30 October 2016

Michael MassonChief Executive OfficerInfrastructure Victoriaenquiries@infrastructurevictoria.com.au

Dear Mr Masson,

Re: Submission to Infrastructure Victoria – Draft 30-year infrastructure strategy

OverviewThank-you for the opportunity to comment on Victoria’s Draft 30-year infrastructure strategy (‘Draft Strategy’).

I would like to commend Infrastructure Victoria on compiling the Draft Strategy to inform long term infrastructure planning in Victoria. The Draft Strategy, in addition to the Draft options book version two (‘Draft Options Book’), represents a comprehensive effort to plan for Victoria’s current and future infrastructure needs. I also appreciate the opportunity to submit feedback on some of the recommendations contained in the Draft Strategy as a private citizen who has taken a long term interest in infrastructure matters in the state in which I was born and raised.

Whilst this submission has provided opinions on some of the recommendations presented in the Draft Strategy, further unsolicited recommendations have also been provided on options either not considered by either the Draft Strategy or the Draft Options Book, or in some cases where I have attempted to draw together common threads and interlinkages between multiple recommendations to paint a more holistic picture of Victoria’s infrastructure needs for your consideration. These further recommendations are contained on pages 14-18. As a general comment, it is noted that references in the Draft Strategy and the Draft Options Book are made to the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and it is submitted that Infrastructure Victoria could use (if does not do so already) a shadow carbon price to better assess the environmental benefits of proposed infrastructure recommendations. This would assist in reducing the risk to Victoria from climate change, rising energy prices, the possibility of a re-introduction of a price on carbon or emissions trading scheme and would assist Infrastructure Victoria in making better strategic decisions in regards to infrastructure planning.1

In closing, the Draft Strategy contains many great opportunities that could be brought to fruition to improve the quality of life for Victorian residents, reduce the cost of living and the cost of doing business, improve efficiency across the transport network, open up new economic opportunities and reduce GHG emissions on a considerable scale.

1 Tyler Elm and Jim Harris, ‘The Benefits of Carbon Shadow Pricing’, The Huffington Post Canada (online), 23 October 2012 <http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tyler-elm/carbon-shadow-pricing_b_2001004.html>

1

Once again, I thank Infrastructure Victoria for the opportunity to contribute to the future of Victoria’s infrastructure and would be happy to address any of the points raised in this submission.

Yours sincerely,

Justin Sowden

2

ContentsOverview...............................................................................................................................................1

Comments on specific recommendations.............................................................................................4

10-car metropolitan trains – 10.5.2...................................................................................................4

Brown coal transition – 18.2.1...........................................................................................................5

Wallan rail electrification – 1.3.7, 10.8.4...........................................................................................5

Clyde rail extension – 10.8.5..............................................................................................................6

City Loop reconfiguration – 10.10.1..................................................................................................6

Doncaster bus system – 10.6.4..........................................................................................................6

Geelong/Werribee/Wyndham rail – 1.3.4, 10.8.2, 12.3.1.................................................................7

High-capacity signalling – 10.4.7........................................................................................................7

High Productivity Freight Vehicles – 13.4.3.......................................................................................7

Level crossing removals – 11.2.4.......................................................................................................7

Long-distance rail services – 12.2.9...................................................................................................8

Melbourne Airport rail link – 10.9.2, 11.3.2.......................................................................................8

Melbourne Metro - future stages – 10.10.2......................................................................................8

Melton rail electrification – 1.3.6, 10.8.3...........................................................................................8

Metropolitan rolling stock – 10.5.1...................................................................................................9

Regional rail eastern corridor – 12.3.3, 13.5.4...................................................................................9

Regional rail gauge standardisation – 13.4.2...................................................................................10

Regional rolling stock – 12.2.3.........................................................................................................10

Example: Intercity Express Programme (UK)...............................................................................11

Regional rail upgrades – 12.2.4........................................................................................................11

Transport network pricing – 10.2.2.................................................................................................12

Example: Road Use Charge scenario............................................................................................12

Western Intermodal Freight Terminal – 13.3.3...............................................................................13

Development in established areas – 1.1.1, 10.1.1...........................................................................13

Further recommendations...................................................................................................................14

Recommendation A – Standardisation of the rail network..............................................................14

Track gauge..................................................................................................................................14

Electrification voltage and frequency..........................................................................................14

Structure and loading gauge........................................................................................................15

Axle loading.................................................................................................................................15

Recommendation B – Metropolitan and freight rail segregation....................................................15

Recommendation C – High speed rail corridors...............................................................................16

3

Recommendation D – Permanent transport link between the Mornington and Bellarine peninsulas.........................................................................................................................................................17

Recommendation E – Additional railway line Melbourne’s south-east...........................................17

Recommendation F – Additional freeways in metropolitan Melbourne..........................................18

4

Comments on specific recommendations10-car metropolitan trains – 10.5.2The recommendation to increase the capacity of metropolitan rolling stock is recommended however the specific introduction of 10-car metropolitan trains is not recommended as it is submitted there are better alternatives available to increase capacity on the Melbourne metropolitan railway network. The Draft Options Book notes that a 10-car metropolitan train would be a new, specifically designed type of train.2 The Draft Options Book also notes that major works on the network would be required to accommodate these trains. Furthermore, it is also noted that lines continuing to use the City Loop would not be able to accommodate 10-car trains. The complications resulting from the introduction of such rolling stock may outweigh any benefits. Firstly, the introduction of an additional type of metropolitan rolling stock would further complicate logistics and driver training for the metropolitan railway network which already operates three types of rolling stock3 with a fourth type set for introduction4 (see Metropolitan rolling stock – 10.5.1 for further information). It is submitted that priority should be given to extending existing rolling stock through the insertion of additional intermediate cars once the necessary lengthening of railway platforms has taken place (see Further Recommendation A for further information). Secondly, the introduction of a specific type of 10-car train which can only operate on certain metropolitan railway lines will limit the utility of such trains as these trains would unable to be utilised elsewhere on the network in times of increased demand. Thirdly, it is noted that Sydney’s metropolitan rail network currently utilises 8 car trains whilst Melbourne’s metropolitan rail network utilises 6 car trains comprised two 3-car sets joined together. It is submitted that all railway platforms in Melbourne should be lengthened to accommodate 8-car trains rather than limiting capacity increases to certain sections of the railway network (see Further Recommendation A for further information). Sections of the Melbourne metropolitan railway network requiring capacity increases over and above that of the remainder of the network could be prioritised and better accommodated through the introduction of double deck trains, initially in 6-car formations followed by 8-car formations once platforms lengths have been extended. It is noted that the Alstom produced X’Trapolis trains currently in use on Melbourne’s railway network have been produced in double deck versions for the Reseau Express Regional (RER) and SNCF of the Paris metropolitan railway network which conceivably could be introduced to the Melbourne metropolitan railway network once upgrades allow. Furthermore, this would utilise an existing Victorian based rolling stock manufacturer familiar with the basic design of this train without complicating the supply chain of existing metropolitan rolling stock types. It should also be noted that the recent introduction of Sydney Trains A set (aka Waratah) rolling

2 Infrastructure Victoria, Draft options book version two (October 2016) <http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/files/Draft%20Options%20Book%20Version%20Two%20-%20FINAL.PDF>.3 Premier of Victoria, Trains, Trams, Jobs 2015-2025: Victorian Rolling Stock Strategy (4 May 2015) <https://4a5b508b5f92124e39ff-ccd8d0b92a93a9c1ab1bc91ad6c9bfdb.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/2015/05/PTVH1486_Rolling_Stock_Strategy_A4_%C6%92_web.pdf>.4 Richard Willingham, ‘New $2 billion train deal to create 1000 local jobs’, The Age (online), 12 September 2016 <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/new-2-billion-train-deal-to-create-1000-local-jobs-20160911-gre0wj.html>

5

stock has seen the introduction of single 8-car sets rather than the previous Sydney practice of joining together two 4-car sets. This results in increased capacity through the elimination of two driving cab sections in the middle of the train (the ends of the two 4-car sets) and allows passengers to move freely along the entire length of the train, maximising the availability of free space. It is also submitted lengthening the platforms of the City Loop railway stations to accommodate 8-car trains may be achievable however more research would need to be conducted on this point (see City Loop reconfiguration – 10.10.1 for further information). It should also be noted that such an increase in length could and should be accommodated as part of the level crossing removal program (see Level crossing removals - 11.2.4 for further information).

Brown coal transition – 18.2.1The recommendation to develop policy mechanisms for the innovation or exit of brown coal energy generation is supported however, as noted in the Draft Options Book, viable and scalable technologies to achieve adequate GHG emissions reductions for coal are limited.5 With the brown coal power stations coming under increasing pressure to reduce emissions, and a pending announcement by Engie on the future of the Hazelwood power station, it may that the BCA and BCL options as discussed in the Draft Options Book may not be able to be implemented in a timely fashion. If it is possible, it is submitted that the BCL option is preferred over the BCA option until further information is available from other jurisdictions which are implementing a BCA mechanism as discussed in the Draft Options Book.6

In terms of innovation for brown coal, it is noted that (on the information publicly available) the industrial sector has yet to find a significant, commercial use for brown coal other than for electricity generation. One possible alternative use for lignite which has almost fallen out of favour is as a feedstock for synthetic fuel, used most notably by Germany during World War Two due to a shortage of crude oil.7 This is one alternative which should be subject to further examination, possibly in collaboration with a company such as SASOL which specialises in Coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology.8 If instituted, CTL technology could replace electricity generation as a significant industry and employer in the Latrobe Valley, with flow on benefits for Australia such as a reduction in the current account deficit by replacing imported oil. However, CTL plants may generate significant pollution therefore serious feasibility and viability studies should be undertaken before any investment is made by the Victorian Government. If CTL is not a serious alternative to electricity generation, and no other commercial option presents itself, the exit of brown coal as an energy source for electricity generation should be seriously considered in favour of replacement by a combination of renewable sources for electricity generation such as large scale solar plants, natural gas peaking plants, large scale battery storage, waste to electricity plants, increase quantities of rooftop solar systems and possible hydrogen fuel cells. However

5 Above n 2, 134.6 Above n 2, 129-131.7 Dieter Leckel, ‘Diesel Production from Fischer-Tropsch: The Past, the Present and New Concepts’, Energy Fuels (2009) 23(5), 2342-2358.8 SASOL, ‘SASOL produces 1,5 billion barrels of synthetic fuel from coal in fifty years’ (Media Release, 24 August 2005) <http://www.sasol.com/media-centre/media-releases/sasol-produces-15-billion-barrels-synthetic-fuel-coal-fifty-years>.

6

the ability to reopen the lignite mines in the Latrobe valley and elsewhere in Victoria should be preserved should technological innovation find a use for lignite in the future. As most of the brown coal related activity takes place in the Latrobe Valley, necessary measures should be put in place to assist in the economic transition of the area especially in light of the potential closure of the Hazelwood power station in the near term9 (see Regional rail eastern corridor - 12.3.3 for further information).

Wallan rail electrification – 1.3.7, 10.8.4The recommendation to extend the electrified railway network to Wallan is endorsed however it is submitted the suggested timeframe of 15-30 years is too long considering the large housing developments taking place around Wallan. Given the distance of Wallan railway station to Southern Cross railway station is less than 48 kilometres compared, this compares favourably to other segments of the Melbourne metropolitan railway network which have already been electrified, such as Frankston and Southern Cross railway stations with a distance of approximately 44 kilometres or between Pakenham and Southern Cross railway stations with a distance of just over 58 kilometres. Furthermore, the electrification of the rail network to Wallan should take place as part of a broader enhancement of the metropolitan railway network (see Further Recommendations A and B for further information) and the introduction of high speed rail services to Shepparton via Seymour (see Further Recommendation C for further information).

Clyde rail extension – 10.8.5The recommendation of extending metropolitan railway services to Clyde is not endorsed as it is submitted that there are better alternatives open to Infrastructure Victoria. One such alternative is to extend the Frankston railway line to connect with the end of the Cranbourne railway line and provide through services from Melbourne’s CBD to Dandenong via Frankston (see Further Recommendation E for further information). The Draft Options Book indicates the Clyde rail extension would occur on the alignment of the previous South Gippsland railway line. It is submitted that in the alternative, rail services should be restored on the South Gippsland railway line as far as Leongatha to provide high speed passenger rail services between South Gippsland and Dandenong/Melbourne’s CBD (see Further Recommendation C for further information). The reintroduction of services on the South Gippsland railway line is the subject of a current petition10 and could be done with diesel or electro-diesel rolling stock (see Regional rolling stock – 12.2.3 for further information) within a shorter timeframe than the proposed timeframe to extend the Cranbourne railway line to Clyde, once the railway line has been refurbished to the appropriate standard (see Further Recommendation A for further information).

9 Josh Gordon, ‘Hazelwood closure edges closer after ministers hold high-powered talks in Paris’, The Age (online), 27 October 2016 <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hazelwood-closure-edges-closer-after-ministers-hold-highpowered-talks-in-paris-20161027-gsc5dd.html>10 Change.org, Return of the Leongatha to Melbourne Passenger Trains on the South Gippsland Rail Corridor (2013) <https://www.change.org/p/return-of-the-leongatha-to-melbourne-passenger-trains-on-the-south-gippsland-rail-corridor>.

7

City Loop reconfiguration – 10.10.1The recommendation of reconfiguring the City Loop is endorsed. In addition to reconfiguring the City Loop, it is submitted that consideration should be given to introducing high capacity signalling in the City Loop before any other railway line or section of the metropolitan railway network (see High-capacity signalling – 10.4.7 for further information). It is also submitted that further investigation be given to moving the majority, if not all, metropolitan rail services to new underground platforms and tunnels at both Southern Cross and Flinders Street stations, thus freeing the viaducts between, and ground level platforms at, Southern Cross and Flinders Street stations. The extra capacity at ground capacity could be put to other uses such as for regional and interstate passenger services or for use as passing loops for freight services (see Further Recommendation B for further information). By extending the City Loop under Southern Cross and Flinders Street railway stations, this would provide more through services and should reduce the dwell times at Flinders Street railway station, if done in combination with a restructuring of timetables for both drivers and trains.

Doncaster bus system – 10.6.4The recommendation of upgrading the existing Doncaster Area Rapid Transit (DART) bus system is endorsed but only as a short term solution. Although the Doncaster heavy railway line has been rejected in the Draft Options Book, the Draft Options Book also notes that patronage on the DART buses approaches that of patronage on the Upfield railway line.11 It is submitted that if construction of the Doncaster railway line along the current proposed alignment is not viable, consideration be given to re-aligning the proposed Doncaster railway line along a different alignment than previous propositions, e.g. instead of the proposed Doncaster railway line joining the South Morang and Hurstbridge railway lines around the vicinity of Victoria Park, the line could continue underground through Collingwood and Fitzroy, either joining the City Loop just west of Parliament railway station (as per the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan alignment) or joining the City Loop only tangentially. In the latter case, the Doncaster railway line could potentially run parallel to the existing lines at Parliament railway station before continuing to Jolimont railway station then Richmond railway station before becoming an extension of one of the existing railway lines that transits through Richmond railway station from the eastern suburbs, i.e. the Lilydale, Belgrave, Glen Waverley or Alamein railway lines. Such an alignment would provide better access to the recreational areas around Collingwood and Fitzroy in addition to providing better transport links to the large number of residents in the area with lower socio-economic status.12 Such an alignment would also reduce the burden on tram services in the area and provide a direct link between south-east / eastern metropolitan rail services and north-eastern railway services.

Geelong/Werribee/Wyndham rail – 1.3.4, 10.8.2, 12.3.1The recommendation of delivering new railway stations on the Regional Rail Link corridor is supported. It is submitted that consideration should also be 11 Above n 2, 233.12 City of Yarra, Collingwood Neighbourhood Profile (December 2010) <http://yarracity.vic.gov.au/DownloadDocument.ashx?DocumentID=2842>

8

given to the transfer of this line from regional rail to metropolitan rail operations within the 5-15 year timeframe indicated, including electrification. Consideration should also be given to segregated railway lines to service the rail corridor between Melbourne and Geelong in order to remove regional passenger trains and freight trains from mixing with metropolitan train services (see Further Recommendations B and C for further information). It is also submitted that like the proposals to extend electrification and metropolitan rail services to Wallan and Melton (see Wallan rail electrification – 1.3.7, 10.8.4 and Melton rail electrification – 1.3.6, 10.8.3 for further information), electrification and metropolitan rail services should be extended beyond Werribee to Little River and similarly from Sunbury to Clarkesfield or Riddells Creek. As noted earlier, Pakenham railway station is just over 58 kilometres from Southern Cross railway station whilst Little River railway station is under 48 kilometres to Southern Cross railway station with Clarkesfield under 51 kilometres and Riddells Creek railway station just under 57 kilometres to Southern Cross station. Such an extension would open up this railway corridor to further development, thus easing the pressure on housing constraints in the current metropolitan area whilst reducing congestion on surrounding roads. In the case of Little River, it would also restore a direct connection for passengers between Werribee and Geelong which, as noted in the Draft Options Book,13 is a connection that has been cut since the completion of the Regional Rail Link.

High-capacity signalling – 10.4.7The recommendation of rolling out high capacity signalling is endorsed however it is submitted that high capacity signalling should be rolled out across the entire metropolitan railway network (see Further Recommendation A for further information). It is also submitted that a 10-30 year timeframe is too long given the state of the current signalling system and the advances in technology that will likely take place in such a timeframe. Consideration should be given to the introduction of an off-the-shelf solution (such as European Train Control System levels 1, 2 or 3 once level 3 is in commercial production) to reduce the cost, risk and implementation time.

Furthermore, should high speed rail services be introduced, this will require the introduction of better signalling, control and train protection systems (see Further Recommendation C for further information).

High Productivity Freight Vehicles – 13.4.3The recommendation of rolling out a program of upgrades to the road network to support high mass High Productivity Freight Vehicles is endorsed. It is submitted that consideration should also be given to cross metro freight shuttles once regional passenger and freight railway lines are segregated from metropolitan railway lines to encourage a shift in freight from road to rail for cross city freight movements (see Further Recommendation B for further information).

Level crossing removals – 11.2.4

13 Above n 2, 852.

9

The recommendation of developing a prioritisation process within 0-5 years for the targeted removal of level crossings beyond the commitments made by the current Victorian Government is strongly recommended. It is submitted the removal of the remaining level crossings is viable over a thirty year period given that this will represent less than five level crossing removals per year on the basis that there will be less than 130 level crossings left in metropolitan Melbourne once the committed number of 50 level crossings have been removed. It is also submitted that the planning of level crossing removals should accommodate the future segregation of metropolitan and freight/regional passenger rail services (see Further Recommendation B for further information).

Long-distance rail services – 12.2.9The recommendation to provide targeted additional rail services on existing long-distance lines over 0-10 years is endorsed however this recommendation should be subject to the introduction of high speed rail services firstly so as to encourage greater levels of commuting between regional cities and towns within the Melbourne commuter range followed by an analysis of the impact the introduction of such high speed rail services has had on regional cities and towns adjacent to the Melbourne commuter range (see Further Recommendation C for further information). Such additional rail services should also be subject to the introduction of road network pricing (see Transport network pricing – 10.2.2 for further information) in order to make the cost of transport modes more transparent and encourage transport mode shifts.

Melbourne Airport rail link – 10.9.2, 11.3.2The recommendation to deliver a railway line to Melbourne Airport (Tullamarine) is endorsed however it is submitted the indicative timeframe is too long for the construction of such a line. It is recommended that this project is prioritised given the current level of congestion on the Tullamarine Freeway and the commensurate benefits the railway line would bring, such as the reduction in the cost of commuting to the Airport, a lower cost of living for those employed at the airport, freeing of car parking space at the airport for other uses in addition to the reduction in GHG emissions that would result from the introduction of metropolitan rail services to Melbourne Airport (Tullamarine).

If the timeframe of 15-30 years is to hold, consideration should be given to realigning the Tullamarine Freeway along the alignment proposed in the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan which was to take the freeway along the north-eastern side of Essendon Airport (see Further Recommendation F for further information). This should provide a shorter transit between the Melbourne CBD and Melbourne Airport (Tullamarine) with some reduction in commuting costs, time and GHG emissions. It would also allow a dedicated bus lane to be included at a very early planning stage (see Melbourne Airport bus – 10.9.1 for further information).

Melbourne Metro - future stages – 10.10.2The recommendation to begin identifying trigger points that would require a major uplift in capacity on the Mernda, Werribee and Sunshine rail corridors in

10

the next 0-5 years is recommended. It is also noted that should the Melbourne Metro Two proposal14 be pursued in its current form, costs could be saved by considering the option outlined in this submission regarding moving the majority of existing suburban services underground at both Southern Cross and Flinders Street railway stations, thus freeing the ground level platforms to continue to Fishermans Bend using a bridge across the Yarra river rather than a tunnel (see City Loop reconfiguration – 10.10.1 for further information).

Melton rail electrification – 1.3.6, 10.8.3The recommendation to extend the electrified rail network to Melton is supported however it is submitted the electrification should be extended to Bacchus Marsh, rather than Melton, in order to future proof this railway line. Extension of the metropolitan rail network to Bacchus Marsh would allow for higher capacity, more frequent metropolitan rail services along a section of the railway network which is noted in the Draft Options Book as already under substantial pressure from metropolitan growth.15 This electrification would also conceivably contribute to an increase in affordable housing by opening up a further parcel of the transport corridor (partially paid through infrastructure levies or similar on all new developments along the line as per the Draft Options Book), contribute to increase economic growth and reduced traffic volumes on the Western Freeway and surrounding roads. It should also be noted that Bacchus Marsh railway station is approximately 51 kilometres from Southern Cross railway station whilst Pakenham railway station is just over 58 kilometres from Southern Cross railway station thus providing a shorter distance to the Melbourne CBD over some existing metropolitan railway lines. It is submitted that the same rationale applies for extending electrification and metropolitan railway services to Wallan, Little River and Clarkesfield or Riddells Creek railway stations given the large amount of housing development taking place or projected to take place in these areas or along these railway lines (see Wallan rail electrification - 10.8.4 and Geelong/Werribee/Wyndham rail – 1.3.4, 10.8.2, 12.3.1 for further information). It is also submitted that the electrification of the Melton/Bacchus Marsh rail corridor should take place as part of a more holistic upgrade to the entire rail corridor to Ballarat (see Further Recommendations B and C for further information).

Metropolitan rolling stock – 10.5.1The recommendation to institute an asset management-based approach to long-term train and tram rolling stock procurement is supported. It is also submitted such a program should consider the additional costs of re-opening manufacturing facilities such as Newport (which has been announced as the site to assemble new high-capacity trains16) instead of utilising existing manufacturing and assembly facilities located at Ballarat and Dandenong.17 Further consideration should also be given to the cost benefit of reducing the number of different types of rolling stock currently used on the Melbourne metropolitan railway network from the current three types of rolling stock to two, being the Alstom X’Trapolis and Siemens Nexas types, as the Comeng

14 Above n 2, 487.15 Above n 2, 500.16 Above n 4.17 Above n 3, 6.

11

trains are past their service life but are slated to receive life extensions.18 It is also submitted that with a fourth type of metropolitan train set for introduction,19 this type should be based on one of the two newer rolling stock types already in use if the above cost benefit analysis shows this would result in reduced operating costs for the metropolitan railway network.

Regional rail eastern corridor – 12.3.3, 13.5.4The recommendation to identify the trigger points requiring a major uplift along the Pakenham rail corridor is supported. The suggestion for additional tracks to segregated freight and regional passenger rail services from metropolitan passenger services is accepted as being a high cost solution however as recent reporting has noted, the grade separation taking place along this rail corridor may need to be revisited in the next 12 years20 therefore the timeframe indicated in the Draft Strategy for extra capacity may be too long (see Further Recommendation B for further information). It is also submitted that with the possible closure of the Hazelwood power station21, there is an opportunity for a high speed rail service providing high speed commuter services between Melbourne and the Latrobe valley (see Further Recommendation C for further information). This would conceivably necessitate segregating high speed passenger trains from metropolitan trains in the Melbourne metropolitan area (see Further Recommendation B for further information) but would allow a commuting time of under one hour as far as Traralgon, opening the Latrobe valley to economic growth through the increase of people seeking affordable housing but being able to commute to metropolitan Melbourne for work. There may also be the possibility of a Commonwealth Government co-contribution in order to assist the economy of the Latrobe valley should the closure of Hazelwood power station come to fruition.

Regional rail gauge standardisation – 13.4.2This recommendation has been discussed in greater detail under Further Recommendation A below. Although this recommendation (13.4.2) has been limited to certain regional rail track, it is submitted that all Victoria’s rail track should be standardised, with the Melbourne metropolitan railway network prioritised for conversion to dual gauge before standardisation at 1,435mm. Ideally, this would be done as part of the level crossing removal program currently taking place wherein tracks are being re-laid after the grade separation of level crossings has been completed. Prioritising firstly the dual gauging and secondly the standardisation of Melbourne’s rail track gauge would allow for the seamless transit of freight and regional passenger trains through Melbourne as the surrounding regional railway lines are dual gauged and gradually standardised to the same standard track gauge. In addition, it would allow for the use of standard gauge rolling stock from other parts of Australia to be used in metropolitan Melbourne and on the surrounding

18 Above n 3, 12.19 Above n 4.20 Adam Carey, ‘Sky rail’s ‘secret expansion’: four-track future looms for Melbourne’s south-east’, The Age (online), 10 March 2016 <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sky-rail-is-just-part-one-fourtrack-future-looms-for-melbournes-southeast-20160309-gnetq5.html>.21 Jean Edwards and Frances Bell, ‘Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas met Hazelwood owners over closure concerns’ ABC (online), 19 October 2016 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/victorian-treasurer-met-hazelwood-owners-over-possible-closure/7947296>

12

standard gauge railway lines, and vice versa once the bogies of Victoria’s rolling stock is re-gauged. It has been noted in a recent conference by the head of GrainCorp’s storage and logistics division that train operators won’t invest in newer broad gauge rolling stock which potentially places a brake on any efficiency gains for the Victorian railway network from newer, higher capacity rolling stock such as grain hoppers.22 Once standardised, commensurate economic benefits would flow due to increased efficiency and competition between rolling stock owners and operators. Prioritising the standardisation of Melbourne’s track gauge is doubly important until complete segregation of regional and interstate trains from metropolitan trains can take place (see Further Recommendation B for further information). Although it is unlikely such standardisation will take place immediately, provision should be made for track gauge standardisation in future rolling stock orders, such as the inclusion of gauge convertible bogies (which was reportedly provided in orders for the VLocity diesel multiple units (DMUs)).

Regional rolling stock – 12.2.3The recommendation to institute an asset management-based approach for a long term program of regional rolling stock procurement is strongly supported. As noted in the comments regarding the institution of a long term program of Metropolitan rolling stock procurement (see Metropolitan rolling stock –10.5.1 for further information), additional consideration should be given to maintaining existing rolling stock manufacturing plants over the reopening of previously closed manufacturing facilities. In regard to regional rolling stock, recent decisions to invest in additional VLocity carriages to increase all VLocity DMUs from two carriages to a minimum of three is welcomed however any further acquisition of VLocity DMUs is questionable. It is submitted that priority should be given to a new class of high speed hybrid electro-diesel, or conventional diesel, rolling stock over any further acquisition of VLocity DMUs (see Further Recommendation C for further information). An example of high speed hybrid rolling stock is contained below. Once in service, this new class of high speed electro-diesel, or diesel, rolling stock should replace VLocity DMUs on the regional railway lines with the highest patronage whilst VLocity DMUs can be cascaded onto lines with less patronage and can also be used to replace older regional rolling stock, such as the H and N type carriages and Sprinter DMUs.23 Although it is acknowledged that the procurement of high speed trains will not automatically result in higher regional train speeds, it will “future proof” the regional Victorian railway network if and when upgrades to railway track allows for speed increases (see Long-distance rail services – 12.2.9 and Further Recommendation C for further information). It is also submitted that constructing high speed rolling stock will give Victoria a first mover advantage over other Australian states, especially as planning has begun to replace the fleet of XPT power cars and carriages in service with NSW TrainLink,24 as well as potentially opening up export opportunities to Victoria’s rolling stock manufacturers.

22 Max Berry, ‘Off the rails: How Australia is at odds with global infrastructure plans' Independent Australia (online), 3 December 2014 <https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/off-the-rails-how-local-reality-is-at-odds-with-global-infrastructure-plans,7151>.23 Above n 3, 13.24 Transport for NSW, ‘Budget delivers $9 billion for public transport services and infrastructure’ (Media Release, 23 June 2015) <http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/budget-delivers-9-billion-public-transport-services-and-infrastructure>

13

Example: Intercity Express Programme (UK)In response to the tender for the UK Intercity Express Programme, Hitachi Rail was ultimately successful with its submission for two variants of the same train; a wholly electric train and a hybrid electro-diesel train. The latter is capable of running on both electrified and un-electrified sections of railway at speeds of up to 200 km/h. These two variants (the Class 800 bi-mode or hybrid and the Class 801 electric) are currently in production to be introduced into service in 2017. A request by the rail operator Great Western for a higher power, longer range version of the Class 800 has resulted in development of the Class 802 with an increase in the top speed to 225km/h.25

Hybrid trains similar to the Class 802 could be introduced to provide Victoria’s long distance rail services with speed increases possible when upgrades to rail track allow whilst such bi-mode trains would reduce operating costs by using overhead line equipment to draw electricity on electrified segments of the railway network whilst at the same time reducing GHG emissions.

Regional rail upgrades – 12.2.4The recommendation to identify and prioritise upgrades and enhancements required to remove physical and operational constraints on the existing regional rail network is supported but as noted in the Draft Options Book, this should be done in combination with other network enhancements26 (see Long-distance rail services – 12.2.9, Regional rolling stock – 12.2.3, Further Recommendations A, B and C for further information). Commensurate investment in improving bus and coach facilities is also supported and it is submitted that bus and coach facilities should be co-located with railway stations wherever feasible. Whilst this submission has focussed largely on passenger rail so far, it is acknowledged that in order to provide greater returns on investment, Victoria’s regional railway network would need higher volumes of freight on the railway network. One method of encouraging increased rail freight would be to institute a program similar to that instituted by the national governments of Germany and Austria which provide a co-contribution towards the upgrade of private rail sidings.27 Whilst such programs have not been without weaknesses, a comprehensive review of such programs from other jurisdictions and the implementation of a more robust program in Victoria could provide a boost to the amount of freight carried on rail in Victoria. Such a program should be undertaken in combination with a holistic program of upgrades and standardisation across the entire Victorian railway network (see Further Recommendation A for further information). It is also submitted that freight rail in regional Victoria will remain uncompetitive compared to road freight without subsidisation or a more competitive playing field, notably through pricing structures (see Transport network pricing – 10.2.2 for further information). It is submitted that whilst the Victorian Government’s Regional Network Development Plan is right to concentrate on the transit corridors outlined within,28 one omission is the railway line between Seymour and Shepparton

25 Hitachi Rail Class Europe, Class 800/801 (IEP) <http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/-class-800801-iep_140.html>.26 Above n 2, 618.27 DB Schenker, Sidings (23 March 2016) <http://www.dbschenker.com/ho-en/products_services/start/additonal_services/sidings.html>.28 Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (Vic), Regional Network Development Plan (May 2016) <http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/1308123/Regional-

14

given Shepparton’s sizeable population and a commuting time of under one hour to Melbourne with the introduction of a high speed passenger rail service (see Further Recommendation C for further information).

Transport network pricing – 10.2.2The recommendation to introduce a transport network price regime is strongly supported. However in regard to road vehicles, the introduction of such a pricing regime is caveated. It is submitted that the introduction of such a pricing regime for road vehicles should replace, rather than supplement, excise taxes currently levied on fuel. This submission is made on the basis that a weight versus distance (and possible GHG emissions) road user charge may lead to jurisdictional shopping by large or sophisticated entities, such as corporations specialising in road haulage who would be able to register their company’s heavy vehicles in another state or territory thus not contributing any greater share to the cost of road maintenance and upgrades in Victoria. As the imposition and collection of fuel excise is the purview of the Commonwealth Government, the support of the Commonwealth Government would be required to implement the necessary changes. There are indications that the current Federal Government may support such a reform. Senator Paul Fletcher, the Federal Minister for Urban Infrastructure, has recently spoken out in favour of a road use charge.29 Further negotiations between the Victorian Government and the Federal Government should take place with a view to removing Federal excise tax on all fuel sold in Victoria in exchange for no or limited contribution by the Federal Government to the funding of road maintenance and upgrades in Victoria outside of large infrastructure projects. A simple road vehicle use charge could then be introduced in a relatively short timeframe (subject to technological constraints). An example of such a simple road use charge is outlined in the example below.

Example: Road Use Charge scenarioCurrently, registered owners of road vehicles in New South Wales are generally required to obtain a roadworthy certificate (aka safety check) annually when seeking to renew the registration of a road vehicle once that vehicle reaches five years of age.30 There is currently no such requirement for annual safety checks in Victoria however such a scheme could be introduced requiring roadworthy certificates to be provided annually when renewing the registration of road vehicles, no matter the age of the vehicle. This could be done through the existing licensed roadworthy tester network. The obtaining of a roadworthy certificate should include the recording of the odometer reading which would then be transmitted electronically by the tester to VicRoads who could then set the renewal fees on the basis of the number of kilometres the vehicle has travelled since the previous odometer reading. For instance, the registration fees for a new car may be set on the proviso that the car is expected to travel 15,000 kilometres in the following twelve months. When the vehicle’s registration is due for renewal, the owner obtains roadworthy check in the thirty days before the renewal is due wherein the odometer reveals the car only

Network-Development-Plan.pdf>.29 Ross Gittins, ‘The new Paul Keating: Minister Paul Fletcher’s brave new road-user charge’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online), 20 September 2016 <http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ministers-suggestion-of-new-road-user-charge-may-seem-outrageous-but-it-makes-sense-20160920-grk1bc.html>.30 Roads & Maritime (NSW), Safety checks and inspections <http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registration/inspections/>.

15

travelled 10,000 kilometres in the previous twelve months. VicRoads would then set a registration fee on the basis the vehicle is expected to travel a distance of 15,000 kilometres in the next twelve months however this would be offset by a refund for the 5,000 kilometres charged but not travelled in the previous twelve months.

Whilst it is understood the above example is very basic, and would be subject to more empirical evidence regarding what the charge per kilogram of weight for a vehicle should be, whether or not to include a charge for GHG emissions, how to charge for vehicles with greater carrying capacity but which travel for some of the time at less than full capacity, etc. it presents a transparent way of charging each road vehicle for its contribution to the wear and tear of Victorian roads. It should also allow for future technological innovation such as satellite enabled tolling and variable tolls for time of use as outlined in the Draft Options Book.

In regard to transport network pricing for rail freight for the Victorian railway network, publicly available information on the pricing structure has been difficult to obtain. In spite of this, it is submitted that an access fee structure similar to that proposed by ARTC for the Inland railway line be adopted (if not already), i.e. a flag fall fee plus a gross tonne per kilometre fee.31 However it is submitted that the need for a flag fall fee should be scrutinised further if each rail vehicle is already charged a fee akin to a registration fee in which case it is submitted that only a gross tonne per kilometre fee should apply. This should be subject to further examination similar to that outlined above for the road use charge.

Transport network pricing for air, sea and public transport have not been canvassed in this submission but a system that results in a level playing field between different transport modes in order to encourage competition and achieve a lower cost for end users is encouraged.

Western Intermodal Freight Terminal – 13.3.3The recommendation to identify trigger points within 0-5 years for the construction of the Western Intermodal Freight Terminal is strongly supported. Furthermore, it is submitted that the construction of an intermodal freight terminal should not be limited just to Melbourne’s west but rather, an intermodal freight terminal should be constructed at the end of each metropolitan railway line (or thereabouts). Conceivably, this would translate to the construction of intermodal freight terminals at (as per the recommendations in this submission) Wallan in Melbourne’s north, Pakenham or Dandenong in the east, Langwarrin in the south east (see Further Recommendation D for further information), Little River in the south west, Bacchus Marsh in the west and Clarkesfield/Riddells Creek in the north-west (see Wallan rail electrification – 1.3.7, 10.8.4, Geelong/Werribee/Wyndham rail – 1.3.4, 10.8.2, 12.3.1 and Melton rail electrification – 1.3.6, 10.8.3 for further information). As noted in the Draft Options Book, interstate containers are currently transported to terminals at Dynon before being trucked to the outer suburbs.32 It is submitted this is grossly inefficient and it would be preferably for only containers bound for the

31 ARTC, Inland Rail Programme Business Case (2015) <http://inlandrail.artc.com.au/resources/documents/27066/download>.32 Above n 2, 820.

16

Melbourne CBD or the inner city to be sent to Dynon with containers bound for the outer suburbs being offloaded at the intermodal terminal closest to the container’s final destination, reducing cross-city truck movements with associated reductions in costs to end consumers and for the Victorian Government in terms of wear and tear on metropolitan roads plus reduced GHG emissions (see Further Recommendation B for further information).

Development in established areas – 1.1.1, 10.1.1The recommendation to intensify housing development in Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo is strongly supported. It is also submitted that housing development in Shepparton, Seymour, the Latrobe valley and Leongatha should be intensified in conjunction with the introduction of high speed rail services to these locations (see Further Recommendation C for further information). Additional areas along the Albury/Wodonga railway line, such as Wangaratta, could also be identified for increased development and the extension of high speed rail services along this railway line once the population has increased sufficiently to make such services viable.

17

Further recommendationsRecommendation A – Standardisation of the rail networkIt is submitted that the Victorian railway network should be standardised before any further electrification or expansion of the network takes place. The major components of such a standardisation is broken down below:

Track gauge

With the standardisation of the railway track gauge in South Australia (outside the Adelaide metropolitan railway network) from 1,600mm (broad gauge) to 1,435mm (standard gauge), Victoria is isolated amongst Australia’s south eastern states with the retention of its 1,600mm broad gauge track. Victoria’s standard gauge links to surrounding states is limited to three standard gauge railway lines. It is submitted that Victoria should embark on a program of railway track gauge standardisation to increase its rail connections with the surrounding states. Such standardisation carries multiple benefits including reducing the differences in rolling stock both intra and interstate, allowing greater utilisation of rolling stock throughout Australia’s standard gauge railway network which would lead to lower costs and greater competition from rolling stock operators plus the ability to operate newer and higher capacity rolling stock on Victoria’s railway network (see Regional rail gauge standardisation – 13.4.2 for further information). Previous Federal governments were willing to contribute to the standardisation of Victoria’s rail gauge (under the banner of the Linking Victoria program) and Federal funding should be sought once again. One method of allowing for the standardisation of the rail track gauge with a minimum of interruption could be to dual gauge (1,600mm and 1,435mm) all Victorian railway tracks currently in use. Once dual gauged, a timeframe could then be set for all rolling stock to be standardised to 1,435mm. It could also be mandated that any Victorian railway track not currently in use could not be reopened until the track gauge was standardised, possibly paid for by commercial entities wishing to use the track for rail freight. Once Victoria’s rolling stock was standardised, the 1,600mm tracks could be gradually removed through regular maintenance and upgrade cycles.

Electrification voltage and frequency

The Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan railway networks were electrified in the early part of the 20th century at 1,500 volts (V), direct current (DC). Subsequent metropolitan railway networks in Australia (Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide) were electrified from the 1970’s onwards at a higher voltage and different current namely 25 thousand volts (kilovolt or kV), alternating current (AC) at a frequency of 50 hertz. As a result, this difference represents a break of voltage between the Victorian railway network and every other electrified railway network in Australia with the exception of New South Wales. Whilst the break of voltage is easier to overcome than a break of gauge (through the use of bi-voltage rolling stock), this hides deeper problems. One problem is that the older voltage of 1,500 V DC has been shown to be inadequate for the power demands of modern rolling stock. This was exemplified through the introduction of the Sydney Trains A set (aka Waratah) electrical multiple units (EMUs) in

18

metropolitan Sydney which required upgrades to transformers and substations to cope with the increased power demands of the new rolling stock.33 The problems of the 1,500 V DC electrified network have already been reported in regard to the Melbourne metropolitan railway network with increasing patronage and summer heat causing delays and break downs across the railway network.34 Given the further projected increases in patronage on the Melbourne metropolitan railway network, consideration should be given to changing the voltage of the Melbourne Metropolitan railway network to 25 kV AC at a frequency of 50 hertz. This would bring Melbourne into line with every other electrified railway network bar Sydney, future proofing the Victorian railway network for future expansion or the introduction of other services such as the inter-capital high speed railway line35 and would allow Melbourne to more easily cope with increases in patronage. Furthermore, railway electrification at 25 kV AC 50 hertz is now part of the European Union’s standards for Trans-European railway interoperability, including high speed rail.36 It should be noted that any decision to change the voltage of the Melbourne metropolitan railway network should be taken sooner so current rolling stock orders37 can incorporate this into final specifications, for example by adjusting orders to include bi-voltage (1,500 V DC & 25 kV AC) equipment. It has been reported that a progressive upgrade to the electrification system is already taking place however the extent of such upgrades is not publicly available.38 By including a requirement for bi-voltage equipment to be included in current and future rolling stock orders, this would allow (similarly to track gauge standardisation) for a gradual transition of the railway network from 1,500 V DC to 25 kV AC with existing rolling stock not slated for retirement to have bi-voltage equipment installed as part of regular maintenance cycles before the final change from the 1,500 V DC network to a 25 kV AC network.

Structure and loading gauge

Whilst the need to standardise rail track gauge is oft cited, rarely mentioned is the need to standardise the structure gauge and loading gauge of railways. It is therefore submitted that the structure and loading gauges of Victoria’s regional railway lines be upgraded to the most appropriate International Union of Railways (UIC)/EU/Association of American Railroads (AAR) standard to allow for double stacked containers in well cars to travel on Victoria’s railways. Such an upgrade should also be extended to the dedicated freight/regional passenger railway lines in metropolitan Melbourne. The use of well cars rather than flat cars would allow electric freight locomotives and electric passenger trains to move more easily under overhead line equipment39 whilst continuing to allow the use of the same lines for freight and regional passenger movements with a 33 Transport for NSW, Power Supply Upgrade Program (7 September 2016) <http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects-power-supply-upgrade-program>.34 Adam Carey, ‘Why our rails can’t cope with the heat’, The Age (online), 18 December 2013 <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/why-our-rails-cant-cope-with-the-heat-20131218-2zl3t.html>.35 Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Cth), High Speed Rail Study Phase 2 Report (11 April 2013), 3.4.4 <https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2-Main_Report_Low_Res.pdf>.36 Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the conventional rail system European Union [2001] OJ L 110.37 Premier of Victoria, ‘1,100 Jobs With 65 New Trains Built In Victoria, For Victoria’ (Media Release, 12 September 2016) <http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/1100-jobs-with-65-new-trains-built-in-victoria-for-victoria/>.38 Above n 34.

19

minimum of modification (see Further Recommendation B for further information).

Axle loading

It is submitted that part of any modernisation of the Victorian railway network should include works to ensure that the railway network can cope with increased axle loadings. Specifically, the standard set for any axle loading should be sufficient to accommodate double stacked containers in well cars as per the above. The axle loading for the proposed Inland railway line between Melbourne to Brisbane with its axle loading of 21 tonnes per axle at 115 km/h 40 could be used as a guide.

Recommendation B – Metropolitan and freight rail segregationOne of the intentions of the construction of the Regional Rail Link in Victoria was to segregate freight and regional passenger services on the one hand from metropolitan rail services on the other. Recent reporting by The Age also indicates that the life of the current elevated railway sections of the Pakenham railway line could be limited to twelve years.41 In addition, the Draft Options Book notes overcrowding will take place on the railway line north of Craigieburn (which carries passenger and freight services to Shepparton and Wodonga and beyond) even with electrification of the rail network to Wallan and short term diversion of regional services via the Upfield railway line.42 It is submitted that such overcrowding represents a failure to plan for and future proof Melbourne’s metropolitan railway lines. It is also submitted that all the main railway lines in metropolitan Melbourne which connect to regional and interstate rail lines (namely the Craigieburn, Pakenham, Frankston (see Further Recommendation E for further information), Werribee, Melton and Sunbury railway lines) should be quadruplicated to enable freight and regional passenger services to be segregated from metropolitan passenger rail services. Whilst this represents a higher cost in the short term, it is arguable that this would represent a much lower cost in the longer term. The Age article regarding the elevated sections of railway on the Pakenham railway line referred to above demonstrates the additional costs that can be incurred through a lack of adequate forward planning. It is acknowledged that a detailed cost analysis be conducted on this proposal but that such an analysis be as comprehensive as possible, especially with a view to the long term. Where rail corridors do not, and are not expected to, carry freight, such as the Hurstbridge, Alamein or Glen Waverley railway lines, it is submitted that any such corridors consisting of single track should duplicated at a minimum, with passing loops for express trains as necessary. In regards to freight movements in metropolitan Melbourne, the ARTC has recently proposed the use of Cross-metro container shuttles to transport containers between intermodal terminals and the ports in metropolitan Sydney.43 This has also been proposed in the Draft

39 The use of double stacked high cube containers in flat cars under overhead line equipment is possible as demonstrated by the Dedicated Freight Corridors of India however this requires highly modified electric freight locomotives which would reduce the utility of such lines for passenger trains unless such trains are also highly modified.40 Above n 31, 99.41 Above n 20.42 Above n 2, 840.

20

Options Book under the Port of Melbourne rail shuttle (PMM) option.44 Whilst both the ARTC and Draft Options Book proposals are largely limited to moving import and export containers between intermodal terminals and the ports,45 it is submitted that, if financially viable, cross metro shuttles should be used to move freight between intermodal terminals within the Melbourne metropolitan area and further afield (see Western Intermodal Freight Terminal – 13.3.3 for further information). Consideration should also be given to using cross metro freight shuttles to engage in “rolling highway”46 transportation of trucks and road trailers to further reduce truck movements and associated costs, whilst at the same time acknowledging and accommodating the need for road freight across metropolitan Melbourne and Victoria more broadly.

Recommendation C – High speed rail corridorsFollowing on from the above Further Recommendation B – Metropolitan and freight rail segregation and as noted in the comments on Long distance rail services - 12.2.9, there are several rail corridors in Victoria ideally suited for high speed passenger rail operations. Although there is no standard definition of high speed rail, the UIC have noted that high speed lines should comprise specifically upgraded railway lines equipped for speeds in the order of 200 km/h or more.47 It is also noted the Victorian Regional Network Development Plan has flagged track upgrades to allow speeds of up to 160 km/h. It is submitted that a higher speed of up to and including 250 km/h for passenger trains (shared with freight trains moving at a lower speed) would be more appropriate. Given the definition of high speed rail, it is submitted that the following regional rail corridors should be upgraded to accommodate high speed rail operations, requiring signalling and track geometry upgrades in the short term with eventual electrification:

Melbourne to Traralgon; Melbourne to Geelong; Melbourne to Ballarat; Melbourne to Bendigo; and Melbourne to Shepparton.

These corridors largely represent the commuter belt surrounding Melbourne. The benefits of high speed rail for these corridors include a reduced commuting time (approximately one hour or less or each of the corridors listed above), increased access to jobs and services in metropolitan Melbourne and the CBD, reduced GHG emissions (once electrified or through the use of bi-mode electro-diesel trains using overhead line equipment within the Melbourne metropolitan area) and the re-distribution of on average higher wages from Melbourne to regional areas. It should also be noted that the advent of high speed rail services in Victoria could be a tourist drawcard in itself as people come to Victoria to view or travel on what would be, based on the evidence available, the fastest rail services in the Southern Hemisphere. Whilst it is acknowledged that this recommendation is a longer term proposal that should only take place once Further Recommendations A and B have been implemented, existing

43 ARTC, 2015-2024 Sydney Metropolitan Freight Strategy (October 2015) <http://www.artc.com.au/uploads/2015-Sydney-Metro-Strategy-Final.pdf>.44 Above n 2, 569.45 Above n 43.46 ‘More lorries to move by rail’, Railway Gazette (online) 19 September 2013 <http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/more-lorries-to-move-by-rail.html>.47 UIC, High Speed (2015) <http://www.uic.org/highspeed#General-definitions-of-highspeed>.

21

proposals, such as the Melton rail electrification – 1.3.6, 10.8.3 should be completed with this High speed rail corridor recommendation in mind so a higher upfront cost will be offset by a lower long term cost.

Recommendation D – Permanent transport link between the Mornington and Bellarine peninsulasIt is submitted that planning should begin in the near term for a permanent transport connection between the Mornington peninsula and the Bellarine peninsula. Such a transport link would conceivably take the form of a bridge or tunnel linking the two sides of Port Phillip Bay at the most appropriate point. Such a connection should incorporate both road and rail (and possibly pedestrian access). For example, on the Mornington peninsula side of Port Phillip Bay, the railway line to Stony Point could be refurbished and extended to the bay side of the peninsula using the previous Red Hill railway line for part of the journey. On the Bellarine peninsula side of the bay, the Queenscliff railway line could be refurbished and reopened to commercial rail traffic. This could allow services from Southern Cross railway station to Stony Point to continue across the bay and on to Geelong before completing the journey to Southern Cross station, and vice versa, providing a loop service around Port Phillip Bay. Whilst it is acknowledged such a connection would be high cost, analysis should be made of the cost savings from the use of such a transport connection compared with the existing ferry system, even if a bridge of tunnel between the two sides of the bay was tolled. It is also submitted that at the 2011 Census, the population of the Mornington Peninsula was just over 144,000 people48 whilst the population of the Bellarine peninsula was just over 60,000 people.49 Any analysis on a permanent transport connection between the two sides of Port Phillip Bay should give detailed consideration to the economic benefits that would flow to both peninsulas from such a connection, plus the reduced congestion on Melbourne’s transport network by allowing passengers and freight travelling east to west across Victoria, and vice versa, to bypass Melbourne, the greater access to jobs and markets between the two sides of the bay, latent capacity to allow transport between the two sides of Victoria to continue in the event of an emergency in metropolitan Melbourne, etc. Furthermore, such an analysis should take into account the reduction in GHG emissions that would result from such a connection.

Recommendation E – Additional railway line Melbourne’s south-eastIt is submitted that attention should be given to the planning of an additional railway lines in Melbourne’s south east. This additional railway line is proposed for a number of reasons. First, it flows naturally from Further Recommendations C and D above in order to give residents and visitors to the Mornington Peninsula a shorter and more direct railway link to the Melbourne CBD. Secondly, such a line would divert rail freight from the Frankston railway line which, due to development around the line and geographical reasons, may not be able to provide enough space to achieve full segregation of passenger 48 2011 Census Quickstats, Mornington Peninsula (9 September 2016) Australian Bureau of Statistics <http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/LGA25340#open-menu>.49 2011 Census Quickstats, Surf Coast – Bellarine Peninsula (9 September 2016) Australian Bureau of Statistics <http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/20303?opendocument&navpos=220>.

22

and freight rail services (see Further Recommendation B for further information). Thirdly, such a railway line would provide better public transport links to the growth areas around Carrum Downs and Skye as well as providing better public transport links to established areas around Dingley, Clarinda and Bentleigh East. Such transport links would ease congestion on surrounding roads with a commensurate reduction in costs for residents and businesses in this area. Such a railway line could conceivably form a continuation of the Stony Point line from Langwarrin in Melbourne’s south east where it could continue to head due north/north-west instead of turning to head west to continue to Frankston. The railway line could then continue north/north-west approximately equidistant from the Frankston and Pakenham railway lines before re-joining all three at Caulfield railway station.

It is also submitted that attention should be given to linking the Frankston railway line to the Cranbourne railway line. Such a railway line could potentially run roughly parallel to Frankston-Cranbourne road for the majority of its line before turning north-east to join the end of the Cranbourne railway line. This extension would be in place of the extension of the Cranbourne railway line to Clyde, which it is submitted would be better served by a through service from Southern Cross railway station to Dandenong railway station via Frankston in addition to the re-introduction of regional train services to Leongatha (see Clyde rail extension – 10.8.5 and Further Recommendation C for further information). The extension of the Frankston railway line to join the Cranbourne railway line would result in all Frankston line services originating and terminating at Dandenong railway station which would ease capacity constraints on services on the Pakenham railway line. With reports of railway stations (and especially carparks) on the Cranbourne railway line struggling to cope with increased patronage,50 this extension would ease congestion around the existing railway stations on the Cranbourne railway line as passengers will be able to use newer railway stations closer to their homes allowing the upgrade of existing railway stations on the line. In addition, this extension would un-complicate Melbourne’s metropolitan railway network by removing Cranbourne services from the Pakenham railway line in addition to providing extra capacity in times of emergency or major works on the Pakenham railway line.

Recommendation F – Additional freeways in metropolitan MelbourneIt is noted the Draft Strategy and the Draft Options Book have included a recommendation for a North East Link – 11.4.6, 13.5.1 (not canvassed in this submission but supported). It is also noted that all recently proposed or constructed freeways in metropolitan Melbourne roughly follow the same freeways proposed in the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan. It is therefore submitted that the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan should be revisited and a detailed analysis be undertaken of all the freeways proposed in that plan. Subsequently, should there still be a need for the freeways contained in the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan (of which the North East Link was one), a comprehensive needs analysis should be undertaken to prioritise construction of these freeways. Such a comprehensive package of freeway construction would provide certainty to the community at large, such as businesses and

50 Megan Bailey, ‘Commuters Park in mud on vacant land near Cranbourne railway station’ Cranbourne Leader (online), 27 July 2016 <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/commuters-park-in-mud-on-vacant-land-near-cranbourne-railway-station/news-story/f46f1f44385bb69255c1a5e2a38b2870>.

23

home buyers who could plan decisions for the future around such a plan. Such a plan would also avoid the stop/start nature of freeway construction in metropolitan Melbourne which has sought to be avoided in other areas such as rolling stock acquisitions.51

51 Above n 3.

24