of the transport system, particularly for the road
network and on-road public transport, with the object of optimising transport system capacity and improving travel
time reliability.
Sector
ICT
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
This option could have Statewide impacts through
influence on Government policy and service
delivery
Risks and Opportunities
Barriers may exist if access to data is restricted or it
contains confidential information that carries privacy
concerns.
Using real-time data allows planners to provide
precise forecasts on the current situation in the
specific area where people and goods are on the
move. Traffic management can respond to
bottlenecks in real time using vehicle density data
and charging for access to additional lanes.
Adjusting speed limits in hazardous conditions can
reduce accident rates. Adjusting traffic lights to
create a 'green wave’: allowing vehicles to move
across several intersections without stopping
reduces congestion, fuel waste, and delays.
Changing the traffic signal system: using real-time
data, signals on major roadways can automatically
retime and coordinate themselves to the most
efficient interval for the current traffic density.
Transit operators can track and manage their
vehicle fleets using fleet tracking systems and real-
time passenger usage data. Road safety can be
improved with up-to-date information that identifies
potential conflicts between cyclists and heavy
vehicle traffic. Parking in urban areas can be
improved with apps that help car and truck drivers
to find vacant parking spaces. In urban transport,
real-time data can optimise usage by sharing loads
and vehicles.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
McKinsey, Big data versus big congestion: using
information to improve transport (2015)
NSW Government, NSW ICT Strategy Priorities:
Data Sharing and Analytics (website accessed July
2016)
Productivity Commission, Data Availability and Use
Issues Paper (2016)
Productivity Commission, Inquiry Report Public
Infrastructure Volume 1 (2014)
PTV Compass Blog, How real-time data helps
optimize traffic and transport and improve utilization
of infrastructure (2014)
PTV Compass Blog, How real-time data helps
optimize traffic and transport and improve utilization
of infrastructure (2014)
Victorian data analytics centre
VDA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 232
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$100 million – $250 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
5 – 10 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
The capital cost estimate assumes that an existing
building is repurposed, as opposed to constructed
from the ground up. The capital cost is, therefore,
limited to hardware purchases and building fit out,
beyond what has currently been committed to for
the recently announced Victorian data agency.
The annual recurrent cost is based on that of a New
South Wales data analytics centre, where operating
expenses totalled $16.8 million over four years.
Costing source
New South Wales Department of Treasury, NSW
Budget 2016-17 (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
demand for efficiency improvements in the existing
transport infrastructure.
In response this option would improve the
performance and utilisation of the current transport
infrastructure.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the cost of congestion
and transport delays will grow and the advantage of
greater efficiency in the transport network will be
forgone. More pressure may be placed on the
existing infrastructure as a result and may require
additional investments to expand the current
transport infrastructure.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
High
Victorian data analytics centre
VDA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 233
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
Better use of big data by Government is anticipated to benefit policy making and planning, service provision,
accountability and performance reporting. The big data itself is expected to be a mix of government data sets and
publically available information, to be analysed by the Victorian Data Agency to provide useful information to
government stakeholders and Victorians.
The NSW Government has established a Data Analytics Centre, which provides an indication of the range of
activities that could be supported by this option. The NSW Data Analytics Centre aims to support better design
and delivery of services, as well as help grow the digital economy through open data (NSW Government 2016).
Priority initiatives include Services NSW, an initiative to simplify citizen access to government service and Open
Government Data (NSW Government 2016).
Areas of high population growth face a variety of infrastructure challenges, including the effective investment in
transport system capacity, matching access to health and education services with population growth, amongst
others. For growth areas specifically, it is likely that better use of big data could benefit the planning of services
and infrastructure. Increased use of data could help planners and policy makers identify the most efficient
interventions to expand services in high growth LGA to accommodate population increases.
This option has been assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution against Need 1. The option’s contribution is
considered to occur through enabling better responses to infrastructure demands, not responding directly, so a
rating of ‘Significant’ was not assigned.
The NSW Government has established a Data Analytics Centre, which provides an indication of the range of
activities that could be supported by this option. The NSW Data Analytics Centre aims to support better design
and delivery of services, as well as help grow the digital economy through open data (NSW Government 2016).
Priority initiatives include Services NSW, an initiative to simplify citizen access to government service and Open
Government Data (NSW Government 2016).
Areas of high population growth face a variety of infrastructure challenges, including the effective investment in
transport system capacity, matching access to health and education services with population growth, amongst
others. For growth areas specifically, it is likely that better use of big data could benefit the planning of services
and infrastructure. Increased use of data could help planners and policy makers identify the most efficient
interventions to expand services in high growth LGA to accommodate population increases.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
Big data can be used to identify the most effective way of providing services by informing policy and providing a
better understanding of the need for services in areas of high growth.
Need 2: Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth
As detailed in the related discussion for Need 1, big data could be used to support better design and delivery of
services. In the case of areas with low or negative growth, this option could help establish demand and supply of
services, including the evaluating the effectiveness of services.
In the case of transport, real-time data could provide information on current usage and demand that can prompt
operators to adjust supply while maximising service quality for residents of low growth areas.
This option is likely to have ongoing benefits as operators will be able to monitor adjustments to demand in low
growth areas and redirect their services to better meet the needs of residents in low growth areas.
This option has been assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution against Need 2. The option’s contribution is
considered to occur through enabling better responses to infrastructure challenges, not responding directly, so a
rating of ‘Significant’ was not assigned.
Metric 1: Ability to optimise infrastructure delivery while maintaining or improving service delivery within low
growth areas
Big data can be used to identify the most effective way of providing services by informing policy and providing a
better understanding of the need for services in areas of low or negative growth.
Victorian data analytics centre
VDA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 234
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Data is required to plan, deliver and manage transport services and infrastructure. For example, real-time data
can be used to manage congestion and alleviate bottlenecks.
A range of government departments may currently record data relevant to transport planning, including the
density of employment and residential areas, demand for travel and asset utilisation among others. Additional,
non-conventional supporting data may also be publically accessible through a range of data gathering practices
to further support decision making. There is the opportunity to combine these data sets and draw insight through
analytics for management of transport networks and planning for new capacity.
This option could have benefits for the planning, assessment/maintenance and performance of transport
infrastructure that supports access to economic activity in central Melbourne.
This option is likely to have ‘Moderate’ benefits for Need 10 as it has the potential to support demand
management interventions as well as enable better planning and monitoring of access to central Melbourne. The
option’s contribution is considered to occur as an enabler rather than through direct response to the need, so a
rating of ‘Significant’ was not assigned.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
Tracking travellers and using the passenger data can pinpoint where the system is inefficient, and which
neighbourhoods might be over- or under-served. In addition, integrated ticketing and fleet tracking systems make
use of available passenger data to help transit operators track and manage their vehicle fleets (Xerox, City
analytics, 2015).
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
In urban transport real-time data allows optimisation across the network. Digitisation in infrastructure networks
could improve forecasting, the reliability of transport, and its efficiency and utilization by harnessing big data and
technology.
Need 11: Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres
As discussed in relation to Need 10, the use of big data could have benefits for the planning,
assessment/maintenance and performance of transport infrastructure. This would contribution to supporting
access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres.
For example, this option could enable real-time demand management of the transport system, which could
improve access by smoothing the flows of goods and people.
This option is likely to have ‘Moderate’ benefits to meet Need 11, through enabling improved planning, operation
and evaluation of services that provide access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres. The
option’s contribution is considered to occur as an enabler rather than through direct response to the need, so a
rating of ‘Significant’ was not assigned.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from middle and outer major employment centres
Improved data capability can help the transport system identify and predict demand. Real-time data provides a
complete view of current usage and demand.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access middle and outer major
employment centres
With traffic management it is possible to adjust signal timing to the exact arrival time of cars, trams, buses and
trucks, thus ensuring efficient and reliable travel for everyone.
Need 12: Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas
This option could improve access to jobs and services for those in regional and rural areas if excess demand
exists or gaps in the transport network are identified through the use of big data. Similar to Need 1 and Need 2,
this option could improve understanding of demand for infrastructure and services, and the effectiveness of
different models of infrastructure and service provision. This could have benefits to Need 12 outside of those
captured in the metrics.
Victorian data analytics centre
VDA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 235
This option has been assessed as having a ‘Moderate’ contribution against Need 2. The option’s contribution is
considered to occur through enabling better delivery of initiatives that promote access to jobs and services, not
responding directly, so a rating of ‘Significant’ was not assigned.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from major employment centres and service centres in rural and regional areas
Cost savings from improved demand management and efficiency could help expand transport infrastructure to
rural and regional areas. Real-time data could identify areas of greatest demand and the potential for new service
lines.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access to jobs and services in rural and
regional areas
Real-time data can identify poor performing services and lead to improvements in reliability and efficiency.
Metric 3: Improvements in ICT connectivity in rural and regional areas
The requirement for improved data capability relies on adequate data which may see an improvement in ICT
connectivity in rural and regional areas in order to access the real-time data.
Need 13: Improve the efficiency of freight supply chains
This option could improve the efficiency of freight supply chains if interventions reliant on data, for example, real
time responses to changes in demand for transport networks, are enabled. This option could also support better
planning for the infrastructure that affects freight supply chains, for example, ports.
This option is likely to have ‘Moderate’ benefits to meet Need 13, through enabling improved planning, operation
and evaluation of government initiative’s that affect the efficiency of freight supply chains. The option’s
contribution is considered to occur as an enabler rather than through direct response to the need, so a rating of
‘Significant’ was not assigned.
Metric 1: Reduction in cost of the total freight task (origin to destination)
This option could reduce the cost of the total freight task by supporting more effective investment in freight
infrastructure, and through potential uses to improve the effectiveness of existing transport networks.
Need 19: Improve the resilience of critical infrastructure
This option is expected to have a significant contribution to improving the resilience of the State's infrastructure
as better information, particularly real time information, could be used to quickly identify and respond to shocks.
Over time, data collection and use could also inform risk assessment and planning processes.
This option is likely to have a ‘Significant’ contribution to Need 19 if real time identification of shocks is enabled.
Metric 1: Increase in the resilience of critical infrastructure to disruptions
New and up-to-date information that can be easily tracked and disseminated can help operators and customers
keep informed about moment-to-moment changes to infrastructure networks in shock situations.
Metric 2: Increase in the resilience of critical infrastructure to climate change
Data capability that can track changes to usage and disruptions of critical infrastructure could help in the planning
of responses to climate change.
Victorian data analytics centre
VDA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 236
Victorian data analytics centre
VDA
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 237
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Better use and analysis of data is assumed to support better decision making, resulting in avoided state costs.
The application for analysis suggested in the description for this option has the potential to benefit the resilience
of transport systems.
This option has the potential to improve the delivery of a number of Victorian Government services, for example,
those in health or education. The full effect of the option would depend on the integration of the data analytics
centre with the departments that deliver these services, and the improvement in services achieved, which has not
been assessed.
Water delivery efficiency in irrigation
WDE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 238
Water delivery efficiency in irrigation WDE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Irrigation delivery systems in Victoria were traditionally open channel based systems, and studies have previously
shown that these systems lose large quantities of water through evaporation, leakage and seepage.
This option proposes additional investment to improve water delivery efficiency in open channel systems. A range
of projects have been undertaken or are being planned to modernise irrigation systems and achieve water
savings. Examples are the $2 billion northern Victoria modernisation project, pipeline projects completed for the
Wimmera Mallee system and a range of other projects across the state. This option seeks to close out the
modernisation initiative by identifying additional areas that may benefit from irrigation modernisation including
pipelining. This will involve assessment of irrigation systems that still have low delivery efficiencies and
preparation of business cases for modernisation of these systems.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
Better use/New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Rural Victoria
This option is applicable to areas where irrigation
has not yet been upgraded and modernised.
Upgrading has been carried out in a number of
locations including the largest project in the
Goulbourn-Murray region, Werribee and Sunraysia.
Risks and Opportunities
The option involves capital investment in specific
existing irrigation systems. Care will need to be
taken in prioritising sites to make sure that current
land use is sustainable (economically and
environmentally) and consistent with the
implementation of other water strategies
This option will improve the efficiency of use of a
key input in agriculture, which may have additional
benefits for regional communities
Water efficiencies gained through implementation of
the option could free up water entitlements for other
uses, such as environmental flows
Certainty of evidence
High
Evidence base
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, 10-year Evaluation of the Environmental
Contribution – Summary Report (2015)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Water for Victoria, a Discussion Paper
(2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Modernising irrigation systems research
note (http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/water/rural-water-
and-irrigation/improving-irrigation-
efficiency/modernising-irrigation-systems)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Sunraysia Modernisation Project (website
accessed August 2016)
Department of Sustainability and Environment
(former), Water Savings Protocol: Technical Manual
for the Quantification of Water Savings in Irrigation
Water Distribution Systems (2012)
Victorian Auditor General, Irrigation Efficiency
Programs (2010)
Water delivery efficiency in irrigation
WDE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 239
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$25 million – $50 million
Capital / implementation cost
$10 million – $25 million
Annual recurrent costs
$10 million – $25 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
Major irrigation modernisation or pipelining projects
have already been committed to by the
Commonwealth and Victorian governments. The
largest of these projects is the Goulburn-Murray
Water Connections Project, which is currently being
delivered with the aid of $2 billion in funding from
the Commonwealth and Victorian governments.
Further projects under this option, are likely to be of
a much smaller scale. As an indicative example is
the Werribee Irrigation District upgrade, which will
replace 39km of open channels with pipelines,
covering an area of 3000ha. The State Government
committed $11.4 million for the upgrade. As most
projects have been completed across the state, this
option is entails completing a small number of
outstanding upgrades. It is assumed that remaining
initatives could be completed at a cost of double
that of Werribee, totalling approximately $23 million.
Annual recurrent costs have been calculated as the
sum of maintenance/repairs, power required and
labour, which equated to approximately 15 percent
of capital cost per annum.
Costing source
Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into the Food
Bowl Modernisation Project and related matters
(2011)
DELWP (website accessed July 2016)
Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority
website, Comparing Total Costs of Irrigation
Systems in Victoria (2016)
Lower Murray Water (website accessed July 2016)
Premier of Victoria, Irrigation Upgrades for Werribee
and Bacchus Marsh (website accessed August
2016)
What could influence this option?
This option would be influenced by the need to
minimise water losses as water becomes more
valuable in dry periods.
In response this option would improve the utilisation
of existing water supplies, and support future
growth in demand by improving the overall
efficiency of the irrigation system.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred there may be a risk to
long-term water security and supply. As most
irrigation systems have either been modernised or
there are plans in place to do so, the risk is
considered to be relatively low.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Water delivery efficiency in irrigation
WDE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 240
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
This option supports the more effective use of water in agriculture by minimising water losses in delivery systems.
This generates water savings as well as incentivising efficient agricultural practices. Studies (DELWP, n.d.) have
shown benefits from interventions including water being made available for other purposes including irrigation,
urban uses and the environment. In periods where water supplies are constrained, this option ensures that water
resources are conserved.
Overall, this option has been assessed as having a moderate contribution to the need.
This option is likely to have ongoing benefits due to the operating life of the infrastructure and interventions
involved. This option entails completing a couple of outstanding upgrades, for which the benefits will accrue as
these are completed. Given the scale of these remaining upgrades, these are likely to have a moderate impact
across all time periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
By improving the efficiency of irrigation infrastructure this option increases water availability by minimising losses
adding to the pool of water available for uses including urban water use.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option is designed to increase the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems, and so has the potential to have a
moderate contribution against the metric.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
This option would increase the amount of water available for all water users including the environment and
irrigators. As this option addresses the limited number of outstanding upgrades, these are likely to be important
water savings projects for local areas, coupled with the extent of upgrades, this option would make a moderate
contribution to the metric.
Water delivery efficiency in irrigation
WDE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 241
Water delivery efficiency in irrigation
WDE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 242
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected have benefits for resilience, as the intervention is designed to improve water security
through more efficient use. It is also anticipated to support regional communities, through investment in the
agricultural industry. Environmental benefits from the option are limited to better use of a scarce resource. The
gains in water efficiency are assumed to accrue to primary producers, instead of being diverted for a community
or environmental purpose.
Webb Dock freight rail access
WDF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 243
Webb Dock freight rail access WDF
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Provide rail access to Webb Dock to enable it to support end-to-end export and import supply chains. Webb Dock
is currently being expanded to create capacity for an extra one million TEU a year in the Port of Melbourne and is
due to start operating in early 2017. A new access road connecting Webb Dock to the Westgate freeway is being
developed but there is currently no provision for rail transportation. Providing rail access to Webb Dock could
potentially quadruple the capacity of the dock to ~4.5 million TEU.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Melbourne central subregion
This option is located in the Port of Melbourne,
although the benefits of this may be seen along
Melbourne's freeway network.
Risks and Opportunities
There may be risks with contaminated soil from
working in a presently decommissioned rail corridor
and the difficulties constructing a crossing over the
Yarra river. It is assumed that these would be
managed during the construction phase.
The largest opportunity of this option is through
expanding the capacity of the Port of Melbourne, it
delays the need for a second port. The need for a
significant refurbishment or re-build of the West
Gate Bridge / other road infrastructure caused from
the stresses or heavy truck traffic may also be
reduced from potential mode shift from road to rail.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Port of Melbourne Corporation, Port Development
Strategy 2025 Vision (2009)
Port of Melbourne Corporation, Webb Dock
Redevelopment Project – Microsimulation Modelling
Assessment (2010)
Webb Dock freight rail access
WDF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 244
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 billion – $3 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$1 billion – $3 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$25 million – $50 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
Capital costing assumes approximately $200 million
for an intermodal terminal, $300 million for rail line
construction and $500 million for a bascule bridge
across the Yarra River near the Bolte Bridge to
connect to a new elevated rail through the
Fishermans Bend Precinct.
Recurrent cost assume three percent of capital
expenditure per annum for maintenance.
Costing source
Port of Melbourne Corporation, Port Development
Strategy 2035 Vision (2009)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
sufficient volumes of containerised freight through
the Port of Melbourne. Throughput at the port is
anticipated to increase with the expansion of Webb
Dock, which is likely increase the number of road
freight vehicles along the West Gate and Monash
Freeways. This option would allow this freight to be
transport by rail instead. Progression of associated
infrastructure developments, such as the Western
Intermodal freight terminal and the Melbourne to
Brisbane inland rail projects may bring forward the
trigger for Webb Dock rail access. Developing
metropolitan container terminals (option PMM) will
also need to occur to allow for the benefits of Webb
Dock rail.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of Webb Dock, improve the utilisation for road
transportation of containerised freight, and
decrease the number of heavy freight vehicles
utilising the West Gate and Monash freeways.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
10 – 15 years (2026 – 2031)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred road congestion around
Port Melbourne and arterial roads may worsen.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Webb Dock freight rail access
WDF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 245
Contribution to needs
Need 13: Improve the efficiency of freight supply chains
Traffic modelling commissioned by the Port of Melbourne Corporation found traffic to and from Webb Dock will
roughly double between this year and 2025, to more than 10,000 vehicles per day, including more than 6,000
trucks per day (PMC, 2014).
The Port of Melbourne Corporation notes that, based on its trade forecasts and assessment of infrastructure
needs, the optimum time for developing freight rail access to Webb Dock would be in association with the long
term development of Webb Dock for international containers in order to expand the capacity of the port (PMC,
2009).
The contribution of this option in reducing the cost of the total freight task is likely to increase over time. In the
short term, this option may not be required in that there will not be any port capacity constraints (owing to the
current expansion project) and the supporting infrastructure to encourage mode shift (metropolitan container
terminals) are not fully developed. This is not to say there won’t be any immediate changes in mode shift from
road to rail, but before other supporting projects are built these changes may not be substantial.
In the longer term (in conjunction with metropolitan container terminals) this option will be able to increase the
capacity of Webb Dock and also provide relief for inner-Melbourne’s increasingly congested road network.
This option receives a ‘Low’ contribution rating in years 0 – 10, which increases to ‘Moderate’ in years 10 – 15
and ‘Significant’ in years 15 – 30 owing to the increased freight task of Victoria.
Metric 1: Reduction in the cost of the total freight task (origin to destination).
This option is anticipated to reduce the cost of the total freight task over the longer term. As the focus of Webb
Dock shifts to internal container freight, this option is likely to reduce congestion and increase throughput.
Webb Dock freight rail access
WDF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 246
Webb Dock freight rail access
WDF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 247
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
By increasing the capacity of the Port of Melbourne to move freight by rail, this option will assist to lower industry
costs and will improve international competitiveness of Victoria’s export industries. Additional economic benefits
for the State will be derived from the net reduction in transport maintenance costs due to less wear and tear on
the road network.
Although significant resources will be required during the construction phase of this option, over the longer term it
is anticipated to remove 3,500 daily vehicle trips from the Port of Melbourne. The resulting decreases in
greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, and non-renewable energy consumption would be expected
to be significant.
Wonthaggi desalination plant expansion
WDP
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 248
Wonthaggi desalination plant expansion WDP
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option would expand the capacity of the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant to provide greater water security.
The plant can currently deliver up to 150 billion litres of desalinated water, but was built to allow for an upgrade to
deliver up to 200 billion litres.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Melbourne region
This option has the potential to impact all Victorians.
Risks and Opportunities
The option consolidates water production in Eastern
Melbourne, and so limits the contribution the option
can make to the resilience of water networks,
relative to a new site for desalination elsewhere in
the state.
This option could provide incremental expansion,
and so more effectively match the rate of demand
growth than other options for large scale
augmentation.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Aquasure, The Victorian Desalination Process
(website accessed July 2016)
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology 2015, Climate
Change in Australia Information for Australia’s
Natural Resource Management Regions: Technical
Report (2015)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DEegeLWP), Water for Victoria (2016)
Wonthaggi desalination plant expansion
WDP
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 249
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$5 billion – $10 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$1 billion – $3 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$100 million – $250 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
5 – 10 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The existing Wonthaggi desalination plant was
constructed via a PPP with a capital cost of
between $3.5-4.5 billion (Department of Treasury
and Finance 2009). Whilst the current production
capacity of the plant is 150 billion litres per year,
much of the associated infrastructure was designed
and constructed to facilitate a production capacity
200 billion litres per year. This includes the 84
kilometre transfer pipeline, the intake and outlet
tunnels and the power supply capability.
Limited information is available to inform an
assessment of the likely capital cost of expanding
the plant. It has been assumed that the capital cost
to expand the plant capacity by an additional third
would be marginal would be less than proportionate
when compared to the original construction. In the
absence of evidence for costs, a conservatively
high band has been assigned.
Current ongoing costs to the state include an
‘availability charge” of $588 million for the right to
access water from the facility (Deloitte and Aurecon
2016). It is considered likely that the availability
charge would increase in proportion to the
expansion. Therefore, annual recurrent costs in the
range of $100 million to $250 million has been
assumed.
Costing source
Deloitte and Aurecon, Infrastructure Capability
Assessment – advice to Infrastructure Victoria
(2016)
Department of Treasury and Finance, Partnerships
Victoria Project Summary: Victorian Desalination
Project (2009)
Melbourne Water, Summary of Technical Analysis:
2016/17 Desalinated Water Order Advice (2016)
Victorian Auditor-General, Auditor-General's Report
on the Annual Financial Report of the State of
Victoria, 2012-13 (2013)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
population growth and environmental factors
increasing the demand on the Wonthaggi
desalination plant. If storage capacity were to
decrease to a minimum threshold, additional
capacity at the desalination plant may be required
to ensure future supply.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of the desalination plant to help ensure future water
supply.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
15 – 30 years (2031 – 2046)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred future water security
could be threatened. However, the impact of
deferring this option is dependent on a number of
factors. Lower than anticipated population growth,
or favourable weather conditions could extend the
supply of water from existing sources and delay the
need for capacity expansion at the desalination
plant. Alternatively, deferred expansion of the
desalination plant may threaten water security
across the state, given continued strong population
growth and low rainfall.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Wonthaggi desalination plant expansion
WDP
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 250
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
It is assumed this option would be investigated after the desalination plant is in moderate frequency of use,
meaning that the resilience benefits the desalination plant now offers are reducing. It is challenging to forecast
future water supply from rain-fed sources. Considering scenarios for population growth and water supply
developed by DELWP, it is likely that water demand could exceed current water supply in Melbourne between
2025 and 2040 (DELWP 2016).
With a proposed expansion of water supply by 50 gigalitres, this option contributes to the need through capacity
expansion. Producing extra water at the desalination plant will contribute to the need as additional water can be
transported to many regional and rural areas through the interconnected water grid.
The contribution of this option to the need is ‘Moderate’. The contribution of this option increases over time as the
likelihood of water demand in excess of existing water supply increases.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
Through providing additional capacity, this option enhances the likelihood that water supply is sufficient to meet
minimum levels of service.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option does not target the efficiency of irrigation systems and so is not likely to have any direct impacts
against this metric.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
This option increases total water supply in the state, which may increase the volumes distributed to non-urban
water users.
Wonthaggi desalination plant expansion
WDP
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 251
Wonthaggi desalination plant expansion
WDP
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 252
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
The option increases water supply capacity in eastern Victoria incrementally, and so has positive benefits for
resilience. By increasing the total supply of water in Victoria available for distribution, this option may benefit
regional and remote communities.
This option is anticipated to have negative environmental impacts due to the resource intensive nature of
desalination, and the release of by-products into the environment. This option could have further environmental
benefits if environmental water flows were increased following its implementation
Western intermodal freight terminal
WIF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 253
Western intermodal freight terminal WIF
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Development of a new interstate terminal and freight precinct at Truganina in Melbourne's west, as well as a rail
link to the Interstate Rail Freight Network.
Currently interstate containers bound for distribution in Melbourne are railed to terminals at Dynon adjacent to the
Port, and then trucked to the outer suburbs. The Dynon terminals have limited space and capacity, and can be
difficult to access due to increasing congestion on the inner Melbourne road and rail networks.
The Western Interstate Freight Terminal (WIFT) will move freight more efficiently by providing modern terminal
facilities closer to the large industrial cluster in Melbourne's west, reducing the time and length of truck trips.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Melbourne western subregion
This option has the potential to impact all Victorians.
Risks and Opportunities
This is a high cost asset which is dependent on long
term economic growth to become viable.
This option has the potential to significantly
increase the capacity and reduce costs cost of
interstate freight transport in the north-south and
east-west national corridors.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources, Western Interstate
Freight Terminal, website,
http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/fre
ight/intermodal-terminals/western-interstate-freight-
terminal (2016)
Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development, Trends: Infrastructure and Transport
to 2030 (2014)
State Government of Victoria, Victoria the Freight
State: The Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan,
August (2013)
Western intermodal freight terminal
WIF
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 254
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$750 million – $1 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
$10 million – $25 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
The Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Company has
recently entered an agreement with the Sydney
Intermodal Terminal Alliance to build and operate
an intermodal terminal and freight precinct at
Moorebank. On 241 hectares of land this terminal
precinct will connect to Port Botany via ARTC's
Southern Sydney Freight line. It will initially handle
250,000 containers, but this will increase
incrementally to 1.05 million containers by 2030.
This project will also include nearly one million
square metres of warehousing. The Sydney
Intermodal Terminal Alliance will provide most of
the capital investment, approximately $1.5 billion to
the project over 10 years, whilst the Commonwealth
Government will contribute about $370 million to
fund the rail connection, biodiversity offsets and
preparation of land.
The assessment of the western intermodal freight
terminal includes rail connections from existing
freight lines in Albion plus freight handling facilities
and warehousing. These facilities are assumed to
be approximately one quarter of the scale of the
Moorebank intermodal freight precinct project, and
therefore, capital cost is expected to be around one
quarter of the Moorebank project.
Annual recurrent costs are assumed to be three
percent of capital cost.
Costing source
Moorebank Intermodal Company, Fact Sheet
(2016)
ARTC website (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
demand for space at the existing Dynon terminals
exceeding capacity, together with market demand
for a freight terminal closer to existing freight
precincts in Melbourne's outer suburbs.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of the intermodal freight network. It would also
reduce the cost of freight transportation.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
10 – 15 years (2026 – 2031)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred the Dynon terminals
may reach capacity, and containerised freight may
then be directed away from the Port of Melbourne.
Inner city congestion may increase, as the number
of road freight vehicles increases.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Western intermodal freight terminal
WIF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 255
Contribution to needs
Need 13: Improve the efficiency of freight supply chains
The efficiency of interstate freight transportation throughout Melbourne is currently limited by the congested and
difficult to access Dynon terminals. The Western Intermodal Freight Terminal will seek to address these
inefficiencies by providing modern facilities closer to the existing freight precinct in Melbourne’s west. It is
anticipated that this option will significantly improve Melbourne’s freight handling capacity, particularly of the
north-south and east-west national corridors.
A number of confirmed freight capacity related projects are due to be completed over the coming decade, such
that the marginal benefit of this option over the short term may be more limited. In particular, the Western
Distributor (2022) and Melbourne Metro (2026) are both anticipated to relieve pressure on the freight network.
The Western Distributor will directly address port-related traffic on local roads and provide an alternative to the
West Gate Bridge, while Melbourne Metro is expected to increase the mode share of public transport away from
private vehicles. Over the longer term however, it is likely to be a key component of the network required to
transport the forecast 170 billion net tonne kilometres annual freight task by 2046 (State Government of Victoria
2013).
As the freight task increases over time, the benefits of the freight terminal are likely to increase. This option
receives a 'Moderate' contribution to year 15, after which time it increases to 'Significant'. This assessment
assumes that the Port of Melbourne remains operational at full capacity, and the contribution may change if a
second container port were developed. In particular, if the Port of Hastings is developed, containers may be
attracted away from the Port of Melbourne which may reduce the overall impact of an intermodal terminal in
Melbourne's west.
Metric 1: Reduction in cost of the total freight task (origin to destination)
This option is anticipated to reduce the cost of the total freight task. It is intended to increase Melbourne’s freight
handling capacity and will be located closer to the existing freight precinct in Melbourne’s west.
Western intermodal freight terminal
WIF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 256
Western intermodal freight terminal
WIF
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 257
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option expands rail freight capacity on the north-south and east-west national corridors. As a large
investment in freight transport, this option is expected to benefit business costs and trade exposed industries.
Through strengthening freight rail links into Melbourne, this option is also expected to support remote or regional
communities.
Mode shift to freight rail transport from road transport is anticipated to be supported by this option, and benefit
energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
This option is also expected to benefit the resilience of the freight network.
Water infrastructure optimisation through increased network connectivity
WIO1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 258
Water infrastructure optimisation through increased network connectivity WIO1
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option looks at increasing connections between water supply systems and water sources across the state to
improve supply reliability. This would create greater flexibility in the water system and improve the ability to
respond to shortages. Connections previously provided are the North South Pipeline and the Goldfields
Superpipe. This option considers if additional connections or extensions would be beneficial in allowing water to
move to highest value uses across the state.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option affects all water systems statewide.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk that the water sector may evolve
faster than anticipated leading to poor governance
outcomes without a timely review. For example,
more localised solutions to water management may
increase in the short term.
The cost of water for some uses may come down.
This option may better facilitate options such as
WME.
The cost of water for some uses may come down.
This option may better facilitate options such as
WME.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia & Water
Services Association of Australia, Doing the
important, as well as the urgent: Reforming the
urban water sector (2015)
State Government of Victoria, Water for Victoria:
Discussion Paper (2016)
AWA-Deloitte, State of the Water Sector Report
(2015)
Productivity Commission, Australia's Urban Water
Sector: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report
(2011)
National Water Commission, Urban Water in
Australia: future directions (2011)
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Review of urban water
supply strategies (2010)
Water infrastructure optimisation through increased network connectivity
WIO1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 259
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$100 million – $250 million
Capital / implementation cost
$100 – $250 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
Construction of the 70 kilometre North-South
Pipeline that carries water from the Goulburn River
to Melbourne's Sugarloaf Reservoir was completed
in 2010 at a cost of $750 million, and this includes
$50 million of works to increase the capacity of
Winneke Water Treatment Plant and $20 million of
works to build a new pump at Prestion to distribute
water from Sugarloaf, Cardinia and Yan Yean
reservoirs across the Melbourne water network. The
North-South Pipeline is capable of adding 75 billion
litres of water to Melbourne's network each year.
The Goldfields Superpipe has three components: a
46.5 kilometre Bendigo pipeline that cost around
$108 million, a 87 kilometre Ballarat pipeline that
cost around $180 million and an augmentation of
the existing Eppaloch to Sandhurst pipeline.
It is assumed that the major network connectivity
water projects have been completed in Victoria and
that this water infrastructure optimisation through
increased network connectivity option will include
several small scale expansion projects that connect
existing networks.
Annual recurrent costs are assumed to be minimal,
and have been calculated at 2 percent of capital
cost.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by a
need to better coordinate and share infrastructure
and resources amongst water organisations and
regions.
In response this option would reduce the cost of
water and ensure water is utilised where it is most
needed.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred sharing of water
infrastructure could remain limited.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Water infrastructure optimisation through increased network connectivity
WIO1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 260
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
Victoria’s interconnected pipeline network allows for the transport of water around the state, enabling trade. In
periods of low water supply, the network helps lessen threats to water security, as water can be transported from
areas of relatively higher supply, or production in the case of the desalination plant, to areas of lower supply.
The Water for Victoria discussion paper identifies a number of projects that could be implemented to achieve the
aims of this option, and through consultation, more are likely to emerge. The scale of projects is assumed to be
smaller than additions to the network over the past ten years such as large scale pipeline, contributing to the
moderate rating.
This option is assumed to be a rolling series of small scale augmentations to the network over time, with benefits
accumulating accordingly.
This option is rated as Low initially, rising to moderate after 10 years, on the basis that the infrastructure is likely
to become more important in the future.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
Past expansions to the water network have enabled the functioning of the water market and benefited water
security. The contribution to the need is anticipated to increase over time, assuming that expansions are
undertaken sequentially.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
The option does not target the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
Expansions of the water infrastructure network would allow more areas of Victoria access to water sourced from
all over the state and contribute to water security in regional areas.
Water infrastructure optimisation through increased network connectivity
WIO1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 261
Water infrastructure optimisation through increased network connectivity
WIO1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 262
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Through improving governance arrangements, this option seeks to improve the allocation of water between
different uses (community, environmental, agricultural, industrial and commercial). The option is also likely to
benefit resilience by better aligning the planning of different participants in the sector.
If the option is successful, there is the potential for benefits to accrue to different areas. Business may experience
greater supply security or more cost effective supply, including trade exposed industry like agriculture.
Communities, especially remote or regional communities, may also benefit from greater supply security. Finally,
environmental benefits could follow from increased water allocations to environmental water flows.
Water infrastructure optimisation through governance arrangements
WIO2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 263
Water infrastructure optimisation through governance arrangements WIO2
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option is a review to simplify governance arrangements in the water industry. This will provide role clarity,
better facilitate long term planning and investment decisions and ensure optimal use of infrastructure.
The water and wastewater management governance framework in Victoria is generally well regarded across
Australia. This option builds on this by ensuring that governance arrangements enable planning in the long term
interest of customers. Simplified governance frameworks will assist in moving water to highest value uses in a
timely and efficient manner. This will also ensure that policy and delivery functions are clear and that existing
infrastructure is utilised efficiently through more targeted investment decisions and better institutional alignment.
Clear governance structures also enable timely discussions on water resource requirements for the future. For
example, where alternative sources of water such as recycled wastewater or harvested stormwater are being
considered, governance structures with clear ownership, roles and responsibilities enable requirements for
uptake of these resources to be identified and implemented in a timely manner. Having a flexible governance
structure will assist to ensure that available water resources are conserved and additional resources are utilised
to increase water security. It will also assist in delivering financially resilient water businesses over the long term.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option affects all water systems statewide.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk that the water sector may evolve
faster than anticipated leading to poor governance
outcomes without a timely review. For example,
more localised solutions to water management may
increase in the short term.
The cost of water for some uses may come down.
This option may better facilitate options such as
WME.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia & Water
Services Association of Australia, Doing the
important, as well as the urgent: Reforming the
urban water sector (2015)
State Government of Victoria, Water for Victoria:
Discussion Paper (2016)
AWA-Deloitte, State of the Water Sector Report
(2015)
Productivity Commission, Australia's Urban Water
Sector: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report
(2011)
National Water Commission, Urban Water in
Australia: future directions (2011)
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Review of urban water
supply strategies (2010)
Water infrastructure optimisation through governance arrangements
WIO2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 264
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
<$1 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
<1 year
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
As mentioned in the option description, the water
governance framework in Victoria is well regarded.
For costing purposes this option is assumed to
involve benchmarking Victoria's framework against
international examples, reassessing governance
structures in consultation with industry to identify
and resolve barriers to long-term planning and
decision making, and reviewing the roles of various
agencies to ensure clarity in oversight for various
aspects of water management and the water
industry. This work is likely to be led by government
and conducted over a period of time spanning less
than one year.
It is expected that the cost of managing this option
would be largely absorbed by existing bodies. The
outcomes of this reform option are likely to be
relevant for 10-25 years, during which further
investigation would need to be conducted to
respond to changed market conditions.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
This option would be influenced by a need to better
manage investment decisions to increase water
security, and to better coordinate and share
infrastructure and resources.
In response this option would reduce the cost of
water and ensure water is utilised where it is most
needed.
When will it be required?
Victoria may need this option in:
0 - 5 years (2016 - 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred innovation and sharing
of water infrastructure could remain limited.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Water infrastructure optimisation through governance arrangements
WIO2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 265
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
The millennium drought and various floods have shown that the insecurity of inflows into catchments is an acute
issue for the water sector. There is significant evidence to suggest that Victoria will experience reduced rainfall
due to the effects of climate change (State Government of Victoria, 2016). To manage water supply variability
effectively, the water sector needs to have sufficient capacity and resilience to cope with major climate events,
such as floods and droughts (National Water Commission, 2011).
Current governance arrangements for the water sector in Victoria are rated as effective by AWA-Deloitte (2015)
due to well established economic regulatory arrangements. In Victoria the individual water corporations make
decisions with a focus on maintaining water security for their individual water system. In times of stress this may
lead to inefficient water allocation due to service providers, regulators and other parties being unclear on
objectives and responsibilities (National Water Commission, 2011).
Dispersed responsibility for security of supply may lead to poor co-ordination, duplication of processes, and the
preparation of water plans that are not consistent with government objectives. Additionally, all options to secure
water supply may not be properly and fully considered (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010).
Reformed governance arrangements may facilitate more flexible use of existing state water assets and
resources, removing policy barriers which restrict supply. This may allow more efficient trading of water, such as
from the desalination plant, through trade by substitution, to get the most value from surplus water and to support
water management (State Government of Victoria, 2016).
In the short-term this option is likely to assist with more efficient allocation of scarce water resources. In the
future, this option may provide better targeted water infrastructure provision.
This option is rated moderate across the 30 year period.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
This option may reduce the vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages by setting consistent
objectives and clear roles and responsibilities for governments, water utilities and regulators to facilitate efficient
allocation of water resources, better direction of investment, less reliance on water restrictions and water
conservation programs.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option is unlikely to increase the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
Clarifying governance arrangements will enable more efficient and clearer plans on how to secure water
resources for non-urban water users such as the environment, industry/agriculture and water for recreation and
firefighting for example.
Water infrastructure optimisation through governance arrangements
WIO2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 266
Water infrastructure optimisation through governance arrangements
WIO2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 267
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Through improving governance arrangements, this option seeks to improve the allocation of water between
different uses (community, environmental, agricultural, industrial and commercial). The option is also likely to
benefit resilience by better aligning the planning of different participants in the sector.
If the option is successful, there is the potential for benefits to accrue to different areas. Business may experience
greater supply security or more cost effective supply, including trade exposed industry like agriculture.
Communities, especially remote or regional communities, may also benefit from greater supply security. Finally,
environmental benefits could follow from increased water allocations to environmental water flows.
Water market development
WME
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 268
Water market development WME
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option considers expansion of the water market in Victoria to incorporate different types of water users at the
bulk water supply level.
The water market played a key role in the movement of water across Northern Victoria during the millennium
drought. This enabled water trading and movement of water to the highest value uses. This option considers
expansion of the water market with regards to representation of a broader range of water users including urban,
agricultural, industrial, environmental, firefighting and recreational water use. This also includes incorporation of
different water products such as water from storages, recycled treated wastewater and harvested stormwater.
This will promote the use of price signals to determine the value of water.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option affects all areas connected or to be
connected to the Victorian water grid.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk that social equity issues may arise in
allowing water supply for households to directly
compete with water use for economic activities such
as agriculture.
There is an opportunity for development of smaller
(decentralised) water markets around the State
which would increase local resilience to climate
change and assist in better valuing water.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning, Water for Victoria, a Discussion Paper
(2016)
Frontier Economics, Potential water market
expansion: A report prepared for Infrastructure
Victoria (2016)
National Water Commission, Urban Water in
Australia: future directions (2011)
Water market development
WME
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 269
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$10 million – $25 million
Capital / implementation cost
$1 million – $10 million
Annual recurrent costs
<$1 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option proposes a substantial policy change,
as it would likely require extensive stakeholder
consultation, modelling support and market design
expertise to develop a model to expand the water
market.
The functions of the Victorian Water Register may
need to expand under this option, and potentially a
water grid manager may need to be established to
operationalise expanded water markets (Frontier
Economics 2016).
In 2013-14 the State Victorian Water Register was
allocated income of $845,000 to fund activities
(DEPI 2014). Through expanding the market, this
option is assumed to increase the resources
required by ~ $400,000 per annum. The extent of
the recurrent costs will be affected by market design
choices.
Costing source
Department of Environment and Primary Industries
(DEPI), Annual report 2013-14 (2014)
Frontier Economics, Potential water market
expansion: A report prepared for Infrastructure
Victoria (2016)
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by a
determining that pricing signals of bulk water would
ensure the most efficient use of this resource.
In response this option would improve how water is
used.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred other measures to better
utilise water resources would need to be explored.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Water market development
WME
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 270
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
Water markets in northern Victoria are already relatively well developed for the trade of water for irrigation;
however, the market for other water uses and in other parts of the state is largely immature (DELWP 2016).
Currently the options for allowing water markets to determine the distribution of water are limited.
The expanding water grid in Victoria provides an instrument for addressing water shortfalls in regional areas by
allowing access to non-correlated catchments or non-rainfall dependant water sources. It is unlikely that there will
be full interconnection of the water grid across the state due to the high cost of water infrastructure. Water trade
to areas experiencing water security issues can be facilitated by an expansion of the water market which
determines the distribution of water to address scarcity and the value of water demands (Frontier Economics
2016).
The types of water traded across markets are important as water markets in the north of Victoria trade in non-
potable water. If water from a non-potable were moved to a potable water system it would first have to be treated.
Under existing regulatory frameworks recycled water cannot be moved through potable water infrastructure. As
water markets can involve the substitution of water resources, the use of desalinated water in one part of the grid
for example, may reduce pressure on water storage and free up water resources in other parts of the grid
(DELWP 2016). Further research would however be required to determine how different water products such as
recycled treated wastewater or stormwater can be incorporated into the water market.
The expansion of the water market across Victoria could facilitate greater trading across rural and urban water
systems. The entire connected rural and urban water system would be seen as a common resource where
various water users compete to secure water allocations. The level of integration would need to be determined;
however, it is likely that rural and urban water authorities would represent households and residents while large
water users may have individual access.
Evidence suggests that water markets can assist in managing threats to water security. It is estimated that water
trading significantly reduced the impact of drought on regional gross domestic product in the Southern Murray
Darling Basin by around $4.3 billion over the period 2006-07 and 2010-11 (National Water Commission 2012).
Additionally, the experience of urban water businesses in northern Victoria is that water trading enables them to
secure urban water supplies in drought periods (Frontier Economics 2016).
This option receives a ‘Moderate’ rating across all time periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
This option may assist in reducing the vulnerability of water supply systems by allowing water to move more
freely around the water grid. Water may be sourced from non-rain dependant sources or from non-correlated
catchments. Price signals would indicate where water is needed most, and to a certain extent, allow reallocation
accordingly. As such this option has been rated moderate for this metric.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option may lead to more efficient investments in irrigation infrastructure, including the potential for
distribution of costs of irrigation water delivery infrastructure. An expanded water market may facilitate this by
allowing access to non-correlated catchments or non-rainfall dependant water sources.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
Beyond new water sources (e.g. recycled water), water in Victoria is generally allocated. Additional water for one user therefore usually means less water for another user. This option therefore may enable trading of alternative water sources but in itself does not create additional water.
At the same time, a new water market in the south may enable the environment for example to bid for water along with other users. This could create an additional supply for the environment. Similarly irrigators are non-urban water users and a new market in the south for example opens up more opportunities to acquire water through trade. As this option may enable better allocation but will not increase the total water available it is rated low for all time periods.
Water market development
WME
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 271
Water market development
WME
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 272
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option would moderately benefit efficiency of water usage across the state, particularly during times of
drought. For this reason, it would also moderately benefit resiliency of water supplies and reduce disruptions as
noted in the contribution assessment above. Water markets have shown to support regional and remote
communities and economies, through providing greater water security.
Wastewater management in small towns
WMS
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 273
Wastewater management in small towns WMS
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Investment in wastewater management in small towns.
Failing septic tanks can cause environmental problems and pose public health and safety risks. Most small towns
in Victoria have ageing septic tanks and would benefit from clearer planning on wastewater management. This
option proposes government leadership on an approach to manage wastewater in small towns. This includes a
review of current practice, governance arrangements and infrastructure requirements.
New South Wales for example has a Country Towns Water and Sewerage Program that has developed a Best
Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Framework, provides tools, guidance and support to help
utilities adopt better practices, and monitors and reports on utilities’ implementation of better practices and
performance.
South Australia has also explored a community approach to wastewater management in rural townships that
allows for recycling and adoption of integrated water cycle management principles.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
This option will affect smaller regional towns in
Victoria.
Risks and Opportunities
It may be difficult to align funding from different
levels of government and private landholders to
invest in solutions recommended through policy
development.
This option could be expanded from existing septic
tanks to include requirements and guidelines for
new developments related to septic tanks.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Environmental Protection Authority, Water Plan 3
Guidance (2011)
GWMWater, Rupanyup sewerage scheme (2015)
HDS Australia, The South Australian approach to
rural township community wastewater management
(2010)
Victorian Auditor General, Protecting our
environment and community from failing septic
tanks (2006)
Wastewater management in small towns
WMS
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 274
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
5 – 10 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
This option is assumed to be policy development
and review to scope the extent of the problem,
given gaps in current understanding (VAGO 2006).
This option is not expected to result in recurrent
costs. Instead, this option is expected to result in
the development of further programs to address the
issue through infrastructure replacement and
investment.
Costing source
Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO),
Protecting our environment and community from
failing septic tanks (2006)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
desire to better understand the risks posed by
poorly functioning septic tanks to community health
and wellbeing, as well as their environmental
impacts.
In response this option would reduce risk through
identification of problem areas and the development
of mitigation strategies.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
Then the understanding of the risks posed by poorly
performing septic tanks could be reduced.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Wastewater management in small towns
WMS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 275
Contribution to needs
Need 17: Improve the health of waterways and coastal areas
Poorly managed septic tanks can result in pollution of surrounding soil, ground water or waterways (Victorian
Auditor General 2006).
This option would address the impact of poorly managed septic tanks on waterways through a review. The extent
of the risk from poorly managed metropolitan septic tanks is documented, but the extent of risk from poorly
managed regional septic tanks likely not as well quantified (VAGO 2006).
Following the Victorian Auditor General’s report local councils were required to develop domestic wastewater
management plans for townships without central sewerage systems, and most are considered to have done so
(Environmental Protection Authority 2011). This occurred under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage
Program, which also included funding to upgrade regional systems (VAGO 2006, GMWWater 2015). These plans
may require updating (Environmental Protection Authority 2011). Strong evidence is yet to be identified for the
current status of the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program or council wastewater management
plans.
The review could address the gap in understanding of regional issues. As the option describes, the review could
also work towards addressing the gaps by assessing governance and infrastructure needs for a response to the
issue.
This option is considered to have a low direct contribution towards the need of addressing the health of
waterways and coastal areas, but would play an enabling role in addressing the issue. For this reason the option
has been assessed as a ‘Low’ contribution. Subsequent interventions enabled by this option would likely have
higher contributions to the needs.
Metric 1: Increase of waterways in good or excellent condition
There is little available data on the likely extent of this issue, so this option will contribute to the metric by aiding
assessment of the scale of the problem
Metric 2: Improvements in coastal water quality
This option is expected to have limited direct impacts on this metric.
Wastewater management in small towns
WMS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 276
Wastewater management in small towns
WMS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 277
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is expected to benefit regional and rural communities, as the option would identify issues with current
sewerage services and strategies for management. The identification of poorly performing septic tanks is likely to
have health benefits through awareness of the issues.
Wallan rail electrification
WRE1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 278
Wallan rail electrification WRE1
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Extend the electrified metropolitan rail network to Wallan. The scope includes the utilisation of the Upfield Line via
the reinstatement of tracks between Upfield to Somerton with duplication of the track between Gowrie and
Upfield, construction of a new track pair from Roxburgh Park to Craigieburn and electrification works between
Upfield and Wallan.
This extension to the electrified network will give greater access to the new growth areas in Melbourne’s north
through additional services to Seymour, Wallan, Upfield and Craigieburn. It will improve capacity and reliability
across all these lines and operations across the network.
Furthermore it will enable more efficient access to central Melbourne and support access to jobs and services.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Melbourne northern subregion
This option would affect the suburbs within the rail
catchment between Craigieburn and Wallan.
Risks and Opportunities
With the change from diesel rolling stock to
suburban electrified rolling stock, there is a risk that
the community may not support the loss of carriage
seating and conductor service. Negative sentiments
might delay the roll out of the project and potentially
the demand for the new services that electrification
would offer.
There is the opportunity to enhance the greater
power grid during the electrification of the regional
rail lines. This could support power upgrades to
growing communities along the rail corridor saving
future disruption and capital costs.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Network
Development Plan – Metropolitan Rail (2012)
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), Melbourne
Metro Business Case (2016)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Wallan rail electrification
WRE1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 279
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$3 billion – $5 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$1 billion – $3 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$50 million – $100 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
The Wallan extension costing has been done with
the assumption that all existing level crossings to
Craigieburn will have been completed before these
duplication and electrification works begin. The
electrification costed independently and also
including contingency will be around $1.3 billion –
$2.0 billion.
Based on Infrastructure Victoria advice the total
operating cost per annum for the extension is $51
million which increases to $67 million after 15 years.
Further detail is contained in the Major transport
projects preliminary costings in Supplement C (as
part of option CLR).
Costing source
AECOM, Assessment 3 – Supplement C 'Major
projects preliminary costing report' (2016)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
demand for transport into central Melbourne, driven
by strong population growth in Melbourne's northern
suburbs. The station of Wallan is currently serviced
by 14 train services per day into the city. This is
likely to be provide insufficient access to jobs and
services into the future. This option may improve
capacity and reliability of travel to outer northern
suburbs.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of the network to accommodate journeys to and
from the city and employment centres such as
Lockerbie.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
10 – 15 years (2026 – 2031)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred population growth in the
northern suburbs may struggle to access jobs and
services in central Melbourne, given the low
frequency services which are currently provided.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Wallan rail electrification
WRE1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 280
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
The City of Hume and Shire of Mitchell (which contains Donnybrook and Wallan stations) are both extremely high
growth areas, which are likely to demand improved services to those currently provided by the existing diesel
rolling stock.
Over the next 30 years, the City of Hume is expected to grow by 93,000 people to 2031, adding an extra 70,000
– 80,000 people in the period 2031 – 2046. The Shire of Mitchell is also expected to more than triple in
population in the next 30 years, adding 45,000 people to 2031 and an additional 50,000 to 60,000 people from
2031 to 2046. Electrification of the network will increase service capacity to these areas, while also improving
service performance.
This option is expected to have a ‘Low’ rating in years 0 – 5, increasing to ‘Moderate’ in years 5 – 15 and
‘Significant’ in years 15 – 30 as sufficient population is established in the area.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
Electrification is expected to increase capacity on the line, allowing for improvements in service quality and
frequency, which is expected to expand access to transport infrastructure.
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Connecting Wallan and Donnybrook to the metropolitan rail network will allow train services to increase
significantly. Presently, there are 14 services per day which go from Wallan station to the city whereas, only two
stops down the line, Craigieburn has 68 services per day. As population growth continues in these areas, only 14
services per day will likely be insufficient to cater for demand.
Similar to Need 1, this option is expected to have a ‘Low’ rating in years 0 – 5, increasing to ‘Moderate’ in years 5
– 15 and ‘Significant’ in years 15 – 30.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
The additional capacity and improved journey times offered by electrification of the Wallan rail network will
increase the capacity of the network to accommodate journeys to and from activity centres such as Lockerbie.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
Similarly, service improvements will allow the growing populations of Hume and Mitchell to access central
Melbourne more easily.
Wallan rail electrification
WRE1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 281
Wallan rail electrification
WRE1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 282
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Electrifying the rail line from Craigieburn to Wallan will provide a significant service increase to the important
public transport link for the future high growth area in northern Melbourne (Lockerbie). Connecting this area of
affordable housing to the CBD will allow individuals to better access jobs, education, health and other services in
a way which may be more affordable than using a private car.
The electrification will take place along the existing line, meaning the further construction required will be minimal
with no new impacts on local ecosystems or habitats. Increasing the service quality of public transport on this line
will drive mode-shift towards rail, and help relieve congestion along the Hume Freeway coming in to Melbourne in
addition to the environmental benefits from the less energy intensive form of transport.
Wollert rail extension
WRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 283
Wollert rail extension WRE2
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Extend the electrified metropolitan rail network to Wollert. The new electrified section would extend from Lalor to
Wollert as a spur line off the South Morang Line. This extension to the electrified network will give greater access
to the new growth areas in Melbourne’s north and reduce reliance on private vehicles. It will enable more efficient
access to central Melbourne and support access to jobs and services.
To serve the growth areas of Epping North and Wollert in the nearer term (as well as define the corridor for
potential future rail service) a new busway could be implemented utilising the median or edges of High Street.
This bus rapid transit service could be operated to light rail standards (with complete traffic segregation, signal
prioritisation, defined stations, and dedicated, potentially articulated rolling stock) and would include the provision
of a convenient transfer arrangement both to/from trains at Lalor Station.
This staged approach could support the intensification of land development patterns necessary to support the
future implementation of a full rail service.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Melbourne northern subregion
This option is located in the suburbs of Epping
North and Wollert, between Epping Road and the
Hume Freeway in the outer-northern suburbs of
Greater Melbourne.
Risks and Opportunities
The staged approach may reduce the efficacy of
this option, as people may not use the transport
connection if it is not as high quality as a heavy rail
service.
Without other network upgrades there is a risk that
only a limited number of services may be delivered
to along this connection. This could limit the number
of people who switch from driving to taking the train
to work and the resulting congestion reduction
benefits. In order for the benefits of this option to be
fully realised, there will need to be capacity
enhancements at Clifton Hill (not included in the
scope of this project). These works could potentially
be included in other options such as the high-
capacity signalling in RSF, the Clifton Hill junction
rationalisation which may be part of MRC or during
the delivery of Melbourne Metro 2 (MMS).
There is the opportunity to develop this community
around the public transport corridor, reducing car
dependence.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
City of Whittlesea, Complete the heavy rail
extension to Epping North and Wollert (2015)
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Department of Transport, Planning and Local
Infrastructure, Plan Melbourne (2014)
KMPG, Arup & Jacobs, Transport modelling for
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Wollert rail extension
WRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 284
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$500 million – $750 million
Capital / implementation cost
$500 million – $750 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
The capital cost estimate for this option accounts for
construction of road and rail grade separations,
stabling facilities, maintenance facilities and train
stations, including capacity for car parking. It
assumes track length would be around 8.5
kilometres (From Lalor to the corner of Bridge Inn
Road and Epping Road in Wollert via the service
road between the Northern Hospital and Pacific
Epping) and that it would be fully electrified.
Cost per kilometre is assumed to be similar to the
Mernda rail extension, which is proposed to cost
$588 million and will consist of a stretch of twin
track totalling eight kilometres, three new stations,
five grade separations, stabling and electrification
(PTV 2016). This indicates approximately $73
million per kilometre of twin track.
Annual recurrent cost has been calculated as $10
per train service kilometre, which is expected to
cover most costs associated with running the
service, such as power, wages, train stabling and
maintenance. There are approximately 140 services
through Lalor per day (70 each direction), which
extrapolated to an annual figure gives 51,100
services. This slightly overstates the number of
services given fewer trains run on the weekends,
however it allows for some expansion of capacity.
Inputting a distance of 8.5 kilometres yields an
annual recurrent cost of $4.3 million.
Costing source
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Mernda Rail
Extension (website, accessed July 2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Annual Report
2014-15 (2015)
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
population growth in Epping North and Wollert.
In response this option would eventually increase
the supply of the heavy rail network.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
5 – 10 years (2021 – 2026)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred there will not be a high
quality public transport connection to these areas.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Wollert rail extension
WRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 285
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
Wollert is situated in one of the fastest growing areas of Australia, which means there will be a high demand for
good public transport connections in the future. The demand within the Whittlesea will be partly satisfied through
the committed Mernda rail extension due in 2019 (5km west of Wollert), however a large part of this growth is
expected in the Epping North / Wollert area.
This option is expected to have a ‘Moderate’ contribution to the need in years 0 - 10, with the contribution
increasing to ‘Significant’ in years 15 – 30 in response to population growth.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option is expected to directly expand access to transport services in a high growth area.
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
Transport modelling indicates congestion on the arterial roads from the outer-northern suburbs is likely to rapidly
increasing over the next 30 years in a base case without intervention (KPMG, Arup & Jacobs 2016). Growing
congestion indicates that the public transport network, including the heavy rail network will play a larger role in
central city access in the future.
This option would expand the capacity of the heavy rail network through extending electrification.
The proposed alignment of the Wollert extension will service the Northern Hospital and the Pacific Epping
shopping centre, both major activity generators which are currently outside of the walkable catchment of the
existing Epping station.
If implemented in stages using a BRT with provision to be converted to heavy rail, this will allow residents of
Epping North and Wollert to access Lalor station on the South Morang line. In the longer term, the heavy rail
connection will give a direct connection to the central city.
This option has been assessed as likely to have a ‘’Moderate’ contribution rating in years 0 – 15. The contribution
of this option is expected to increase to ‘Significant’ in years 15 – 30 due to population growth.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
As a future growth area, there will be the requirement for high quality public transport connections in accessing
the central city for jobs and education opportunities.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
This option helps reduce congestion through the arterial roads in the northern suburbs, as well as on the Western
Ring road and CityLink.
Wollert rail extension
WRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 286
Wollert rail extension
WRE2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 287
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
As one of the highest future growth areas in Victoria, public transport connections bring a number of benefits
including access to jobs, education, and social opportunities. For example, this option will directly tie the Northern
Hospital and the Pacific Epping shopping centre with a heavy rail line, as they are currently outside the
reasonable walking catchment of Epping station on the South Morang line.
The option is also likely to improve housing affordability by providing supporting infrastructure to greenfield
develop sites.
This connection to the heavy rail network will allow future residents to have less reliance on personal vehicles
and may alleviate congestion on the arterial roads to the north of Melbourne. This is likely to benefit emissions of
greenhouse gases, energy use and resource use.
The expansion of capacity in the transport network is expected to have benefits for its resilience.
Water supply augmentation
WSA1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 288
Water supply augmentation WSA1
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option seeks to significantly increase water supply in Victoria through new desalination and new
groundwater capacity.
In the short term, there are a number of initiatives available to secure water resources during dry periods. Victoria
is however still largely dependent on surface water resources. Assuming current climate projections that indicate
that Victoria will have a hotter, drier climate in the future, this option considers additional major non-rainfall
dependant water supply sources that can provide water security. This may include new desalination capacity. It is
unlikely that groundwater resources in Victoria can provide major water supply augmentation; however, this can
be considered as well. This option is different from option WDP in that it considers major new capacity for the
long term.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Regional Victoria
This option could be implemented statewide.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk that the timing required for major
new augmentation projects is uncertain while lead
times may be required to implement these projects.
With groundwater supply there is a risk that
opportunities for sustainable extraction may be
limited.
There is an opportunity to use of new technology to
augment water supply.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology 2015, Climate
Change in Australia Information for Australia’s
Natural Resource Management Regions: Technical
Report (2015)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DELWP), Water for Victoria Discussion
Paper (2016)
Victorian Water Register, Victorian Water Accounts,
2013-2014 (2014)
Victorian Water Register, 2014-15 water
entitlements and use report (2015)
Water supply augmentation
WSA1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 289
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$5 billion – $10 billion
Capital / implementation cost
$3 billion – $5 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$50 million – $100 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The Wonthaggi desalination plant provides an indicative basis to cost this option, noting that the costs of a new desalination plant would be higher than new groundwater capacity. Given this option is proposing major new capacity; a desalination plant has been used as the cost basis.
The annual recurrent cost estimate is calculated at
the cost of operating the Wonthaggi desalination
expansion (option WDP), plus three percent of the
additional water projects totalling around $500
million, which would be expected to be required for
maintenance of infrastructure.
It should be noted that technological advances may mean that desalination technology becomes more cost effective in the future.
Costing source
Victorian Auditor-General's Office (VAGO), Report
on the Annual Financial Report of the State of
Victoria, 2012-13 (2013)
What could influence this option?
This option would be influenced by population
growth and development increasing demand for
water, at the same time that climatic factors
threaten existing water sources. This option would
be required when demand for water exceeds the
current capacity of existing water infrastructure.
In response this option would increase water and
assist to improve the security by moving away from
a reliance on rainfall dependant sources.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
15 – 30 years (2031 – 2046)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred there may be reduced
security of water supply. Large scale supply
augmentation will likely remain one tool in a range
of approaches to address water security, so it is
likely that this option could be deferred if demand
management/ incremental supply additions/
efficiency upgrades were more effective.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Water supply augmentation
WSA1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 290
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
Forecasts of future climate indicate that variability in water supply is likely to increase. With increasing population
and a changing climate, the need for additional water supply augmentation may emerge in Victoria. This option
responds to these changes. It is assumed this option would be investigated after the desalination plant is in use,
meaning that the resilience benefits the desalination plant now offers are exhausted. It is challenging to forecast
future rainfall; however, it has been assumed that this occurs towards the end of the next thirty years (see
DELWP, 2016).
There is ongoing innovation and development in desalination technology, and there is also ongoing research and
development on sustainable use of groundwater resources. The intention of the option is that a large scale
augmentation to supply is built to provide water security. This is anticipated to strongly reduce the vulnerability of
water systems to water shortages when implemented by increasing the supply of water available to be allocated
to different purposes (for example, environmental, urban, and agricultural).
The option is anticipated to have a ‘Significant’ and ongoing benefit against the need once implemented.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
This option supports investment in large scale augmentation of water supplies, which would have a significant
contribution against this metric.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
The option does not target the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
Large scale supply augmentation is likely to occur close to areas of high urban use, however, additional supply
on the network frees up water for alternate use in other areas, including environmental and irrigation water uses.
Water supply augmentation
WSA1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 291
Water supply augmentation
WSA1
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 292
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Rain fed water supplies are likely to be increasingly variable in the future, and may not be sufficient to keep pace
with demand. Water is an essential part of community, economic and environmental wellbeing and rural and
regional areas have been particularly impacted by reduced water supply in dry periods. As this option is for a
substantial augmentation of the water supply system to increase supply and security of supply, and is likely to
result in new augmentation outside of Melbourne, this option has wide ranging benefits including the improved
resilience.
Industrial users and trade exposed industries are anticipated to benefit from increased supply security, including
agricultural users. It is also supports remote or regional communities. Increased supply further increases the
availability for water for environmental flows which could benefit habitats and ecosystems. Improved water supply
security is anticipated to benefit access to community and sporting infrastructure that could be compromised
during periods of shortage.
Environmental impacts of this option would ultimately depend on the technology implemented. For example,
resource and energy use would likely be high under a desalination option. As the technology to be used has not
been specified, the full environmental impacts have not been assessed here.
Water supply augmentation through building new dams
WSA2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 293
Water supply augmentation through building new dams WSA2
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option considers building new dams to provide additional water supply for Victoria. While current climate
projections indicate that Victoria will have a hotter, drier climate, this option considers whether there are water
catchments that can provide suitable rainfall runoff yields to enable the construction of new dams. Benefits of this
would be creation of additional water resources for consumptive purposes and therefore increasing water
security.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option affects all potential sites for new dams
across Victoria.
Risks and Opportunities
There is a risk that there is insufficient additional
rainfall runoff to fill large new dams. Dams can also
cause environmental degradation. This would need
to be addressed in the design, implementation and
operation of any new dams.
This option may reduce the impacts of flooding in
some areas.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
CSIRO, Climate Change in Australia: technical
report (2015)
Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DELWP), Climate Change and Victoria
(website accessed August 2016)
Federal Department of Environment and CSIRO,
Climate Change in Australia (website accessed
August 2016)
University of Melbourne, Stormwater Harvesting
and the Potential for New Dams in Victoria (2016)
Water supply augmentation through building new dams
WSA2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 294
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$250 million – $500 million
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
$10 million – $25 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
The 2012-2013 NSW budget estimated a
requirement of $400 million required to increase the
capacity/number for dams. It is assumed a similar
capital cost will be required for a similar project in
Victoria.
Annual recurrent cost has been calculated at three
percent of capital costs.
Costing source
Infrastructure New South Wales, State
Infrastructure Strategy: Water infrastructure (2012)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
forecast future water scarcity in Victoria.
In response this option would increase the
resilience of Victoria's water storages, by increasing
capacity.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred Victoria would need to
increasingly consider other options to reduce
demand for water and/or increase supply through
other measures.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Low
Water supply augmentation through building new dams
WSA2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 295
Contribution to needs
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
Dams are important to Victoria’s water supply security as they play a key role in balancing out the natural
fluctuations in stream flows. The variability in stream flows in Australia is high. This increases the need for large
water reserves to provide water security in times of low rainfall. Increasing climate variability is predicted to
decrease the amount of surface water available for capture in the future (CSIRO 2015).
In the past 30 years, there has been significant change in the importance of protecting and enhancing the
environment. Any consideration of potential dam sites should consider the full range of economic, environmental
and social impacts during construction and operation.
An analysis of potential opportunities for new dams in Victoria undertaken by the University of Melbourne
(University of Melbourne 2016) for Infrastructure Victoria concluded that there is no opportunity for large dams to
be built in northern Victoria, and limited opportunity to build large dams in undeveloped areas in southern
Victoria.
The water supply increases provided by existing dams are anticipated to be small providing an additional yield of
less than 0.5 percent of water supplies. Based on this information, the University of Melbourne concluded that
there is only a small potential to augment water supplies, and therefore manage threats to water security in
Victoria by building new large dams (University of Melbourne 2016).
This option is rated ‘Low’ across all time periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
This option is anticipated to reduce the vulnerability of water supply by augmenting the total capacity of water
supply across Victoria. Options for the location of new dams is limited, however, depending on connections and
water market regulations, additional water has the potential to be traded across the network to where it is most
needed. Additional available water is anticipated to be limited due to the limited availability and yield of potential
large dams.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option is not considered to affect the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems.
Metric 3: Increase in total water available for non-urban water users
This option may increase the availability of water for nonurban users by increasing the total amount of water
available across Victorian dams. Additional available water is anticipated to be limited due to the limited
availability and yield of potential dam options.
Water supply augmentation through building new dams
WSA2
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 296
Wind and solar energy generation large scale investments
WSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 297
Wind and solar energy generation large scale investments WSE
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Similar to proposals by the government this option considers State-wide auction schemes to develop wind and
solar energy in Victoria. Based on developed targets for renewable energy development in Victoria, this option
proposes to subsidise wind and solar generation by the implementation of a state-wide auction scheme. Projects
would be chosen on a 'value for money' basis, and proponents would enter into long-term contracts with the
Victorian Government in some capacity. This would provide flexibility on project administration and cost recovery.
Evidence indicates that large scale wind and solar farms will be the major sources of low emission energy over
the next 30 years. Any energy transition policy is therefore likely to focus on the build out of these generation
technologies. This option involves the development of a program that subsidises investments in large-scale wind
and solar generation in Victoria. Similar incentive schemes are currently in operation nationally, through the
Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and in states and territories, such as the ACT Renewable Energy
Target.
Sector
Energy
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
Under this option, wind and solar resources across
the state could be developed.
Risks and Opportunities
Subsidies have the potential to crowd out R&D and
innovation and the specification of wind and solar
as technologies for a potential auction process is
restrictive.
A high penetration of intermittent generation can
challenge the stability of electricity networks through
causing frequency control issues. With high
penetration of intermittent generation additional
risks such as price volatility in the wholesale market
might arise.
Supporting investments in reserve, fast dispatch
generation could be required to provide continuity of
supply when renewable resources (such as wind,
sunlight) are unavailable. These would likely need
to be equivalent to the magnitude of renewable
capacity.
This option is likely to affect the commercial viability
of existing generators. Care would need to be taken
to maintain investor confidence in the Victorian
energy supply sector.
The option could form part of an explicit strategy to
transition to low carbon energy supply, including
identification of generation sources to be replaced.
There is an opportunity to undertake this option in
conjunction with the Electricity network
infrastructure capability option (ENI) to establish a
strategy for Victoria’s future energy generation and
identify opportunities to expand renewable energy
infrastructure.
The installation of capacity using wind or solar
technologies could be scaled to adapt to the
location of renewable energy resources around the
state, and potentially, to optimise the performance
of the network.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
ACT Government Environment and Planning
Directorate, Solar Auction (2016)
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO),
Generation Information, 2016
Deloitte, Infrastructure Capability Assessment:
Energy (2016)
Department of Economic Development, Jobs,
Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), Victoria’s
Renewable Energy Roadmap (2015)
Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC),
Renewable Energy Targets to create thousands of
jobs (2016)
Department of the Environment, State and Territory
greenhouse gas inventories (2015)
Geoscience Australia, Solar Energy (website,
accessed July 2016) (2016b)
Grattan Institute, Climate phoenix: a sustainable
Australian climate policy (2016)
Wind and solar energy generation large scale investments
WSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 298
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
>$10 billion
Capital / implementation cost
>$10 billion
Annual recurrent costs
$250 million - $500 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
25 – 50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
Wind and solar are now close to being competitive
with new build fossil fuels (depending upon
commodity price and capital return assumptions). A
large amount of renewable generation would be
needed to replace one or two brown coal power
stations. The annual generation of Hazelwood and
Yallourn (the two oldest stations) is approximately
equivalent to 6000-6500 MW of wind generation.
It is estimated that wind capital cost is $2,450/kW,
with fixed maintenance costs of $44/kW/annum. To
produce an equivalent amount of energy as
generated by Hazelwood and Yallourn, total capex
in wind energy infrastructure would, therefore, need
to total approximately $16 billion, with ongoing
annual maintenance costs required at around $352
million. The cost assumption under this option is
that the Victorian Government subsidise a portion of
capital and recurrent expenditure for a number of
wind projects that total this scale over the next 30
years.
The capital and recurrent costs are based on wind
generation. Values would vary with consideration of
solar.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by the
capacity of the State to meet its renewable energy
targets given the current state of infrastructure.
In response this option would increase the supply
and use of renewable energy.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
0 – 5 years (2016 – 2021)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred, additional investment in
renewable generation would occur based on project
economics and existing Federal incentives. The
quantity of investment would likely be higher with
additional State subsidies.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Wind and solar energy generation large scale investments
WSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 299
Contribution to needs
Need 18: Transition to low carbon energy supply and use
The majority of electricity used in Victoria is generated by emissions intensive fossil fuel generation such as
electricity provided from brown coal power plants, which have been identified “high emitting” (Grattan 2016).
This option supports the need to transition to low carbon energy supply and use through commissioning and
subsidising investment in new renewable capacity. This option proposes the mechanism of an auction process,
which has recently been used in the ACT to commission new energy supply. An auction process allows the
private sector to tender for supply, and the State can impose a range of supporting selection criteria, for example,
price, responsiveness to identified gaps in supply, generation characteristics.
The ACT auction procured large scale investment in renewable generation. The auction process elicited the
lowest bids for renewable energy generation in the country (Renew Economy 2016) and when completed the
solar farms will produce enough power to supply around 10,000 Canberra houses, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by 1,400,000 tonnes over 20 years (ACT Government Environment and Planning Directorate 2016).
Wind and Solar technologies are specified in this option. These technologies have the advantages of being in use
in Australia and around the world. Wind in particular is well developed, and is the fastest growing renewable
energy source in many countries (Geoscience Australia 2016b). Victoria has both wind and solar resources that
could be developed to use for electricity generation (Geoscience Australian 2016a, Geoscience Australian
2016b). These are likely to be sufficient to supply the required generation.
In the costing assumptions for this option, this has been assumed to provide approximately 200 MW of large
scale solar. The amount of wind energy that could be supplied has not been directly quantified, however, is
assumed to be larger than the amount of solar due to the relative differences in the levelised cost of energy of the
two technologies.
The option is assumed to contribute to the need by displacing fossil fuel generation with renewable technologies.
Due to the assumed scale of the option the contribution is considered to be ‘Significant’ in all periods following
implementation.
Metric 1: Reduction in Victoria's greenhouse gas emissions
This option supports a higher market share for renewable generation and therefore is likely to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
Wind and solar energy generation large scale investments
WSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 300
Wind and solar energy generation large scale investments
WSE
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 301
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option supports significant additional renewable energy generation, through which it is expected to have a
number of positive environmental impacts. These include those to resource use, energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions. There is also the potential for benefits to air pollution and water use (as some fossil fuel generation
types are water intensive).
This option is for a large scale investment in renewable energy, which is expected to result in changes to
generation due to the anticipated displacement of fossil fuel generation from electricity supply. The anticipated
reduction jobs in fossil fuel generation is anticipated to be mostly offset by the jobs created for renewable energy
asset construction and maintenance, as well as jobs associated with technology development and innovation.
The location of the jobs will likely be different however.
This option supports significant investment in intermittent electricity supply sources. This is considered likely to
affect the resilience of the network. Increasing the volatility of electricity supply is also expected to affect
wholesale market prices, increasing costs to businesses and households.
This option is anticipated to have a negative impact on gross state by likely reducing the productivity of the
electricity supply sector. This is as the option would increase the resources tied up in electricity generation by
supporting the development of higher cost electricity generation sources to displace lower cost (although
emissions intensive) sources.
Wyndham Vale to Werribee rail extension
WVW
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 302
Wyndham Vale to Werribee rail extension WVW
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
Extend the electrified metropolitan rail network between Wyndham Vale and Werribee. The extension will
accommodate future growth in Werribee West and provide a direct rail-rail interchange for passengers travelling
between the Geelong and Werribee lines. With the completion of Regional Rail Link, Geelong services no longer
use the Werribee rail corridor. Currently a bus service meets each train at Wyndham Vale to connect with
Werribee line services. This option will give greater access to the new growth areas in Melbourne’s west through
additional services and new stations. It will enable more efficient access to central Melbourne and support access
to jobs and services.
Sector
Transport
Option type
New or expanded assets
Location and spatial context
Melbourne western subregion
This option affects the Regional Rail Link as well as
Werribee lines, as it may affect the demand on
both.
Risks and Opportunities
Without other network upgrades there is a risk that
only a limited number of services may be delivered
to along this connection. This could limit the number
of people who switch from driving to taking the train
to work and the resulting congestion reduction
benefits.
There is an opportunity to relocate the Newport
Workshops to Wyndham Vale with this option. This
could free up valuable inner city land for
redevelopment and provide employment in a high
growth area.
Certainty of evidence
Medium
Evidence base
Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2015 and
Victorian Government unpublished population
projections (2015)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Network
Development Plan – Metropolitan Rail (2012)
Wyndham Vale to Werribee rail extension
WVW
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 303
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$500 million – $750 million
Capital / implementation cost
$250 million – $500 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
>50 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Medium
Costing assumptions for this option account for
construction of road and rail grade separations,
stabling facilities (mentioned in PTV’s Network
Development Plan 2014), maintenance facilities and
train stations (including capacity for car parking). It
assumes track length is 5.75 kilometres and that it
will be fully electrified with a new station at Black
Forest road. Cost per kilometre is assumed to be
similar to the Mernda rail extension, which is
proposed to cost $588 million and will consist a
stretch of twin track totalling eight kilometres, three
new stations, five grade separations, stabling and
electrification. This works out to approximately $73
million per kilometre of twin track.
Annual recurrent cost has been calculated as $10
per train service kilometre, which is expected to
cover most costs associated with running the
service, such as power, wages, train stabling and
maintenance. There are 136 services through
Werribee per day (68 each direction), which
extrapolated to an annual figure gives 49,640
services per annum. This slightly overstates the
number of services given fewer trains run on the
weekends, however it allows for some expansion of
capacity. Inputting a distance of 5.75km yields an
annual recurrent cost of around $2.9 million.
Costing source
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Mernda Rail
Extension (website, accessed July 2016)
Public Transport Victoria (PTV), Annual Report
2014-15 (2015)
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
sufficient demand for transport between Wyndham
Vale and Werribee, through to central Melbourne.
In response this option would increase the supply of
public transport through the City of Wyndham, and
increase redundancy in providing two separate rail
corridors for people in Wyndham Vale to travel to
the central city.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
15 – 30 years (2031 – 2046)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred Private motor vehicle
development pattern in high growth areas not
addressed. Misses opportunity to connect the
Geelong and Werribee lines and build in
redundancy.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Wyndham Vale to Werribee rail extension
WVW
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 304
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
As an extremely high growth area, good public transport connections in to the central city and East Werribee
employment centres will likely be needed in the future.
This option is listed in PTV Network Plan to be implemented in the next 20 years; however the strategic direction
of Government may differ from this plan.
This option is considered to make a ‘Moderate’ contribution in all time periods.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option is likely to improve access to heavy rail services through a line extension.
Need 10: Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne
This option will improve capacity to accommodate more journeys to/from the central city along both the Geelong
line and Werribee line, however the majority of passengers will be encouraged to take the metropolitan service
(via the Werribee line). Access to the East Werribee employment precinct via Hoppers Crossing or potentially the
future Derrimut road station from Wyndham Vale will require this connection to occur.
The option is considered to provide a ‘Moderate’ contribution to the need across all time periods, as there are
other public transport options to the central city (although would most likely not be as frequent as the electrified
service).
This option may be dependent on the electrification of the RRL towards Geelong, as Wyndham Vale station may
be connected to the electrified network therefore reducing the need for this extension. The development of the
East Werribee employment precinct will also dictate the future transport demand of the area.
Metric 1: Increase in supply or management of demand for transport system capacity to accommodate journeys
to and from the central city
By attaching Wyndham Vale station to the metropolitan network, this will increase the ability for both Wyndham
Vale and Geelong customers to access the central city through a combination of greater service provision and
less congestion. This option will require works expanding the corridor towards the city, and adding more
customers to the busy Werribee line may be counterproductive in the shorter term.
Metric 2: Improvements in transport performance across the network to access central Melbourne
Wyndham Vale station is presently has 51 V/Line services towards the city per day (coming from Geelong),
however in the AM peak the average train is 88 percent full (V/Line performance data). By attaching Wyndham
Vale in to the metropolitan network, it will allow higher capacity trains to operate (Werribee currently has 64
services per day), significantly reducing congestion on Geelong bound trains.
Wyndham Vale to Werribee rail extension
WVW
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 305
Wyndham Vale to Werribee rail extension
WVW
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 306
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
Extending the metropolitan rail line from Werribee through to Wyndham Vale will provide important public
transport links for this high growth area. Connecting this area of affordable housing to the future East Werribee
employment centre and on to the CBD will allow individuals to access jobs in a way which may be more
affordable than using a private car.
A wide variety of other major social, recreational and educational opportunities will become accessible for the
mainly residential Wyndham Vale area in the nearby activity centres and central city.
The proposed alignment for this extension will be a new greenfield line requiring intensive construction including
some grade separation works and new stations will be required. Providing this line and allowing people to choose
public transport instead of driving private vehicles is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other
externalities associated with car use.
Waste water system augmentation in high growth areas
WWS
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 307
Waste water system augmentation in high growth areas WWS
Infrastructure Victoria’s Option Description
This option seeks to increase sewerage and wastewater treatment capacity to manage future demands in
Melbourne and regional cities and diversify wastewater management options.
For example, the sewerage system in metropolitan Melbourne is under increasing pressure as land subdivisions
and development (e.g. for apartments) increase peak wastewater flow rates and volumes.
This option considers critical points in the sewerage system that may require augmentation or potential for
additional localised wastewater treatment facilities.
Sector
Water and waste
Option type
Better use
Location and spatial context
Statewide
This option will affect the high growth areas around
Victoria.
Risks and Opportunities
This option may duplicate the role existing
governance structure in the water and waste
industry.
Certainty of evidence
Low
Evidence base
Deloitte and Aurecon, advice to Infrastructure
Victoria, Infrastructure Capability Assessment,
Water and Waste (2016)
SGS Economics and Planning, Current and Future
State of Victoria -a spatial perspective, advice to
Infrastructure Victoria (2016)
Western Water, Annual Report 2014-15 (2015)
Waste water system augmentation in high growth areas
WWS
Supplement B – Options assessed Page 308
Direct option cost
The capital or implementation cost of the option,
plus the annual recurrent costs incurred within the
30 year study period of this option is:
$1 million – $10 million
Capital / implementation cost
<$1 million
Annual recurrent costs
$1 million – $10 million
Option lead time
If this option was committed to today, it could be
implemented in:
1 – 5 years
Operational life
The expected operational life of this option (from
opening) is:
10 – 25 years
Cost certainty
The certainty of costing evidence is rated:
Low
As reviews and audits of water businesses suggest
that forward planning is occurring for population
growth, this option does not recommend specific
capital projects. This option has consequently been
understood as an ongoing consideration of the
adequacy of planning and the potential for gaps.
Annual recurrent cost has been calculated to
accommodate periodic review of planning.
Costing source
Stakeholder consultation
What could influence this option?
The need for this option could be influenced by
increased demand on waste water and sewerage
system, primarily associated with urban and
population growth, and failure in current governance
arrangements to accommodate this.
In response this option would increase the capacity
of sewerage systems to cope with increased
demand, particularly in areas forecast for high
growth.
When could it be required?
Victoria may need this option to be implemented in:
15 – 30 years (2031 – 2046)
What is the risk of deferring this
option?
If this option were deferred certain parts of the
sewerage system could come under undue strain,
and performance of the system could decline.
The risk to the State if this option is deferred is:
Medium
Waste water system augmentation in high growth areas
WWS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 309
Contribution to needs
Need 1: Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth
This option addresses the need for infrastructure in high growth areas by considering where high growth may
result in the need for sewerage network or treatment augmentation.
This option is considered likely to be required in the future. Recent upgrades to increase capacity and planned
future upgrades to assets in the wastewater and recycling networks mean that much of the network is in good or
reasonable condition (Deloitte and Aurecon, 2016). Performance of Victorian sewerage networks, as assessed
through sewer overflows, is stronger than the national average, with metropolitan systems stronger than regional
(Deloitte and Aurecon, 2016).
Large gaps in current planning for population growth were not identified during a literature review. For example,
Western Water’s jurisdiction contains a number of forecast high growth LGAs. Western Water is planning for
population increases of three to four percent per annum, and intends to increase capital expenditure strongly to
meet this forecast demand (Western Water 2015). The Essential Services Commission is involved in approving
the expansion plans for water utilities, which are audited by the Victorian Auditor General. Neither body has
publicised substantial planning gaps.
In the future network augmentations are expected to be necessary to meet demand, after the current cycle of
network investment and corporate planning has been implemented. At this point, the option is likely to provide a
low contribution, but an enabling response, to the need by identifying areas for augmentation.
This option has been assessed as providing a 'Very Low / Negative' contribution in years 0 -15, and then a 'Low'
contribution in years 15 -30 when planning may need to be undertaken to assess new capacity needs.
Metric 1: Ability to improve access to services or increase service capacity for high growth areas
This option is not anticipated to contribute strongly to the need, but could enable policy development to improve
access to services in the future.
Need 14: Manage threats to water security, particularly in regional and rural areas
This option could contribute to the need if the implementation of the option resulted in increased water recycling.
This would likely be for non-potable uses and so would require supporting infrastructure for transport to have a
contribution to the need. In the future, expansion of wastewater treatment capacity could also include recycling
water for potable uses, which combined with the supporting infrastructure to supply water to users, could have a
contribution against the need.
As these outcomes are uncertain, this option has been assessed as having a ‘Very Low/ Negative’ contribution.
The contribution of this option is anticipated to remain consistent across periods. The contribution of this option is
anticipated to remain consistent across periods.
Metric 1: Reduction in vulnerability of water supply systems to water shortages, that is, supply is sufficient to
meet minimum levels of service agreed with water users
Implementation for this option in the future could result in a contribution against this metric, however this
outcomes is uncertain as sewerage treatment capacity can be addressed without affecting this metric.
Metric 2: Increase in the efficiency of irrigation delivery systems
This option is not expected to contribute to this metric.
Metric 3: Increase total water availability for non-urban water users
Implementation for this option in the future could result in a contribution against this metric, however this
outcomes is uncertain as sewerage treatment capacity can be addressed without affecting this metric.
Waste water system augmentation in high growth areas
WWS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 310
Waste water system augmentation in high growth areas
WWS
Supplement B – Options assessed (document 4 of 4) Page 311
Economic, social and environmental assessment summary
This option is likely to have benefits for the resilience of the wastewater treatment network and infrastructure,
through assessing network adequacy. As a policy initiative this option could enable other benefits, particularly to
air and water pollution, however these have not been assumed as an outcome of the option.