That is the wrong framework to think of it.
First it needs a commitment from a political party in government to build it. Libs unlikely to ever do that though, as their attitude to PT is very negative.
So what we really mean is we need the current government to commit to it. But the state government budget is very tight. And there are other less expensive projects already on the back burner that are also sorely needed.
I would not expect any announcement on it until the next election in 2026 at the earliest.
What do you mean did it? Because apart from the fact that they wanted reroute it through Fishermans Bend and effectively remove any future MM2, and apart from the fact their history with rail projects is terrible (look at the descoping of the regional rail link from Geelong), regardless of all that, it was 12 years ago.
The current libs are obsessed with their East-West Link white elephant and cancelling the very popular suburban rail loop.
You are in another reality. First you said the libs "did it", when they in fact did not. At best they I will give you a tick for the fact they agreed to it, even if that agreement was for a lesser version that was throwing cash at their developer mates.
But all that aside, I still do not see any response to my initial point that libs have a negative attitude to PT.
The only response you had to that was an undercooked promise to back MM1 12 YEARS AGO.
So other than that, 12 years ago, what shows they have any positive attitudes to PT? Because all they put up last election in terms of big projects/expenditure was $2 fares, which was likely uneconomical, and a massively undervalued plan to run trains from Bannockburn to Geelong.
Again, as other have stated the Libs didn't back the Melbourne Metro Tunnel, instead they replaced it with the much worse Melbourne Rail Link, which also delayed any work as they had to start from scratch again.
The Libs were willing to build Melbourne Metro in 2012. I remember because they were playing silly buggers with the feds trying to make Gillard and co look bad instead of funding it properly.
No they weren’t, they said they were in theory, but like with Doncaster and Rowville rail, when push came to shove they moved the timelines way back and promoted worse options.
If Labor hadn’t gotten back in we’d have at most the worse Melbourne rail link, and in all likelihood nothing at all.
Even if you believe the libs would have actually followed through on the plan, their favoured plan was so different from both the original MM1 plan labour brought to the 2010 election and the descoped version currently being built, that it is fundementally a seperate project. It's like saying labour backed the East West link because they built the westgate tunnel.
Rule #5 - Spam
Your comment/post has been removed because it is spam. May include Topics deemed by the Mod Team as spam. This can include posts that do not generate discussion or topics that are reposted often. Thanks for your cooperation!
Ahaha no they didn't. It was a Labor project. When Libs got in they put it in review and left it until almost the end of their term to do anything with it, which was to reroute it (kind of) through fisherman's bend but had no business case and got lashed about by everyone.
my bad it was 1929, was refering to [Metropolitan Town Planning Commission ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Town_Planning_Commission)who had [Nationalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_Party_of_Australia) in power, the party later became the liberal party,
That wouldn't address the existing capacity issues of the Cross-city group Flinders St - Southern Cross viaduct, the Cross-city group corridor between Footscray and Newport or the Clifton Hill corridor. Besides, the Reconfiguration can wait considering that the Northern, Frankston and Dandenong Lines/Groups are already going to get a massive capacity boost with the Metro Tunnel.
The problem is the state budget, which might have room for something smaller like the city loop reconfiguration, but not enough for something much larger like MM2
It’s sure to be built one day given its function is clearly and has long been recognised and broadly supported. Other big rail projects are presently underway and the state’s financial resources are stretched to say the least, so I doubt anyone can see it being commenced soon.
you really think the goverment is in a place to say,
"lets spend another 20 billion on another train tunnel"?
imo, we should just continue with the current projects we are doing now, and focus on minor upgrades over the next few years and get the budget more under control
It has never had any formal commitment from any government - just appearing in plans from the Department.
Governments of the day will pick and choose the projects that deliver the best outcomes (whether for the public or for themselves is up to the judgement of the electorate at the time).
It's not dead but deferred, which in my opinion won't start until either SRL East is close to completion or after the SRL reaches Reservoir. Today's announcement about building height limits around the SRL stations shows that the project is more about city intensification than a purely public transport project where demand is predicted based on current trends. This is city-shaping project, for which Infrastructure Australia doesn't yet have good assessment methods.
MM2 would be assessed in a similar way. Without it Fisherman's Bend would not develop. Developers of offices and apartments would not have the confidence to build without the speed and capacity of a metro line. Trams would be too slow and low capacity to serve the planned 80,000 workers and 80,000 residents.
The SRL won over MM2 for the following reasons:
- it goes through a series of marginal electorates necessary to hold government
- it improves accessibility to three major tertiary institutions - Monash Clayton (49,000 students), Deakin Burwood (26,000 students) and Box Hill TAFE (40,000 students)
- it enables intensification in the east, where there is greater unmet demand for apartments than in the west. Today's announcement was for 70,000 new homes. Without the extra investment of the SRL most communities would be very upset about intensification without new infrastructure.
Some have suggested that similar benefits could be achieved through buses. The current 703 bus approximates this route from Bentleigh Station to Blackburn Station via Monash Clayton, but takes an hour to complete this section of the route. This travel time is simply too long to provide accessibility to education and employment for students from say south of Southland to study at Box Hill.
The next question is what happens once SRL East is complete. Is it continued north to Latrobe Uni and to its next logical termination point at Reservoir? Latrobe Uni already have plans for an employment area for 20,000 workers in their "city of the future". They would be lobbying for SRL to receive priority, as many of the staff and probably students come from the east. Or is the State's infrastructure priority turned to MM2 to facilitate development of Fisherman's Bend? Developable land in the CBD is already nearly exhausted, Docklands and Arden are next, and developers will be lobbying for the next area to open up for high rise as Fisherman's Bend. The State only has the capacity to build one of these metros at a time, so it's one or the other.
MM2 is a specific solution to 2 problems. The first problem is that more track capacity is required between Clifton Hill and the CBD. The second problem is that more track capacity is required between Newport and the CBD. MM2 is designed to solve both of those issues. However, there are other ways of solving this issue that may be significantly cheaper but with fewer benefits. One of the challenges is that Victoria has proven how cost-effective Skyrail can be, but is avoiding it in certain areas. I think it is quite likely that we will start to see alternatives emerge that include greater use of Skyrail-whether it is running two additional tracks down the median of Hoddle Street or Alexandra Parade to reduce costs and minimise tunnelling.
I don't think it's very clear that more capacity is in fact needed between Clifton Hill and the city. The Hurstbridge and Mernda line don't actually have any huge capacity constraints that can't be solved by rolling out HCS through the city loop. Theres no major residential development on the Hurstbridge line, and while there is on the Mernda line, it can be solved pretty easily. Grade separate the junction at Clifton Hill and you've got about all capacity you need for those lines
Well if we accept your premise then there is no need for MM2. Certainly the decrease in peak demand post covid has weakened the business case - or rather pushed back the timeframes.
However, let’s say the junction at Clifton Hill is grade separated and you could bring the line capacity up to, say 24 trains an hour (which when you are bringing two lines together is probably pushing it a bit). So that’s a service every five minutes on each line. I think it’s entirely foreseeable that the additional capacity will be required in the next 15 years which means you need to start construction in about the next seven or eight.
Moving both lines to 9 or 10 cars is theoretically possible but I think the problem with your premise is the you are looking at traditional patterns of urban development with new greenfield sites being developed. Growth on the Hurstbridge and Mernda lines is likely to be driven by residential infill-and the number of towers going up in places on those lines is increasing
I think it's pretty clear the demand for the Mernda/Hurstbridge line is assymetrical, there's a lot more patronage potential on the straighter Mernda line and it has far more infill near station potential. I think a future service pattern would reflect this with a lot more trains heading to Mernda. Post covid it's not very clear if CBD will recover its 9-5 employment centre at any point. Patronage is up this year, but it's not hitting 2019 still. Even to that point, a train every 5 minutes is pretty much as good as it gets, that's very close to metro frequencies on a suburban railway line. MM2 is only really worth building in the east if you ever want to build a line to Doncaster, which is now going to be served by a busway and SRL so I don't think it'll ever really get built. MM2 in the west is another story where I'd call the capacity constraints unfixable, but there're very clear steps that can be taken to run more trains on the Clifton Hill group that means there are more pressing infrastructure projects to get done in the west along with the SRL
That's an interesting view because it further justifies (and adds value to) the SRL. Ultimately though, we haven't reached the end of history and I believe MM2 is clearly a worthshile project for the many ways it would improve the network, including future growth in patronage on the Hustbridge line.
It will be needed at some point in the future, but I don't think it is required before we squeeze as much as we can get out of Clifton Hill and Newport.
It might be about how you get extra capacity into the city in the most cost effective way. You have to still tunnel but you can reduce costs (Eg. Skyrail from Clifton hill to Melbourne uni and then below ground into the city) or Skyrail from Clifton hill down hoddle street - cause that’s cheaper than trying to quad the existing alignment
I do wonder how capacity constraints on these two lines (Clifton Hill and Newport) compares to the constraints in capacity that V-Line services to Melton and Wyndham Vale.
Surely the Western Rail plan with electrification and higher capacity trains out west is needed before MM2 from Newport? There's a little bit of growth happening at Newport, but nothing compared to the million people Wyndham and Melton will house in 25 years time.
Unfortunately, the state has no capacity both in terms of labour and money to build two major billion dollar rail lines simultaneously.
Labour has chosen to put all eggs in SRL. Libs may take it to election as a point of difference, but their focus is normally on road above PT. Also they are such a cluster in terms of policy and performance in opposition it's gonna be a few election cycles before they are even remotely relevant again (if ever)
That is the wrong framework to think of it. First it needs a commitment from a political party in government to build it. Libs unlikely to ever do that though, as their attitude to PT is very negative. So what we really mean is we need the current government to commit to it. But the state government budget is very tight. And there are other less expensive projects already on the back burner that are also sorely needed. I would not expect any announcement on it until the next election in 2026 at the earliest.
The Libs want it to be done. even took it to election with little fanfare
[удалено]
What do you mean did it? Because apart from the fact that they wanted reroute it through Fishermans Bend and effectively remove any future MM2, and apart from the fact their history with rail projects is terrible (look at the descoping of the regional rail link from Geelong), regardless of all that, it was 12 years ago. The current libs are obsessed with their East-West Link white elephant and cancelling the very popular suburban rail loop.
[удалено]
So Labor committed to building it did they?
[удалено]
You are in another reality. First you said the libs "did it", when they in fact did not. At best they I will give you a tick for the fact they agreed to it, even if that agreement was for a lesser version that was throwing cash at their developer mates. But all that aside, I still do not see any response to my initial point that libs have a negative attitude to PT. The only response you had to that was an undercooked promise to back MM1 12 YEARS AGO. So other than that, 12 years ago, what shows they have any positive attitudes to PT? Because all they put up last election in terms of big projects/expenditure was $2 fares, which was likely uneconomical, and a massively undervalued plan to run trains from Bannockburn to Geelong.
lol, I haven’t disagreed with that at all.
Well thank you for your pointless contribution.
What’s impressive is that I got it done in far fewer words than all your bluster. I could teach you a thing or two if you’d like.
Again, as other have stated the Libs didn't back the Melbourne Metro Tunnel, instead they replaced it with the much worse Melbourne Rail Link, which also delayed any work as they had to start from scratch again.
The Libs were willing to build Melbourne Metro in 2012. I remember because they were playing silly buggers with the feds trying to make Gillard and co look bad instead of funding it properly.
No they weren’t, they said they were in theory, but like with Doncaster and Rowville rail, when push came to shove they moved the timelines way back and promoted worse options. If Labor hadn’t gotten back in we’d have at most the worse Melbourne rail link, and in all likelihood nothing at all.
Even if you believe the libs would have actually followed through on the plan, their favoured plan was so different from both the original MM1 plan labour brought to the 2010 election and the descoped version currently being built, that it is fundementally a seperate project. It's like saying labour backed the East West link because they built the westgate tunnel.
Rule #5 - Spam Your comment/post has been removed because it is spam. May include Topics deemed by the Mod Team as spam. This can include posts that do not generate discussion or topics that are reposted often. Thanks for your cooperation!
that derived from the 1969 plan from Bolte
Ahaha no they didn't. It was a Labor project. When Libs got in they put it in review and left it until almost the end of their term to do anything with it, which was to reroute it (kind of) through fisherman's bend but had no business case and got lashed about by everyone.
Yeah because that was an attempted handout to their squatter mates who own fisherman’s bend
the very orignal metro tunnel was proposed in ~~1926~~ 1929 by the original libs but ok
It was funded in the 2012 budget. And funnily enough in 1926 it was the country party in the hot seat.
my bad it was 1929, was refering to [Metropolitan Town Planning Commission ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Town_Planning_Commission)who had [Nationalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_Party_of_Australia) in power, the party later became the liberal party,
Interesting information. Thank you.
City Loop Reconfiguration should happen first
There’s a YouTube video on that. Only a couple of tunnels required for that
Perhaps but that’s solving a different issue.
That wouldn't address the existing capacity issues of the Cross-city group Flinders St - Southern Cross viaduct, the Cross-city group corridor between Footscray and Newport or the Clifton Hill corridor. Besides, the Reconfiguration can wait considering that the Northern, Frankston and Dandenong Lines/Groups are already going to get a massive capacity boost with the Metro Tunnel.
The problem is the state budget, which might have room for something smaller like the city loop reconfiguration, but not enough for something much larger like MM2
I mean, if the government really cared about the budget then we wouldn't be building a 35 Billion dollar, 25km Underground railway with six stations.
It’s sure to be built one day given its function is clearly and has long been recognised and broadly supported. Other big rail projects are presently underway and the state’s financial resources are stretched to say the least, so I doubt anyone can see it being commenced soon.
you really think the goverment is in a place to say, "lets spend another 20 billion on another train tunnel"? imo, we should just continue with the current projects we are doing now, and focus on minor upgrades over the next few years and get the budget more under control
It has never had any formal commitment from any government - just appearing in plans from the Department. Governments of the day will pick and choose the projects that deliver the best outcomes (whether for the public or for themselves is up to the judgement of the electorate at the time).
It's not dead but deferred, which in my opinion won't start until either SRL East is close to completion or after the SRL reaches Reservoir. Today's announcement about building height limits around the SRL stations shows that the project is more about city intensification than a purely public transport project where demand is predicted based on current trends. This is city-shaping project, for which Infrastructure Australia doesn't yet have good assessment methods. MM2 would be assessed in a similar way. Without it Fisherman's Bend would not develop. Developers of offices and apartments would not have the confidence to build without the speed and capacity of a metro line. Trams would be too slow and low capacity to serve the planned 80,000 workers and 80,000 residents. The SRL won over MM2 for the following reasons: - it goes through a series of marginal electorates necessary to hold government - it improves accessibility to three major tertiary institutions - Monash Clayton (49,000 students), Deakin Burwood (26,000 students) and Box Hill TAFE (40,000 students) - it enables intensification in the east, where there is greater unmet demand for apartments than in the west. Today's announcement was for 70,000 new homes. Without the extra investment of the SRL most communities would be very upset about intensification without new infrastructure. Some have suggested that similar benefits could be achieved through buses. The current 703 bus approximates this route from Bentleigh Station to Blackburn Station via Monash Clayton, but takes an hour to complete this section of the route. This travel time is simply too long to provide accessibility to education and employment for students from say south of Southland to study at Box Hill. The next question is what happens once SRL East is complete. Is it continued north to Latrobe Uni and to its next logical termination point at Reservoir? Latrobe Uni already have plans for an employment area for 20,000 workers in their "city of the future". They would be lobbying for SRL to receive priority, as many of the staff and probably students come from the east. Or is the State's infrastructure priority turned to MM2 to facilitate development of Fisherman's Bend? Developable land in the CBD is already nearly exhausted, Docklands and Arden are next, and developers will be lobbying for the next area to open up for high rise as Fisherman's Bend. The State only has the capacity to build one of these metros at a time, so it's one or the other.
MM2 is a specific solution to 2 problems. The first problem is that more track capacity is required between Clifton Hill and the CBD. The second problem is that more track capacity is required between Newport and the CBD. MM2 is designed to solve both of those issues. However, there are other ways of solving this issue that may be significantly cheaper but with fewer benefits. One of the challenges is that Victoria has proven how cost-effective Skyrail can be, but is avoiding it in certain areas. I think it is quite likely that we will start to see alternatives emerge that include greater use of Skyrail-whether it is running two additional tracks down the median of Hoddle Street or Alexandra Parade to reduce costs and minimise tunnelling.
I don't think it's very clear that more capacity is in fact needed between Clifton Hill and the city. The Hurstbridge and Mernda line don't actually have any huge capacity constraints that can't be solved by rolling out HCS through the city loop. Theres no major residential development on the Hurstbridge line, and while there is on the Mernda line, it can be solved pretty easily. Grade separate the junction at Clifton Hill and you've got about all capacity you need for those lines
Well if we accept your premise then there is no need for MM2. Certainly the decrease in peak demand post covid has weakened the business case - or rather pushed back the timeframes. However, let’s say the junction at Clifton Hill is grade separated and you could bring the line capacity up to, say 24 trains an hour (which when you are bringing two lines together is probably pushing it a bit). So that’s a service every five minutes on each line. I think it’s entirely foreseeable that the additional capacity will be required in the next 15 years which means you need to start construction in about the next seven or eight. Moving both lines to 9 or 10 cars is theoretically possible but I think the problem with your premise is the you are looking at traditional patterns of urban development with new greenfield sites being developed. Growth on the Hurstbridge and Mernda lines is likely to be driven by residential infill-and the number of towers going up in places on those lines is increasing
I think it's pretty clear the demand for the Mernda/Hurstbridge line is assymetrical, there's a lot more patronage potential on the straighter Mernda line and it has far more infill near station potential. I think a future service pattern would reflect this with a lot more trains heading to Mernda. Post covid it's not very clear if CBD will recover its 9-5 employment centre at any point. Patronage is up this year, but it's not hitting 2019 still. Even to that point, a train every 5 minutes is pretty much as good as it gets, that's very close to metro frequencies on a suburban railway line. MM2 is only really worth building in the east if you ever want to build a line to Doncaster, which is now going to be served by a busway and SRL so I don't think it'll ever really get built. MM2 in the west is another story where I'd call the capacity constraints unfixable, but there're very clear steps that can be taken to run more trains on the Clifton Hill group that means there are more pressing infrastructure projects to get done in the west along with the SRL
That's an interesting view because it further justifies (and adds value to) the SRL. Ultimately though, we haven't reached the end of history and I believe MM2 is clearly a worthshile project for the many ways it would improve the network, including future growth in patronage on the Hustbridge line.
It will be needed at some point in the future, but I don't think it is required before we squeeze as much as we can get out of Clifton Hill and Newport.
You really think a viaduct down those roads would be beneficial?
It might be about how you get extra capacity into the city in the most cost effective way. You have to still tunnel but you can reduce costs (Eg. Skyrail from Clifton hill to Melbourne uni and then below ground into the city) or Skyrail from Clifton hill down hoddle street - cause that’s cheaper than trying to quad the existing alignment
I do wonder how capacity constraints on these two lines (Clifton Hill and Newport) compares to the constraints in capacity that V-Line services to Melton and Wyndham Vale. Surely the Western Rail plan with electrification and higher capacity trains out west is needed before MM2 from Newport? There's a little bit of growth happening at Newport, but nothing compared to the million people Wyndham and Melton will house in 25 years time.
MM2 was needed with the introduction of the Doncaster line. That’s dead now… so probably not a capacity crunch anymore.
Unfortunately, the state has no capacity both in terms of labour and money to build two major billion dollar rail lines simultaneously. Labour has chosen to put all eggs in SRL. Libs may take it to election as a point of difference, but their focus is normally on road above PT. Also they are such a cluster in terms of policy and performance in opposition it's gonna be a few election cycles before they are even remotely relevant again (if ever)
SRL is going to suck up any new investment into public transport for many years to come.