Infrastructure Victoria All Things Considered Options Paper. Manningham City Council Submission

Transcription

1

2 Manningham City Council Submission Infrastructure Victoria All Things Considered Options Paper Manningham City Council Submission Transport and Planning Manningham residents deserve a public transport solution that is far superior to what they have now. At present, Manningham is the worst served municipality in metropolitan Melbourne, and its needs have been largely ignored for decades. Council deems it important that the following transport infrastructure projects and/or proposals are considered by Infrastructure Victoria (IV), as an important aspect of providing a well integrated, efficient and sustainable transport network, capable of transporting people in a reliable and convenient manner to services, employment and other destinations within Melbourne s east. The City of Manningham, with a population of 119,000, is located in Melbourne s northeast, spanning between 12 and 30 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD. The municipality is predominantly a dormitory suburb, with a mix of urban, peri-urban and semi-rural residential establishments, and effectively surrounded by the environmental and physical boundaries of the Yarra River and Eastern Freeway. These boundaries essentially limit the ability for residents to traverse and access employment, services and opportunities beyond the municipal boundary. In addition, there are currently no major health or educational institutions (Universities or TAFE) within the boundaries of the municipality, and nor are there any major employment clusters (other than Doncaster Hill) or industrial areas. Therefore, Manningham s residents must travel outside the municipality for these services. This presents some serious challenges for our community, particularly, due to an overwhelming reliance on transport services and networks to access facilities located beyond our municipal boundary, with buses providing the only current form of public transport for our residents. Therefore, consideration of major improvements and the provision of alternative modes of transport in the region are considered vital, to ensure that our community have access to equitable, reliable and convenient transport options. In order to meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne (Need #10), and to improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres (Need #11), the following are considered important as short, medium and long term solutions: Doncaster Bus Improvement (DBI) The option to consider enhancing the Doncaster Area Rapid Transit (DART) bus services is supported by Council, and one that requires further consideration for immediate (short-term) development and implementation. Improvements to provide increased capacity, frequency Page 1 of 11

3 Manningham City Council Submission and priority for buses along the entire route, will enable a suitable public transport alternative in the region, as an interim solution to a future rail option along this corridor. Ultimately, Manningham requires a mass-transit solution to its public transport woes, and seeks an interim solution until heavy rail can be delivered. The present bus transit system to and from the CBD has short comings, in that travel time is compromised by having to compete with other road-based transport along its route, and, in particular, at the entry and exit points along the Eastern Freeway leg of the commute, and along Hoddle Street and Lonsdale Street in the CBD. A key aspect to address issues with the current DART network is to consider (in the short term) an upgrade of DART to a full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network between the Doncaster area and the Melbourne CBD, with dedicated priority and reliable, high frequency and accessible bus services. This will require an extensive upgrade of DART route 907, with the provision of a dedicated busway along the Eastern Freeway and adjoining roads, including Hoddle Street, Alexandra Parade, Lonsdale Street and Doncaster Road, to provide uniform improvements to bus priority on the existing road network, as was recently implemented by Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and VicRoads along Victoria Parade. Both Council and Transdev (who operate the majority of buses in Manningham and the CBD corridor) have determined that a BRT upgrade of this corridor provides a reasonable intermediate solution, that maximizes the utilisation of assets and services already provided in the area (i.e. the existing bus network). It is further understood that Transdev are actively pursuing this proposal with PTV, VicRoads and relevant State ministers. The benefits and rationale of providing a BRT network between the Melbourne CBD, Doncaster and Mitcham (via the Eastern Freeway and Doncaster Road) include: Dedicated busways can reduce travel time by minutes per kilometer compared with conventional buses (Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2003). Patronage data provided by PTV indicates a significant increase in patronage and demand for the four (4) DART routes operating in Manningham, justifying any future investment in further improvements to DART. Between 2009 and 2012, weekday patronage of DART services increased by 47%, Saturday patronage increased by 212% and Sunday patronage by 149%, with the four routes now carrying in excess of 3 million passengers per year (illustrating demand for reliable and efficient public transport services in the region). This demand seems to be only limited by the service capacity offered. In 2009, the East West Link Needs Assessment (EWLNA) estimated that by 2016, the DART upgrade should generate between 3,000 and 4,000 trips each day. By 2015, this figure was achieved, with almost 4,000 extra trips per day, and still growing. Currently, the four DART routes collectively experience in excess of 12,000 passenger boardings per day. Between 2006 and 2011, public transport travel between Manningham and the CBD increased from 37% to 45% of total (travel to work) journeys. In that same period, car travel decreased by 7% down to 52% of total travel to work journeys. The remaining 3% of commuters travel by walking and/or cycling (ABS, 2011). Page 2 of 11

4 Manningham City Council Submission During this same time, there has been a 24% increase in the number of buses (+77) travelling along the Eastern Freeway to the CBD in the morning peak ( am), with over half of these being DART buses. Bus patronage on the Eastern Freeway has increased by 43% between 2007 and 2014 to 15,000 passengers per day (VicRoads). Currently, eight (8) different bus routes destined for Manningham use the Eastern Freeway (4 regular all-day, and 4 peak-only) every weekday, providing a total of 556 bus trips along the Eastern Freeway in both directions. A dedicated BRT network can provide significantly improved transport capability to the region, with short headways between buses, very frequent services, and priority treatment to reduce delays and provide a reliable level of service. The notable enhancements that would be required to upgrade the DART system to a BRT standard include: Dedicated right-of-way within the 10.6km median-strip of the Eastern Freeway between Doncaster Road and Hoddle Street; BRT stations (similar to railway stations) at Bulleen Road, Burke Road and Chandler Highway; Grade separated bus lane access off and onto the Eastern Freeway from the Doncaster Park-and-Ride facility; Priority exit/entry off the Freeway at Hoddle Street and other interchanges (through provision of ramp-metering); and Dedicated 24/7 bus lanes on Hoddle Street (outbound), Lonsdale Street in the CBD, Doncaster Road and Thompsons/Bulleen Roads, along with priority treatment for buses at intersections. The DART network upgrade has since been a victim of its own success, experiencing constant over-crowding issues on peak-service buses, growing demand and instances of bus bunching on key roads (where an influx of buses result in delays to one another). Commuters report regularly watching buses drive past, as they wait for one with spare capacity. With patronage levels exceeding initial forecasts, it is now considered timely that the DART network is further upgraded as a BRT option to cater for existing and ongoing demand for public transport services in the area. Brisbane serves as probably the best example of BRT in Australia, with the South-Eastern, Northern and Eastern busways accommodating over 70 million passengers in Today, 26% of current users have switched from private car use to the bus (BRT), and a further 16% of customer trips were generated due to the convenience of BRT. Approximately 47% of the City of Brisbane s 400 bus routes use the three busways at some part of their journey, which illustrates the wider-regional benefits the busways provide (Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland). Transdev estimates that the cost to deliver a full BRT system for Manningham, on the existing DART 907 (CBD to Mitcham) bus route, would be in the order of $250-$300 million, and could be in operation by 2019, subject to State Government support and prioritisation. Page 3 of 11

5 Manningham City Council Submission Generally, the cost to deliver BRT is around $23-$24 million per kilometre, based on recent Australian examples (State Infrastructure Strategy, NSW Government, 2012). Brisbane s BRT was delivered at a cost of between $24-$28 million per kilometre. Data obtained from an analysis of 44 BRT systems from around the world, estimated the average cost at US $10 million per kilometre (Hensher and Golob, 2008 BRT Systems A comparative Assessment, University of Sydney). A BRT network can be delivered at a far less cost (to implement and operate) than heavy rail, and can provide for a suitable dedicated public transport service between the CBD and Manningham in the interim, as a short to medium term solution to the future provision of heavy rail. Concurrently, BRT will also enable the preservation of the Eastern Freeway median west of Bulleen Road for a public transport purpose, as well as the creation of a new dedicated reservation east of Bulleen Road. Doncaster Heavy Rail Line (DHR) With regard to consideration of the Doncaster heavy rail line option, it is understood that IV have determined to filter out this option, based on IV s initial assessment, stating that it (DHR) requires a significant capital investment (pg. 132) and feasibility studies indicate that few people will change to public transport if a heavy rail service were available compared to the existing bus service (p. 80). Council consider that the rationale provided by IV on their Doncaster Heavy Rail decision to be flawed, in relation to (a) the cost (as the initial Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report, 2014 cost estimate is inaccurate and over-estimated) and (b) that the patronage increase from bus to train would only be marginal (with reference to the assumption that only two per cent of patrons estimated to use Doncaster Rail, will be new as a result of mode-shift from private vehicle, pg. 133). With regard to this, Council questions the veracity of this position, and requests that, as a part of the ongoing consideration in forming a 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy for Victoria, the DHR proposal is further assessed for inclusion, on the basis that: The assumptions provided by IV in the Options Paper, are unverified, as they are purely based on the incomplete assessment of the initial Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report, 2014 (referred to herein as the DHR Feasibility Study ). A key recommendation of the DHR Feasibility Study outlined the need to undertake a more detailed and thorough assessment (Phase Two Feasibility Study) of the preferred alignment (station locations, engineering assessment, land tenure needs, etc), including an economic evaluation of costs, benefits and wider economic benefits to support potential funding submissions and assess the potential for value capture opportunities. To date, this has not been completed, or committed to by the State Government, resulting in an incomplete, thorough and fair assessment of the DHR proposal. Therefore, to not base any future consideration on the DHR proposal in the Infrastructure Strategy on this basis is flawed. The DHR Feasibility Study failed to factor in accurate population projections for Doncaster Hill (referencing outdated data from the 2006 Census), ultimately influencing the projected patronage data that led to the finding that the proposal to Page 4 of 11

6 Manningham City Council Submission extend the rail line to Doncaster Hill was not feasible (consequently invalidating the proposal). Council submits that as the projected population figures for Doncaster Hill have been vastly under-estimated, this has in-turn inaccurately influenced the data used in the transport modelling to determine projected patronage figures, and ultimately, assess the figures against the projected cost to deliver the project. The feasibility study found that the projected patronage level for Doncaster Rail (56,000 per day) would exceed that of the existing Glen Waverley line, even with the underestimated population forecasts mentioned above. The rationale, findings and costs of the DHR Feasibility Study were altered to factor in the former East-West Link proposal, consequently resulting in an altered rail alignment that significantly contributed to an escalated cost estimate of the proposal. The option to filter out the DHR proposal in IV s Infrastructure Strategy, is contrary to the findings and advice of Public Transport Victoria in their Network Development Plan - Metropolitan Rail, 2012 assessment, which identifies that a Doncaster Rail Link should be provided by 2029, pending the delivery of other proceeding rail improvements/projects, complimentary to the overall metropolitan rail network. A report commissioned by Council (The Review of Parking and Traffic Management within Doncaster Hill Study Findings, GTA 2012) suggests that without a 30% modeshift to more sustainable forms of transport, traffic conditions in Doncaster Hill will be similar to those found in inner-city activity centres across Melbourne. Given the physical constraints of the road system, a 30% mode-shift to sustainable public transport can only realistically be achieved with an order of magnitude improvement to public transport infrastructure from, to and within the Hill, such as the provision of heavy rail to Doncaster Hill. Although the DART bus network is currently providing a makeshift public transport option between the Manningham region and the Melbourne CBD, buses will not be able to cater for similar public transport demand that is provided by a heavy rail service. IV identify that there is strong community and stakeholder support for Doncaster heavy rail (pg. 132), which exemplifies the demand for reliable and efficient public transport services in the region. Further information and justification on the aforementioned reasons, is provided in the attached Manningham City Council Submission: Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report, In particular, reference to projected population data for Doncaster Hill and the region, is provided in section 5.1 of the Report, which provides further justification for why the filtering out of the DHR option should be reconsidered by IV. Council acknowledges the comments provided by IV in the Options Paper (pg. 133) that the City of Manningham, and surrounding middle-suburban region, is not identified as a growth corridor, and characterised by low-density development. However, given the existing established urban nature of the region, population growth and development will be experienced in more localised areas and around activity centres, such as Doncaster Hill and the Doncaster Road corridor. It is expected that Doncaster Hill will experience an average annual population increase of 9.55%, above and beyond the 0.64% annual average population increase for the City of Manningham as a whole (Manningham City Council, 2016). Therefore, consideration should be made to consider such localised growth in the Page 5 of 11

7 Manningham City Council Submission assessment and viability of the DHR. This also seeks to support IV s objective to consider Strategic transit-oriented development corridors (O), underpinned by access to a suitable public transport network. Council further acknowledges IV s comments contained in the Options Paper that the justification for a heavy rail line to Doncaster is not supported, on the basis that its a very small pay-off [to build heavy rail] in the context of the estimated cost of the line (pg. 133). Based on the preliminary findings of the DHR Feasibility Study, the projected cost is indeed high, when assessed against underestimated projected population data. However, further consideration is required to understand and acknowledge the influence on the projected cost based on more accurate assumptions. Section 5.3 of Council s Submission to the DHR Feasibility Study, contains further justification and reference to cost, based on similar heavy rail projects already undertaken in Australia. In addition to the above, Council considers it important, and of regional significance, that as part of a 30-year infrastructure strategy for Victoria, the Eastern Freeway median strip is preserved for the purpose of a future public transport corridor. This may provide for a future alignment of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network along this corridor in the short to medium term, or for a heavy rail line to be provided between the CBD and Doncaster Hill (Doncaster Rail Link) in the long term. However, without consideration in IV s Options Paper for either a BRT or DHR network, serious concern is expressed that future-proofing such corridors, and advance planning for large scale infrastructure projects, will compromise the ability to one day deliver such important, and significant transport networks. Therefore, it is suggested that at the very least, that as part of IV s short-term objectives of the Infrastructure Strategy, consideration is made to include a formal preservation of the Eastern Freeway median strip in the immediate future, along with securing any necessary land for associated stations and an alignment east of Bulleen Road, and a reassessment to not filter out the DHR from the Infrastructure Strategy. Doncaster Tram Service (DTS) Although Council welcomes the consideration of the extension of tram route 48 between North Balwyn and Doncaster Hill, we seek to ensure that this proposal is not been considered as an alternative (or trade-off) to the future provision of a Doncaster Heavy Rail Line (DHR), as the tram will not serve as a viable or attractive alternative to the existing bus services already provided from the area, or in lieu of a heavy rail option. A study commissioned by Council identified that the morning peak travel time to the CBD from Doncaster would be 45 minutes by bus versus 61 minutes by tram, notably as a result of growing congestion on the road network in the inner city (High Street in Kew, Church Street, Hawthorn, Bridge Road in Richmond and Collins Street in the City) and competition for road space ( Report for Doncaster Road Public Transport Analysis Bus versus Tram Comparison Study, GHD, May 2009). As identified in Infrastructure Victoria s Options Paper, this option [tram] is more likely to provide a local connectivity benefit than to support travel to central Melbourne (pg. 134). This view is also supported by Council, as a tram extension to Doncaster Hill may only provide benefit as a local transport service in the region, unless the entire route 48 tram corridor between Doncaster Hill and Docklands is upgraded to a light rail standard, with full Page 6 of 11

8 Manningham City Council Submission prioritization on the road network through physical separation between tram and cars and sufficient spacing between light rail stations. Notwithstanding the above, the four kilometer extension of tram route 48 from Balwyn North to Doncaster Hill will provide for a suitable local transport network, in its own right, to serve the growing Doncaster Hill precinct, and is a proposal that is supported by Council and recognised as significant when considered as part of a 30-year infrastructure plan. Hoddle Street/Punt Road Public Transport Prioritisation (HSP1) In support of the option outlined above to support the Doncaster bus improvement (DBI), it is considered crucial and of importance that public transport is prioritized along this corridor, particularly along Hoddle Street between the Eastern Freeway and Victoria Parade. As such, Council is supportive of immediate (short term) consideration of this option, on the basis that: The community of Manningham is solely reliant on the DART bus services for travel between Manningham and the Melbourne CBD, and as such, the future prioritisation of public transport services along Hoddle Street is integral in improving reliability and efficiency of outbound peak bus services from the CBD to the Eastern Freeway (in lieu of the lack of rail services to the Manningham area). Hoddle Street serves as a major arterial gateway for travel between the CBD and Manningham, and improved access along this route for the DART buses is crucial for the 12,000 daily users of these services (particularly DART route 907 to Mitcham, as it serves as the fourth most patronised bus service in Melbourne, and the most patronised bus route from the CBD to the suburbs). Hoddle Street plays a significant role for commuters, as public transport commuters represents 36 per cent of all people who move along this road (VicRoads). On an average weekday, 464 buses travel along the outbound lanes of Hoddle Street, including services that operate to other areas of Melbourne, such as the very popular and heavily patronised bus route 246 between Elsternwick and Clifton Hill (fifth busiest bus service in Melbourne), and routes 302 and 350 to Box Hill and LaTrobe University. It is anticipated that an additional 24/7 bus lane (on the outbound approach of Hoddle Street) would cut travel times by minutes in peak traffic and benefit nine regular bus services and four peak-only services, including all four DART services (PTV). During peak times, buses can currently take up to 25 minutes to reach the Eastern Freeway from the CBD a distance of less than four kilometres. A comparative travel time on the rail network for the same distance (during the PM peak) is six minutes. Three of the four DART services operate 7 days a week and up to 19 hours a day, and collectively account for almost half of the bus services utilising the Hoddle Street corridor. Furthermore, two-thirds of buses using Hoddle Street are destined for Manningham. Hoddle Street is a designated bus priority route, as identified by VicRoads SmartRoads plan, and represents the busiest bus corridor in Melbourne. Patronage along this route grew 28% between 2005 and 2010, according to the former Department of Transport, and in recent years the average speed of buses along this route has reduced to a very slow 11 km/h. Page 7 of 11

9 Manningham City Council Submission According to the PTV timetables, the bus travel time for the 17 km outbound journey between the CBD and Doncaster Hill in the afternoon peak is up to 42 minutes (often longer due to other traffic delays). As a comparison, journey times on the rail network over a similar distance are 28 minutes, and as low as 23 minutes on express services, thereby illustrating the importance of prioritising public transport services. During the afternoon peak, outbound journey times of buses between the CBD and the entrance of the Eastern Freeway as stated in the PTV timetables (a distance of four kilometers), extend to 21 minutes an increase in travel time of 17 per cent when compared to the same journey heading inbound in the morning peak, where bus lanes partly exist. This illustrates the important function of a bus lane in maintaining the reliability and efficiency of services. Therefore, better use of the Hoddle Street corridor through a refurbishment of existing assets is supported by Council, as a suitable solution to prioritise and improve public transport services that can be delivered at a reasonable cost with maximum and immediate benefit. We trust that bus priority will be considered along Hoddle Street and Punt Road, as a part of the continuous flow concept investigations currently being undertaken by VicRoads, and implemented as part of the short term solution. Metropolitan Bus Network Reform (MBN) A reform of the metropolitan bus network in Melbourne s east is supported and welcomed by Council, on the basis that any reform involves considerable input and consultation with the community. Many existing bus routes in Manningham have not been reviewed or altered in over a decade, with many local services no longer providing a convenient connection with DART and SmartBus services. In addition, many local bus services follow a very convoluted and complex route path, which fails to provide a direct and convenient service to users that will attract people to shift their travel habits to public transport. Any future bus network reform should take into consideration the provision of a hierarchy of route purpose, including more direct and frequent routes (such as those applied to DART) along key arterial roads, and regular local services to provide access to residential areas beyond walking distance to the direct routes. It is noted, that in 2014, Transdev and PTV commenced a thorough greenfield review of the bus network in the region, with the objective of implementing identified changes in April However, after considerable assessment and support from all stakeholders involved, this review was inexplicably not proceeded with, although many benefits were due to be implemented across the bus network in the region. Bus service improvements that should form part of a future reform should consider substantial service improvements (frequency and capacity) to DART routes 906 (CBD to Warrandyte), 907 (CBD to Mitcham), the SmartBus route 903 orbital service and the potential introduction of a new bus service between Templestowe and Heidelberg railway station, to service an area of Bulleen and Templestowe Lower, which currently lacks a regular and direct bus service. Page 8 of 11

10 Manningham City Council Submission North-East Link (NEL) Due to the lack of any considerable information on the nature of the North-East Link proposal, Council do not have a formalised view as yet regarding this proposal. However, further investigations into the viability, impact, preferred route and implications of this proposal will be welcomed. It is understood that there are currently two alternative routes identified to link the Eastern Freeway and M80 Ring Road: one following the Bulleen Road and Greensborough Highway corridor via Bulleen, Viewbank, Rosanna, Macleod and Greensborough; and the other via a longer route from the East Link Tollway through Doncaster East, Templestowe, Warrandyte, Eltham and Greensborough. Both options present challenges in their own right, and will require a thorough assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts to deliver either option. However, notwithstanding the above, Council may support a future road link between the Eastern Freeway and the M80 Ring Road, and welcomes future investigations of this corridor, to provide for freight and a cross-suburban link through the northeast region, in order to reduce traffic pressure from local arterial roads, which is currently being experience due to the lack of a direct road link between Melbourne s Ring Road and East-West road network. It could be anticipated that traffic volumes (as identified by VicRoads), notably on Bulleen Road (currently 35,000 vehicles per day), Fitzsimons Lane (50,000 vehicles per day) and through Doncaster Hill, may be reduced with the provision of a NEL. Furthermore, an additional Yarra River crossing in this region of Melbourne would be welcomed, to relieve reliance on Manningham Road/Banksia Street, Fitzsimons Lane and Warrandyte Bridge, which all currently experience excessive traffic congestion due to the lack of sufficient river crossings in this region of northeast Melbourne. Road Space Allocation Changes (RSA) As outlined above, Council is supportive of proposals that provide for prioritisation of public transport and cycling on the road network, and welcome ongoing investigation and assessment of the viability of providing dedicated bus lanes, BRT and segregated light rail within existing road corridors, including, but not exclusive to: Doncaster Road, Doncaster and Doncaster East Hoddle Street, Abbotsford/Collingwood Lonsdale Street, City Thompsons Road, Bulleen The tram route 48 corridor (High Street, Kew, Church Street, Hawthorn, Bridge Road, Richmond, Wellington Parade, East Melbourne and Flinders Street, City). This will ensure that areas with existing public transport infrastructure and services are prioritised, and that capacity and efficiency along these routes is maximised, to provide corridors that cater for maximum movement of people through all modes of transport, utilising existing infrastructure. Page 9 of 11

11 Manningham City Council Submission SmartBus Service Provision Increase (SSP) With reference to the aforementioned data illustrating the exceptional growth and demand of regular, efficient and convenient bus services, further consideration needs to be provided to improve other highly utilised bus services across Melbourne, and upgrade their status to provide the benefits of a SmartBus network. This includes consideration to improve the efficiency and capacity (particularly on weekends) of the three existing SmartBus Orbital services (routes 901, 902 and 903), to improve reliability through their current 4-5 hour orbital journeys across Melbourne. With the introduction of recent improvements to the three Orbital bus routes, travel time savings improved on all three routes by between 22-25%, with the 903 route experiencing a significant 24 minute time saving. Ridership growth on the Orbital routes 901, 902 and 903 grew 42%, 47% and 26% respectively (G. Currie, 2012). Other options It is acknowledged that although a number of the aforementioned comments that form Manningham Council s response to the All Things Considered options paper presented by IV, are focused on transport, it is considered that transport in general, and planning for public transport, are both crucial aspects that underpin the successful operation, movement and liveability of a city, that enables people (including the aged, socially disadvantaged and vulnerable) to access employment, health, education and other social services that are not located within walking distance or proximity to where they live. Although the City of Manningham is not formally identified as a growth area, a number of areas within the municipality have been identified, and currently undergoing, considerable localised residential and population growth. This includes the Doncaster Hill precinct, the entire Doncaster Road corridor, and areas immediately surrounding local activity centres. As a part of Council s Doncaster Hill Strategy, 2002, Doncaster Hill has been identified to provide for medium to high density residential development with the objective of attracting future commercial and office establishments, including provision of employment and health facilities on the Hill to support objectives to decentralise such services throughout metropolitan Melbourne and compliment the 20-minute city principle identified as part of the Plan Melbourne Strategy. With regard to this, the following broader options presented by IV for consideration, are underpinned by the provision of sufficient transport options: Active established areas (AEA) Affordable and social housing targeted development (AHR) Bicycle and walking path expansion and improvement (BWP2) Employment outside central city incentivisation (EOC) Health care decentralised delivery mode (HCD2) Strategic transit-oriented development corridors (O) Urban development in established areas (UDC) Page 10 of 11

12 Manningham City Council Submission As a part of an integrated metropolitan wide transport network, heavy rail, light rail and buses all service a specific, yet integral part of the transport network, with heavy rail intended to provide as a spine for longer distance, high capacity and reliable (fully segregated) core transport services. Light rail / trams and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) networks provide as a connection with the heavy rail spine and provide the nerves to enable a link to the local region, supported by a dedicated service with priority, particularly when sharing capacity on the road network. Local buses provide the opportunity to close the gap and service areas beyond reasonable access to heavy rail, light rail / tram and BRT services. It is therefore important, that as part of a long-term Strategy for transport in Melbourne s east, that all of the above-mentioned projects / services / proposals are considered as part of a supportive and inclusive integrated transport network. It is therefore deemed prudent that the aforementioned projects, improvements and/or services are considered in Infrastructure Victoria s 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy, as an integral aspect of the integrated transport network in Melbourne and Victoria, notably in light of the lack of a current Transport Strategy for the State of Victoria. Page 11 of 11

13 June 2013 Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Manningham City Council 699 Doncaster Road Doncaster Victoria 3108

14 Contents Executive Summary Introduction Background Response to Route Options Summary of Limitations and Issues Key Limitations of the Draft Recommendations Report No station at Doncaster Hill Termination at Doncaster Park & Ride Projected Costs CUSP Report Census Data Doncaster Hill Parking and Traffic Management Review 2011 (Manningham City Council) Summary of Findings Impact on Bus Services Route Alignment and Network Connectivity Poor Integration into the Public Transport Network Route 48 Tram (Balwyn North) Route 72 Tram (Camberwell) Station Options Doncaster Hill Doncaster Park & Ride Bulleen Burke Road Kew / Chandler Hwy Victoria Park Doncaster Area Rapid Transit (DART) Grade Separation (Bus & Pedestrian) at Doncaster Hill PTV Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail De-Coupling of South Morang Cycling Pedestrian Analysis Connection to Ringwood Land Use Metropolitan Planning Strategy Preserving the Freeway Rail Alignment Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 2

15 11. East-West Road Link Phase 2 of the Doncaster Rail Study Consultation with the DRLGG Summary Appendices Appendix A Manningham Planning Scheme Map Appendix B Doncaster Hill Population and Household Forecasts (City of Manningham) Appendix C Revised Doncaster Hill Planning Permit Map (February 2013) Appendix D Initial Assessment of Accessibility & New Funding Opportunities for the Doncaster Rail Project, and Doncaster Rail: what are its Prospects? Reports Appendix E The Review of Parking and Traffic Management within Doncaster Hill Study Findings Report (GTA, 2012) Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 3

16 Executive Summary The following submission has been prepared by Manningham City Council to provide URS and the State Government with a response, comments and suggestions to help guide the finalisation of the Doncaster Rail Study Phase 1 Recommendations Report (referred to hereafter as Draft Recommendations Report ). Manningham City Council generally supports the Report s recommendation for the Rapid Transit Option 1 (RT1) as the preferred route alignment between the Melbourne CBD and Doncaster, including the two proposed stations at Bulleen and Doncaster Park & Ride. Council also supports the alignment of the Rapid Transit Option 2 (RT2) as an alternative connection to the CBD. However Council suggests a number of changes and a review of the findings in order to provide the most ideal solution and recommendations to deliver rail to Doncaster. In particular, Council s view is that the following items need to be taken into further consideration: Inclusion of an extension of the line to Doncaster Hill, with a station provided at the Hill; Review of the cost to provide a more accurate cost-estimate; Inclusion of a station at Burke Road within either of the Rapid Transit options; Consideration of connections with tram routes 48 (North Balwyn) and 72 (Camberwell); Review of population and station patronage data against the 2011 Census data; Investigation of the grade-separation of buses at Doncaster Hill; Consideration of the findings of the reports by Curtin University; Reconsideration of the closure of Victoria Park Station; Inclusion of more detailed modelling in relation to cycling and pedestrians; Preservation of the median strip of the Eastern Freeway reservation; Consultation with Manningham Council and the DRLGG in the final report process for Phase 1; Further assessment of the capacity improvement opportunities of the Clifton Hill Group lines, to deliver rail to Doncaster and the de-coupling of South Morang as a staged approach in that order; and A commitment to proceed with Phase 2 of the Study, focused on Doncaster Rail, with the outcomes to satisfy State Treasury Department and Infrastructure Australia criteria. It should also be noted that Doncaster Hill will struggle to operate as a successful Principal Activities Area without achieving a 30% mode-shift to more sustainable forms of transport. This can only be achieved with an order-of-magnitude improvement in public transport for the Hill, ideally through the provision of a rail station at Doncaster Hill. With or without the provision of rail at Doncaster Hill, grade-separation of buses will be required through the Hill. Without this, it is anticipated that road-based public transport services will fail to operate successfully over the coming years due to the delay and impact, primarily to buses, caused by ongoing development and increasing traffic congestion in the activities area. Council seeks to ensure that bipartisan support is achieved in order to realise the importance of delivering the Doncaster Rail project. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 4

17 1. Introduction Manningham City Council and the Doncaster Rail Local Government Group (DRLGG) are pleased to see the release of this Draft Phase 1 Recommendations Report, and wish to contribute constructively to the delivery of rail to Doncaster, and in particular to Doncaster Hill. Council s submission provides comment on which elements of the Draft Recommendations Report are either supported or not supported, and suggests a number changes to be reviewed prior to the finalisation of the Recommendation Report, in order to ensure that rail to Doncaster and Doncaster Hill has the best opportunity to proceed. Rail to Doncaster should be built as a matter of priority, with both the Doncaster Rail line and the decoupling of the South Morang line completed within the 15 year timeframe included in Public Transport Victoria s (PTV) Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail (2012). As recent examples in Melbourne, Perth and Sydney indicate, people are willing to use public transport once it is built. In particular, the current signalling system should be replaced and upgraded with new high capacity signalling as a matter of priority to allow more trains to run on the existing network, such as on the Clifton Hill group lines. Council would also like to thank URS, PTV and the Department of Transport for the opportunity to respond to the release of the findings of the Doncaster Rail Study Stage 1 Recommendations Report (Draft), and to thank the Department of Transport for extending the submission date to allow Council to prepare a thorough and comprehensive response to the draft recommendations. Manningham City Council and the DRLGG look forward to the consideration of the items discussed in the following submission, and the timely progression of the final recommendations report. Council will also welcome a firm commitment by State Government to the timely commencement of Phase 2 of the Doncaster Rail Study. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 5

18 2. Background Manningham City Council has been advocating for the provision of rail to Doncaster for many years. Manningham is the only municipality in metropolitan Melbourne without a rail service (either light or heavy rail), which significantly disadvantages the community through the lack of adequate access to jobs, educational and health facilities and to other community and social services. The delivery of a heavy rail link to Doncaster will improve the general accessibility to Melbourne s Central Business District (CBD) and the wider metropolitan area, and encourage a shift from private vehicle travel to public transport, in line with the many objectives of Local, State and Federal policies to achieve a more sustainable and prosperous urban environment. With Melbourne s population expected to increase by more than 1 million residents by 2031, it is imperative that ongoing investment is provided to improve the public transport network and infrastructure to ensure Melbourne maintains its competitive advantage as a liveable, sustainable and economic metropolis. Many of Manningham s bus services utilise major arterials and freeways, such as Doncaster, Manningham, Williamsons, Thompsons and Blackburn Roads and the Eastern Freeway. Road traffic and congestion has generally increased over time as the population continues to grow and the population of the inner and middle suburbs expand. As Manningham residents rely solely on buses to provide public transport access, services are often compromised by delays on the road network, further compounded by the inability of buses to provide a maximum level of service due to their capacity limitations. Since the opening of the EastLink Tollway in 2008, traffic on the Eastern Freeway has continued to rise. As indicated in the Draft Recommendations Report, the cost of congestion to Melbourne community and businesses is estimated at $4.5 billion per year, with this figure expected to rise to $6 billion by It is noted that public transport is expected to account for 20% of all trips by 2020, with public transport trips expected to double to 600,000 trips a day by Although a program to deliver a number of designated bus lanes has been implemented within Manningham in recent years, areas such as the Doncaster Road and Williamsons Road intersection remain without dedicated bus lanes, compromising the efficiency of the wider bus network. The impact on bus services is further compounded by the lack of dedicated bus lanes along the Eastern Freeway, and outbound lanes of Victoria Parade and Hoddle Street. The impact of traffic congestion on the Eastern Freeway, the inner city road network and Lonsdale Street further compromises the efficiency of the DART and other bus services, which Manningham residents solely rely on for public transport access to the CBD and broader Melbourne. A recent report commissioned by Council (The Review of Parking and Traffic Management within Doncaster Hill Study Findings, GTA 2012) suggests that without a 30% mode-shift to more sustainable forms of transport, traffic conditions in Doncaster Hill will be similar to those found in inner city activity centres across Melbourne. Given the physical constraints of the road system, a 30% mode-shift to sustainable public transport can only realistically be achieved with an order of magnitude improvement to public transport infrastructure from, to and within the Hill, such as the provision of heavy rail to Doncaster Hill and the grade separation of buses through/within the Hill. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 6

19 3. Response to Route Options Manningham City Council generally supports URS s recommendation of the Rapid Transit Option 1 (RT1) as the preferred route alignment between the Melbourne CBD and Doncaster, on the basis that the RT1 option: can be delivered at a lower cost (when compared to the other options), as an extensive section of the alignment is located within the Eastern Freeway median-strip, formally reserved for the purpose of rail; minimises the likelihood of extensive land acquisition (further reducing cost); will involve minimal disruption to the amenity of the community during its operation; maximises opportunities for integrated land use transport planning that can utilise spare capacity on return peak hour trips; could be modelled on the successful Perth-Mandurah line, utilising the heavy rail line as a spine public transport route, with integrated tram and bus feeder services; and supports the findings contained in the report prepared by Curtin University, RMIT & ARUP entitled Initial Assessment of Accessibility & New Funding Opportunities for the Doncaster Rail Project, and the companion report prepared by Infrastructure Australia's Professor Peter Newman entitled Doncaster Rail: what are its Prospects?. Although the rationale of de-coupling the South Morang line appears warranted, Council suggests that further investigation be undertaken in delivering the RT1 option, in order to explore the opportunity of unlocking further capacity on the Clifton Hill Group Line by implementing highcapacity signalling. This may facilitate a staged-approach for delivering rail to Doncaster ahead of expensive de-coupling the South Morang line. The inner-city alignment (between the Eastern Freeway and Flagstaff Station) of the Rapid Transit Option 2 (RT2) is also supported as an alternative alignment into the inner city and CBD (including to the health and educational precinct in Parkville), due mainly to the benefits provided through a direct public transport connection between the Manningham area and the Melbourne Metro Tunnel at Parkville. However, a complementary connection to the existing Clifton Hill station should be investigated, to provide an integrated connection to the South Morang and Hurstbridge rail lines, and tram route 86 to Bundoora. There appears to be perceived benefits of the Rapid Transit Option 3 (RT3), similar to those achieved by the RT2 option; however the direct connection to Parkville and the education and health precinct from Manningham achieve by RT2, would best serve the community of Manningham, over and above the connections achieved by RT3. Although the findings indicate that the Local Access options (both LA1 and LA2) would provide a greater level of accessibility and patronage demand than the other options presented, Manningham City Council agrees with the Draft Recommendation Report that the RT1 option provides the best overall outcome, when the construction cost (of extensive tunnelling) is factored into the proposal. Manningham City Council does not support the Orbital Network Option, as it fails to meet the objective of providing an efficient rail service to Doncaster, and other areas/suburbs that currently lack adequate public transport, such as Bulleen and North Balwyn. Furthermore, this option fails to achieve an actual orbital network, but rather provides a spur line between Doncaster and Box Hill, destinations which are currently serviced by a sufficient number of bus routes to satisfy this demand. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 7

20 4. Summary of Limitations and Issues Although Council supports the general findings of the Rapid Transit Option 1 (RT1) and the Rapid Transit Option 2 (RT2), Council submits that a number of changes should be made to both options, in order to enhance the opportunity to provide an adequate, efficient and integrated public transport network that delivers rail to where people live, work and visit. It is imperative that these changes are reflected in the Final Recommendations Report. The limitations to the draft findings include: It does not include a recommendation to extend the rail line to Doncaster Hill to support a fast-growing Principal Activities Area, with the potential to achieve State-initiated planning objectives and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) for a higher density urban development, underpinned by adequate public transport access. (The only designated Activity Centre Zone in Victoria.); The recommendation to terminate the RT1 and RT2 options at Doncaster Park & Ride, a 400-space car park in the middle of residentia and beside a freeway, with minimal opportunity to develop a TOD to support a rail terminus, as opposed to other rail terminuses such as Glen Waverley, Frankston and Sydenham, which are strategically located at activity centres; The assumption that bus services can be provided to the Doncaster Park-and-Ride facility at 2 minute intervals to feed peak hour trains, without any supporting analysis of how this would be achieved through a fully developed and congested Doncaster Hill; Questionably low patronage assessments for Doncaster Hill; The high estimated cost, when compared to other similar projects around Australia. A lack of transparency of how projected costs were derived; No recommendation for a station at Burke Road in either of the Rapid Transit options; The lack of recommendations to connect tram routes 48 (North Balwyn) and 72 (Camberwell) to proposed stations; and The findings are too heavily focused on providing a solution for the South Morang line with a vast number of the recommendations relating to that project alone detracting from the focus of providing rail to Doncaster. These limitations are further discussed within Council s submission, and Council suggests that URS and the State Government give them earnest consideration and seek to address these limitations in the final Doncaster Rail Study Stage 1 Recommendations Report. Council wishes to expresses its disappointment that the Study does not recommend that the line be extended to Doncaster Hill, and that the report findings and recommendations, at times, appear to be too heavily focused on providing solutions for the South Morang rail line, detracting from the purpose for which the study was first intended to assess the viability of heavy rail to Doncaster. Largely in response to State Government policy directions, Doncaster Hill is being developed as a Principal Activities Area in suburban Melbourne, characterised by dense residential development and commercial and retail establishments. The provision of an adequate integrated public transport network, which includes heavy rail, is a key to support these development initiatives and to achieve the objective of establishing a sustainable urban village. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 8

21 5. Key Limitations of the Draft Recommendations Report It is understood that the study scope was to investigate a heavy rail line to Doncaster. With the recommended termination of the line at Doncaster Park & Ride, the proposed rail line fails to penetrate into the heart of Doncaster and into Manningham. The draft recommendations are very heavily focused towards recommending solutions to address capacity issues of the South Morang Line. The absence of a recommendation to provide a station at Doncaster Hill undermines the study, as it then fails to adequately address the transport needs of what is the centre of residential, commercial and retail activity for the municipality and surrounding areas. To quote from the URS study team s Engineering and Environmental Investigation Report (E&EIR), a supporting document to the Draft Recommendations Report, a Doncaster Hill Station would be a Catalyst for the council s structure plan for Doncaster Hill and Introduces Doncaster as a destination, as well as Provides the gateway to the city for those living in the eastern suburbs (p. 52). Further, the E&EIR categorically states (p. 50) about the Doncaster Park-and-Ride facility that the Doncaster Park-and-Ride major function is to collect those travelling on the Eastern Freeway from east of Doncaster. That is, it was not designated through the evolution of the study to serve the municipality of Manningham, yet it has been morphed into this with the stroke-of-a-pen in the final recommendations in the Draft Recommendations Report, without any apparent regard for the ramifications just simply based on what appears to be a last minute, crude and hastily adjudged cost-benefit basis. This determination was clearly made without (i) any regard for how a terminus station at the Doncaster Hill Park-and Ride site might be physically serviced by bus and vehicle access from within Manningham, nor (ii) on the absolute need for Doncaster Hill to have a vastly improved public transport system to realise its development potential. In addition, the Draft Recommendation Report fails to address an adequate level of transport integration along the proposed route, with only two (2) stations proposed in the Manningham area, and no consideration of tram connections to recommended station locations. The following outlines what Council considers to be the three key limitations of the Draft Recommendation Report. Other limitations and suggestions are referred to throughout the submission No station at Doncaster Hill Council does not support the recommendation that the rail line should not be extended to Doncaster Hill. The Draft Recommendation Report bases this recommendation on two main factors, which Council does not support the estimated patronage figures for the Doncaster Hill station, and the $800 million to $1 billion cost associated with the two-kilometre underground rail line between Doncaster Park & Ride and Doncaster Hill. The cost versus the expected patronage figures, would appear to be the reason for why a station at Doncaster Hill has not been recommended a matter that needs to be addressed further, as it has clearly been heavily weighted (and Council argues, incorrectly) against the connection to the Hill. Council submits that the projected population figures for Doncaster Hill have been vastly under-estimated, which in-turn has affected the data used in the transport modelling to Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 9

22 determine projected patronage figures. Throughout the Draft Recommendations Report, the findings generally support a station at Doncaster Hill, only to recommend that it does not extend that far in a relatively small section of the report, with very little credible or adequate justification to substantiate such a recommendation. Council also submits that the projected $800 million to $1 billion cost to extend the line to Doncaster Hill, is vastly over-estimated, particularly when compared to other similar rail projects in Perth and Sydney. Although it is understood that these costs are currently only estimations, they are used to support an argument not to extend the line to Doncaster Hill. The decision also ignores the commercial benefit to Doncaster Hill and its catchment. Throughout the feasibility study process, Manningham City Council provided URS with population and development data for Doncaster Hill, which Council understood was meant to be used to assist URS s formulation of relevant and accurate data to support their modelling. The Draft Recommendations Report inaccurately states that Doncaster Hill would also experience only limited growth potential (up to 250 new residents), as it is considered that much of the land use change that has commenced in this activity area will continue irrespective of a new rail connection (pg 80). Apart from the fact that this statement is inaccurate, because Doncaster Hill cannot achieve its ultimate development potential without a major, order-of-magnitude public transport initiative, the current 2013 population of Doncaster Hill is estimated at 1,400, and this figure is expected to increase to more than 8,300 residents by 2031, representing a 750% rise in population between 2011 and 2031, an average annual increase of 9.55 per cent. This is greater than the average annual increase of 0.64 percent for the whole of the City of Manningham. These figures do not include the proposed population of the Eastern Golf Course redevelopment (residential), which is expected to house an additional 2,820 residents by Section of the Draft Recommendations Report illustrates a population growth of 0.65% per annum for the wider City of Manningham. However, the majority of population growth in Manningham will be concentrated around the Doncaster Hill activity centre and the Doncaster Road corridor. It is noted that the population density of Doncaster Hill is not represented in the population density figure contained on page 9 of the URS report. To date, 680 apartments have been constructed, representing approximately 17% of future development in the area. Planning permits for a further 1200 apartments have been approved by Manningham Council. The following table provides an outline of the expected population growth of Manningham, Doncaster Hill and the wider suburb of Doncaster (in which Doncaster Hill is located). Change between 2011 to 2031 Area Name Number Avg. Annual % change Doncaster Hill 980 2,732 5,155 6,676 8,371 7, % (precinct) Doncaster 19,722 21,854 25,044 27,395 29,725 10, % (suburb) City of Manningham 116, , , , ,855 17, % Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 10

23 Between 2011 and 2031, the number of dwellings in Doncaster Hill will increase by approximately 750% from 475 to more than 4,000 households in According to the 2011 Census, 7.6% of the residents in Doncaster Hill do not have a motor vehicle, which is greater than the 4% average for the wider City of Manningham. Future development is also being encouraged in the residential areas located beyond the Doncaster Hill Precinct. In these areas, a Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 8 () currently applies under the Manningham Planning Scheme, which seeks to increase residential densities and provide for a range of housing types (primarily to encourage three storey apartment style developments) around activity centres and along main roads. The estimated resident population within areas around Doncaster Hill is estimated to rise from a population of 4,680 in 2011 to 5,800 by 2020 and to 7,111 by 2030, an expected population increase of 52% between 2011 and This further supports the need for a station at Doncaster Hill, which will capture future population in both the Doncaster Hill precinct and the surrounding areas. A copy of the map from the Manningham Planning Scheme is provided as Appendix A, to illustrate the areas to which future development around Doncaster Hill would apply. Sixty-five per cent of Doncaster (suburb) households own two or more vehicles, whereas only 44% of Box Hill households own two or more vehicles; a reflection of the lack of public transport in the Manningham area when compared to an area such as Box Hill which has rail, tram and bus access. According to the 2011 Census, 16.8% of Doncaster Hill residents take public transport to work, including 2.1% by train and 14.7% by bus. This is greater than the 10.8% for the City of Manningham. Between 2006 and 2011, method of travel to work by public transport increased by 126.8%, and 57.3% for cycling and walking (NIEIR, 2013). This indicates a greater demand for residents in Doncaster Hill who opt to take public transport as a method of travel to work. Between 2006 and 2021, the number of people aged up to 15 in Doncaster Hill is forecast to increase by 527 (522%), representing a rise in the proportion of the population to 12.2%. The number of people aged over 65 is expected to increase by 738 (479%), representing 17.3% of the population. These two age groups collectively represent the proportion of the wider population who might not have access to a private motor vehicle, and rely on public transport to access educational, health and social services. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of persons employed in Doncaster Hill increased by 32.6% from 5,336 to 7,073 with clothing retailing, department stores, local government administration and cafes and restaurants representing the largest industries of employment on the Hill. Thirtysix percent of persons employed within Doncaster Hill reside in Manningham, whilst the other 65% reside in other local government areas, including 11.5% in Whitehorse, 7.2% in Boroondara and 6.6% in Banyule (NIEIR, 2013). Doncaster Hill currently has approximately 250,000 square metres of floor-space dedicated to employment generating uses, with approximately 136,000 sq m dedicated to retail uses (including Westfield Doncaster) and 59,000 sq m dedicated to office uses, including light industry and motor vehicle sales and servicing. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 11

24 Much of the existing office-based activity in Doncaster Hill is characterised by small and medium enterprises serving local residents and the regional area. By 2031 commercial (office) floor-space is estimated to grow by between 5,200sqm and 46,700sqm. This sector provides the biggest opportunity for investment attraction and could be significantly impacted by the construction of a rail line to Doncaster Hill. Projected increases in retail floor-space range from 15,000 sq m to 18,800 sq m by These figures do not include the proposed Bunnings warehouse in Doncaster Hill, which was recently approved by Council and is anticipated to commence construction in late A $650 million redevelopment of Westfield Doncaster was completed in October 2008 doubling the gross leasable floor space to 120,000sqm. In addition to the retail mix, there are 29 office tenancies totalling 3,250sqm. This regional shopping destination currently has 439 retailers, 5000 car spaces, nine cinema auditoriums that can seat up to 1,755 people and attracts 15.7 million visitors per year, making it the fifth largest shopping centre in Australia (by number of stores). In 2011 Westfield Doncaster recorded the highest sales of all centres in Victoria ($812 million). Its current annual turnover (approx. $839 million) makes Westfield Doncaster the third largest centre in Australia in terms of turnover. It is likely that the centre will continue to expand in size and operation by 2031, in line with other growth expected throughout Doncaster Hill. The patronage projections contained in the Draft Recommendations Report (page 63 and 79) estimate that approximately 1,283-1,293 passengers per day would board a station at Doncaster Hill (under either the Rapid Transit or Local Access options). The proposed station located at Leigh Park in Balwyn North (Local Access Option 1) is expected to achieve 934 boardings, which although lower than projected for Doncaster Hill, can still be deemed as a comparable level of patronage. However, the nature of the urban environment surrounding the two stations is vastly different. Leigh Station is surrounded by established single-dwelling residential development, with minimal scope for further densification. By contrast, Doncaster Hill is currently undergoing extensive growth in residential population (+750% to 2031), with a major shopping centre (Westfield Doncaster) and other commercial and office development surrounding the immediate area, all within walking distance to a proposed station. The surrounding residential population, visitors and staff to Westfield (15.7 million visitors per year) alone are capable of achieving a greater level of patronage for a Doncaster Hill station, than what has been modelled and anticipated in the Draft Recommendations Report. Council acknowledge the complexities involved with building an underground rail line and station at depth below urban areas, however, with modern technology, tunnel-boring capabilities, and examples of deep urban rail tunnels in other parts of the world, it is deemed that a station at depths of ~60 metres is not an impossible task to achieve. Although significant cost is added to extend the line underground and provide a station at Doncaster Hill, it is Council s opinion that a station at this location is crucial to ensure that residents of Manningham and the eastern suburbs are provided with a well-integrated, efficient and accessible public transport system with direct connections to where they live, work and visit, as well as being crucial to the realisation of the development potential of Doncaster Hill itself. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 12

25 As it will be outlined under the following section, it is suggested that a station is required at both the Doncaster Park & Ride and Doncaster Hill, to achieve the best outcome for public transport and land use integration in the area. The failure to recommend a station at Doncaster Hill, does not meet the criteria assessment and performance measures outlined in the Evaluation Framework for Final Multi-Criteria Analysis contained in URS s Doncaster Rail Study Final Options Evaluation Report: Integrated Transport Network Planning Report (pg 16-17). Primarily, the objectives of assessment criteria 1 (to improve transport network efficiency in Manningham) and 2 (to promote and support urban growth and productivity in Manningham) are not met. As no station is recommended for Doncaster Hill, measures assessing the compatibility with Local, State and Federal planning policy, and potential to facilitate development of activity centres and development in residential areas are not met. Council s Doncaster Hill Parking and Traffic Review (as provided), which has been supported by VicRoads, clearly demonstrates that the study team s assumption that development on Doncaster Hill will occur irrespective of rail, is flawed. VicRoads indicates that traffic conditions and bus service performance along Doncaster Road have already been optimised, and there is no identified opportunity to improve bus service performance through at-grade road improvements. It is recommended that URS re-evaluate the transport modelling used to determine patronage levels for a Doncaster Hill station, using the population data provided by Manningham. Council assumes that, once this has been re-evaluated against a more realistic cost model and economic benefit assessment, a station at Doncaster Hill will be deemed as a viable option. A document containing more detailed population and household forecasts for Doncaster Hill has been provided as Appendix B and an updated map of planning permit applications on Doncaster Hill is included as Appendix C, to update the map that currently appears on page 10 of the Draft Recommendations Report Termination at Doncaster Park & Ride The recommendation to terminate the Doncaster Rail line at the Doncaster Park and Ride is not supported by Council. However, Council does support a station at this location. Although Council supports a station at this location if the line was to extend to Doncaster Hill, it is envisaged that by providing a terminus at this location, and no station at Doncaster Hill, the traffic congestion caused by the generated demand of only this station, will severely undermine the efficiency and operation of this site as a suitable Park & Ride facility, placing added pressure on Doncaster Road, the Eastern Freeway off-ramps and the surrounding local road network. It is also considered that, to end a major rail line at a car park in a location that has limited opportunity for transit oriented development, and which falls two-kilometres short of where people intend to visit, live or work (Doncaster Hill), is a poor planning outcome. The expected patronage demand (and associated demand for car parking) generated by a Park & Ride station alone, would congest the local road network, and severely compromise the efficiency of this station to operate as a successful Park & Ride facility. This location currently Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 13

26 experiences congestion and over-flow of parking into local streets caused by growing demand for Park & Ride facilities in the area. This congestion has had a negative impact on the amenity of the local area. By recommending that only this station is built, the congestion caused by demand for Park & Ride, Kiss & Ride, feeder bus services, cyclists, pedestrians and general traffic congestion, will undermine the efficiency of this station and the operation of the Doncaster Rail line in its entirety. However, this could be mitigated by terminating the line at Doncaster Hill, and by providing an additional station at Burke Road, to essentially spread the load of demand, across the network. A station at both Doncaster Park & Ride and Doncaster Hill is required to maximise the efficiency of the overall public transport and road network, and optimise the efficiency of how each of the stations could operate. With a station at both locations, the Doncaster Park & Ride Station will cater predominantly for commuters who wish to access this station by private vehicle, and utilise available car parking at this facility or be dropped off at the designated Kiss & Ride location within the Park & Ride facility. Feeder bus services could also provide a connection to the wider residential area. The station at Doncaster Hill could cater predominantly for the 8,500-10,000 residents who will live within walking distance to the station and visitors and staff of Westfield Doncaster Shopping Centre and other commercial and office locations within the Doncaster Hill activity centre. Accessibility to a station at Doncaster Hill will be further complimented by feeder buses utilising the Doncaster Hill bus interchange, creating an integrated transport network, and encouraging further transit oriented development and economic investment in the area. The Draft Recommendations Report recommends that the Doncaster Park & Ride station would be serviced by a number of feeder bus services, with services to Doncaster Hill expected to operate at two-minute frequencies. With added traffic congestion along Doncaster Road, induced by demand to access the only available rail station in the area, this will undermine the efficiency of bus services, and fail to achieve the minimum 2-minute frequency of bus services, as recommended. It is further noted that currently, bus lanes along Doncaster Road end within a few hundred metres either side of the Doncaster/Williamsons/Tram/Elgar Road intersections (to a total distance of approximately 650 metres from either direction), with limited priority signalling for buses provided through the intersection. This creates a traffic bottleneck and requires buses to merge into the line of traffic, compromising the efficiency of bus services through this area. Council is of the opinion that even without the provision of rail, significant investment is needed to grade-separate the Doncaster Road and Williamsons Road intersection to provide an alternative option for buses to navigate through the area, without compromising traffic congestion, or increasing the width of Doncaster Road through Doncaster Hill. The Draft Recommendations Report states that The Doncaster Park-and-Ride station presents the least development potential in terms of urban renewal opportunities, with only a small increase of about 150 new residents likely to be added to the walkable catchment area by 2031 (page 80). To provide this station as a terminus to a proposed heavy rail line, will not meet the objectives of State and Federal policy to increase the level of development (including TOD) within the vicinity of railway stations. However, this lack of opportunity at this location could be Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 14

27 off-set by the perceived benefit and stimulation to urban development that could be achieved with a station at Doncaster Hill Projected Costs It is widely perceived by Council and the community that the projected cost of $3-$5 billion to deliver the section between the Clifton Hill line and Doncaster Park & Ride, with provision of only three stations at Chandler / Kew, Bulleen and Doncaster Park & Ride, is vastly overestimated, particularly when compared to similar projects delivered in Perth and Sydney in recent years, and cost estimates contained in the recently released High Speed Rail (HSR) Report (AECOM, 2012). This is further exacerbated by the additional $800 million to $1 billion cost quoted in the Draft Recommendations Report to construct the line between the Doncaster Park & Ride and Doncaster Hill. The Draft Recommendations Report provides no transparency or detail of how projected costs were determined, or what assumptions were made to determine cost, therefore opportunity to review and comment on how costs were derived is constrained. The distance of the RT1 alignment between Collingwood Station and Doncaster Hill is approximately 13 kilometres. If the cost of the extension between Doncaster Park & Ride and Doncaster Hill is added to the projected $3-$5 billion cost provided by URS, this equates to an approximate cost of between $292 million to $462 million per kilometre, partially at-grade and within twin-tunnels. The Eastern Freeway between Hoddle Street and Bulleen Road contains a wide median strip, currently reserved for the purpose of rail, which should potentially reduce the cost per-kilometre to construct rail infrastructure within this corridor. The construction cost of the two kilometre section between Doncaster Park & Ride and Doncaster Hill, has been estimated by URS at between $800 million to $1 billion. Assuming this will involve the cost of two underground stations and two kilometres of twin tunnels and other associated rail infrastructure), this equates to a cost of between $400 million to $500 million per kilometre, which appears to be vastly over estimated when compared to similar rail tunnelling projects in Australia. The costs per kilometre identified in the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane High Speed Rail report (HSR), vary significantly than the costs provided for Doncaster Rail. Table 7 of Appendix 4B of the HSR Study Phase 2 indicates that the cost of an urban bore single track tunnel (in 2012 dollars) is approximately $148 million per kilometre (AECOM, 2012). The 71 kilometre Southern Railway Line between Perth and Mandurah was delivered at a total cost of $1.7 billion in This includes nine at-grade stations, two underground stations in the Perth CBD, and all other associated rail infrastructure. This equates to an average cost of $24 million per kilometre (in 2007 dollars), of mostly an at-grade alignment. The 12.5 kilometre entirely-underground Epping to Chatswood rail line in Northern Sydney, containing three underground stations and the redevelopment of an additional two stations, was delivered at a total cost of $2.3 billion, equating to a cost of $184 million per kilometre. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 15

28 Table B: Summary of Costs: Project Cost p/km Distance Doncaster Rail Link, VIC $292 m - $464 m 13 km High Speed Rail (Mel-Syd-Bris) $148 m ~1,500 km Perth-Mandurah, WA $24 m 71 km Chatswood-Epping, NSW $184 m 12.5 km Using the cost estimates provided by the HSR report, the estimated cost of the 13 kilometre rail line between Collingwood Station and Doncaster Hill should be in the order of $2 billion. Recent geological investigations undertaken as part of the planning for the East-West tunnel would provide useful data on which to base tunnelling cost estimates. Council acknowledges that there are inherent differences in the economic, physical and environmental characteristics of the Doncaster region and that of other similar projects in Australia. However, at almost ten times the cost of the Perth-Mandurah line (on a per-kilometre basis) and almost double that of the most recent estimates provided by the HSR report, Council suggests that a more accurate cost assessment and breakdown should be provided in the Final Recommendations Report, in order to provide a transparent and fair assessment of the assumptions made to determine the appropriate costs. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 16

29 6. CUSP Report In 2012, Manningham City Council, in association with the Doncaster Rail Local Government Group, commissioned a report prepared by Curtin University, RMIT & ARUP titled Initial Assessment of Accessibility & New Funding Opportunities for the Doncaster Rail Project, and the companion report prepared by Infrastructure Australia's Professor Peter Newman titled Doncaster Rail: what are its Prospects? (referred to hereon as the CUSP reports ). The reports provide technical and substantiated justification that supports the provision of a heavy rail line to Doncaster whilst also exploring alternative funding mechanisms to deliver such a project. Essentially, the CUSP reports support the justification of a rail alignment along the Eastern Freeway (integrated with other modes of transport) and extending underground in the inner-city, with a connection to the proposed Melbourne Metro Line at a future Parkville Station. This alignment option is emulated by the Rapid Transit Option 2, suggested in the Draft Recommendations Report, which will enable an integrated rail solution between Doncaster Hill, and the health and education precinct located in Parkville. These reports were provided to both URS and the Department of Transport (in September 2012) for consideration and for input to the Draft Recommendations Report. Although these reports were not considered at that stage, it is now understood that the CUSP reports will be reviewed by URS and the findings taken into consideration to formulate the Final Recommendations Report. The CUSP reports addressed four different public transport service scenarios for the Doncaster corridor. These scenarios were compared on the basis of their impact on accessibility for people travelling by public transport. This comparison was undertaken using the Spatial Network Analysis for Multimodal Urban Transport Systems (SNAMUTS) model developed by Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University (RMIT) and Curtin University. This modelling identified that the best outcome for rail to Doncaster was achieved from a Rapid Transit option, integrated with surface connections (other modes of public transport, including tram and heavy rail). The SNAMUTS modelling identifies that there is currently a significant gap in public transport access to vast areas of Balwyn North, Doncaster, Bulleen and Ivanhoe. Access to these areas can be improved by the provision of a heavy rail line along the Eastern Freeway to Doncaster, with bus and tram surface connections. Using the SNAMUTS model, the key findings of this report suggests that the best outcome for Doncaster rail is to provide a station at Burke Road and extend both tram routes 48 (North Balwyn) and 72 (Camberwell) to connect to the Doncaster rail line. This model of integration has proved particularly successful with the Northern and Southern Rail Lines in Perth. It should also be noted that the modelling assumed a station at Doncaster Hill, as this would underpin the successful operation of an integrated Doncaster Rail transport network. The CUSP reports also assessed new funding opportunities for the Doncaster Rail project. The reports theorise that investment in public transport will create increased accessibility for the catchments that it serves, and that this increased accessibility in-turn increases real estate values through increased willingness to pay for the proximity access to the new infrastructure. This value uplift can by hypothecated by value capturing some or all increments in accessibility gains (such as increases in property values) attributable to public sector actions. In the case of the Doncaster Rail project, the provision of transportation infrastructure is recouped by the public sector for public purposes. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 17

30 In essence, value capture provides a means to monetise a project s economic and financial benefits as cash returns that may either be captured and contributed, or recognised and attributed towards project costs. This is achieved by ring-fencing and hypothecating some of this increased land-based tax revenue into a fund to help pay for the project. It is crucial to understand that this is not a new tax but simply recognition of the increased land value if the infrastructure is built. If it is not built, then land value does not increase (at a similar rate). In an environment of fiscal constraint, it is important to assess and understand value capture options that may be available to support major transport projects such as the Doncaster rail project, and to enable an understanding of the true value created and possible returns to government available which may offset a portion of the cost of the project. Further explanation of these mechanisms are contained in sections 9 and 10 of the report Initial Assessment of Accessibility & New Funding Opportunities for the Doncaster Rail Project. The report presents a new kind of funding opportunity for the Doncaster Rail project with the suggested creation of a coordinated Doncaster Value Capture Revenue Fund to collect the revenue from different funding mechanisms into one fund to be used to defray the cost of the infrastructure investment. These reports are contained as Appendix D, and should be considered by URS and the State Government, particularly in regards to determining the cost to deliver Doncaster Rail, and options for how to fund the project Census Data It is understood that the data used by URS in its investigations was the most current available at the time (Census 2006), and data from the 2011 Census was not available to URS or its consultants during the feasibility assessment process. Significant changes in transport use, employment data and residential data will have occurred in the five years since that data was collected, and to ensure that a more accurate assessment is undertaken, refreshing the patronage numbers in light of newly released 2011 Census transport data is considered vital to the credibility of the feasibility study. Furthermore, the nature of urban development surrounding the Doncaster Hill area has changed significantly since 2006, and a review of current Census (2011) data is required, to reflect a true and accurate study of the potential for providing rail to Doncaster, and Doncaster Hill in particular. Data and population forecasts specific to Doncaster Hill has been included within this submission, for perusal by the consultants in refreshing their review of patronage estimates. It is suggested that this and other current data is used when finalising the Doncaster Rail Study Stage 1 Recommendations Report. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 18

31 8. Doncaster Hill Parking and Traffic Management Review 2011 (Manningham City Council) In 2011, Council commissioned microsimulation modelling of the Doncaster Hill road network, primarily to assess the impact to traffic and parking in the area, generated by the increasing level of development and urban density on the Hill. This assessment (undertaken by GTA Consultants) was intended to: Forecast future traffic volumes and assess the future performance of the road network, based on partial (50%) and full (100%) build out of Doncaster Hill; Recommend feasible measures to address future traffic needs; and Forecast public transport performance in future years through the modelling work. As the preferred alignment and impacts of any future heavy rail infrastructure were unknown at the time of GTA s review, it was not possible to make specific allowance for its impacts, as part of the modelling work undertaken in GTA however did note that the heavy rail project could maximise mode shift for Doncaster Hill, but that further work would be required to quantify this aspect, once the rail alignment and other details are known. The Review of Parking and Traffic Management within Doncaster Hill Study Findings report (GTA, 2012), is included as Appendix E Summary of Findings The Study found that without a 30% mode-shift to more sustainable forms of transport (primarily mass heavy-rail), traffic conditions in the area will be similar to those found in inner city activity centres across Melbourne. This will significantly undermine the efficiency of the local bus network, which will be solely relied on to deliver commuters to the Doncaster Park & Ride station, should no rail station be located at Doncaster Hill, as currently recommended in the Draft Recommendations Report. A 30% mode-shift to sustainable public transport can realistically only be achieved with the provision of a heavy rail station at Doncaster Hill and/or grade separation of buses through the Hill, as outlined in Section 9.7 of this submission. A comparison of the current number of vehicle trips through the road network and the trips forecast to be generated by the new developments indicates that the forecast trips will represent approximately one third of the current number of trips. This increase represents a very significant increase in traffic for the road network. The results of the modelling indicate that at full build out of Doncaster Hill in the PM peak, road network capacity issues arise. Average traffic speeds reduced and average delays increase significantly. For eastbound traffic on Doncaster Road in the PM peak, the average delay through Doncaster Hill increases 45% to over 8 minutes, subject to the implementation of Manningham s Development Contribution Plan traffic improvements including the installation of two new sets of traffic signals. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 19

32 Council is currently in the process of investigating and developing a Doncaster Hill Mode Shift Plan, to assist the Doncaster Hill community, to maximise the achievement of transport mode shift. The findings and recommendations of this Doncaster Hill Traffic and Parking Study have particular relevance to the outcomes outlined in the Draft Recommendations Report, particularly with regard to the recommendation to not extend the rail line to Doncaster Hill, and to not locate a station on the Hill Impact on Bus Services Public transport at full build out of Doncaster Hill in the PM peak experiences longer average delays than currently occurs under existing conditions, assuming the current proportion of utilisation of sustainable transport modes, despite the completion of the DCP traffic improvements. The modelling indicates a 70% increase in the average delay to bus services in the PM peak at full build out of Doncaster Hill. It is noted that continuity of dedicated bus lanes along Doncaster and Williamsons Roads has not been achieved to date. The results of the modelling generally indicate that the road network is sufficient to maintain acceptable performance of public transport in the AM peak at full build out of Doncaster Hill. In the PM peak however, the average delay for public transport services increases and will result in decreased performance through the area, due to extensive queuing in turn lanes, impacting other lanes. If a 30% mode shift to sustainable transport modes can be achieved, bus service performance results which are comparable with existing bus service performance standards can be achieved. An efficient and attractive public transport system is critical to the achievement of the targeted transport mode shift. Actions which require consideration in order to facilitate the desired transport mode shift include advocacy to continue to improve public transport services, including but not limited to the achievement of continuity of bus lanes to ensure service efficiency. There is however limited opportunity to mitigate the impacts of increased traffic in Doncaster Hill by undertaking at grade road infrastructure improvements, due to land availability constraints. Previous advice from VicRoads indicates that traffic conditions and bus service performance along Doncaster Road have already been optimised and there is no identified opportunity to improve bus service performance through at-grade road improvements. A key recommendation of the Study is for Council to advocate to the State Government for investigation into the feasibility of improving the connectivity of bus lanes, including grade separation and other infrastructure for bus movements, through Doncaster Hill. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 20

33 9. Route Alignment and Network Connectivity As outlined earlier, Council supports the Rapid Transit Option 1 along the Eastern Freeway as the preferred alignment, including the two proposed stations at Bulleen and Doncaster Park & Ride as recommended in the Draft Recommendations Report. In relation to the connection to the CBD, Council supports both the RT1 option with a connection to the Clifton Hill line (perhaps as the first phase of a staged approach), and the RT2 option with a connection between the Eastern Freeway and Flagstaff, via Parkville and Fitzroy (as phase 2 of a staged approach). Council supports the RT1 option on the basis that the option: can be delivered at a lower cost (when compared to a number of other options) as an extensive section of the alignment is located within the Eastern Freeway median-strip, formally reserved for the purpose of rail; Minimises the likelihood of extensive land acquisition (further reducing cost); will involve minimal disruption to amenity of the community during its operation (and construction); could be modelled on the successful Perth-Mandurah line, utilising the heavy rail line as a spine public transport route, with tram and bus feeder services; and a connection to the existing Clifton Hill line can be achieved with the implementation of high-capacity signalling, as outlined in PTV s Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail. However, Council would like the following matters to be addressed in order to enhance the outcome of a heavy rail connection to Doncaster Hill: 9.1. Poor Integration into the Public Transport Network Although the Draft Recommendations Report assesses the feasibility of a heavy rail connection between the CBD and Doncaster, it fails to take into consideration, or make recommendations as to how the heavy rail line would integrate with other forms of public transport services. In particular the Report fails to: recommend a station at Doncaster Hill - a major transport hub; integrate with tram routes 48 (Balwyn North) and 72 (Camberwell), by failure to recommend an extension of these tram routes to meet proposed stations at Doncaster Park & Ride, and the suggested station at Burke Road; provide a station at Burke Road; explain how feeder bus services will achieve 2 minute frequencies along already congested Doncaster Road; address connectivity to Clifton Hill station on the RT2 option; and detail the arrangements of the suggested bus link to East Ivanhoe. The proposed location of a station near Flagstaff Garden and Franklin Street on the RT2 and RT3 options, would be located some distance away from the existing Flagstaff Station on the City Loop. It is understood that these stations will be located a 5-minute walk from Flagstaff Station. A closer location (or direct integration) with existing City Loop stations should be further Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 21

34 investigated in order to minimise the transfer penalty for commuters who seek to interchange between the Doncaster rail line and other metropolitan rail services. The report Initial Assessment of Accessibility & New Funding Opportunities for the Doncaster Rail Project (CUSP, 2012), confirms that the best outcome for Doncaster rail is achieved from a Rapid Transit option, integrated with surface connections (other modes of public transport, including tram and heavy rail). Using the Spatial Network Analysis for Multimodal Urban Transport Systems (SNAMUTS) model, the key findings of this report suggests that the best outcome for Doncaster rail is to provide a station at Burke Road and extend both tram routes 48 (North Balwyn) and 72 (Camberwell) to connect to the Doncaster rail line. This model of integration has proved particularly successful with the Northern and Southern Rail Lines in Perth. Other matters relating to integration into the public transport network are further detailed and discussed below: 9.2. Route 48 Tram (Balwyn North) An extension of the route 48 tram (Balwyn North) from the current terminus at Balwyn and Doncaster Road to the Doncaster Park & Ride should be considered. Manningham Council suggests that the Final Recommendations Report should investigate the impact and importance of providing a connection between route 48 to the Doncaster Park & Ride station and recommend that the route 48 tram is extended to cater for this purpose. This will provide an integrated connection between the two modes of transport, maximising accessibility between the Doncaster Rail line, and destinations in Balwyn North, Kew, Hawthorn and Richmond, achieving accessibility outcomes identified in the Local Access options. It appears that the modelling undertaken by URS and associated consultants, did not take into consideration a direct link between tram route 48 and the Doncaster Park & Ride Station and appears to be modelled as conditions currently exist. The Draft Recommendations Report suggests a 28% decline in patronage of tram route 48 by the Rapid Transit options and a 66-77% decline in the Local Access options. However, Council suggests that this should be re-modelled with an extension to Doncaster Park & Ride considered in order to illustrate a more accurate determination of patronage levels to Doncaster Rail, once integration with the proposed Doncaster Park & Ride station has been considered Route 72 Tram (Camberwell) An extension of the route 72 tram (Camberwell), from the current terminus at Burke and Cotham Roads to Ivanhoe, via the Burke Road / Eastern Freeway overpass should be considered, along with the provision of a rail station at Burke Road on the Rapid Transit options. This will provide for an integrated public transport connection, traversing both an east-west heavy rail service, and north-south light rail service. Council suggests that the assessment for the Final Recommendations Report should be remodelled with tram route 72 and a Burke Road station considered in order to illustrate a more accurate determination of patronage levels, once integration with the proposed Doncaster Rail line has been considered. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 22

35 9.4. Station Options The RT1 option recommends three stations between the inner city and Doncaster. However, as mentioned earlier, Council submits that two more stations should be considered at Doncaster Hill and Burke Road in order to ensure that the Doncaster Rail line can operate as an efficient element of an integrated public transport network. Without consideration of these two (2) additional stations, and the potential closure of Victoria Park and Rushall Stations, this will result in a net gain of only one station for the entire rail network which is considered a poor planning outcome for the future of rail on the metropolitan network Doncaster Hill As stated earlier, under Key Limitations, it is recommended that URS re-evaluate the transport modelling used to determine patronage levels for a Doncaster Hill station, using the current population data provided by Manningham within this submission. Council assumes that once this has been re-evaluated against more a realistic cost model, a station at Doncaster Hill will be deemed to be a viable option. Council submits that a station at Doncaster Hill is crucial, to achieve the best service outcome for rail to Doncaster, and for integration between transport and land use Doncaster Park & Ride As discussed earlier under Key Limitations, Council supports a station at Doncaster Park & Ride, and would generally support intensifying the Park & Ride facility. However, a thorough assessment and an integrated land use and transport study of the site and surrounding area will be required to determine the best use of the site as a Park & Ride and transit oriented development Bulleen Council supports the recommendation for a station in the vicinity of Bulleen/Thompsons Road, along the RT1 alignment, complimented by adequate feeder bus services. This station will cater for the surrounding residential population, Marcelin College and users of other community and sporting facilities such as Carey Sports Complex, Trinity Grammar School Sporting Complex, Belle Vue Primary School and Boroondara Tennis Centre. Council would generally support the provision of Park & Ride facilities in the area, however, the location of any associated Park & Ride facilities will need to be further explored, as to not impact on the amenity of the area, or compromise the highly sensitive environmental surroundings of this location, including the Koonung Creek and surrounding reserves. Council suggests that an alternative station arrangement and rail alignment should be explored for this locality. The provision of a Bulleen Station within the existing median of the Eastern Freeway should be investigated, along with investigating the option to continue the rail line along the centre median of the Freeway in the direction of the Doncaster Road exit. The Eastern Freeway should be widened to utilise the existing reserve along the northern fringe of the Freeway in order to accommodate the continuation of the rail line along the centre median. This would reduce the need to tunnel the railway line between either sides of the Bulleen Road overpass. It is understood that this arrangement was Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 23

36 undertaken along certain sections of the Kwinana Freeway in Perth to accommodate the Southern Railway Line to Mandurah, reducing the level of tunnelling required, and thus reducing cost Burke Road Although this does not appear as a recommendation in the Draft Recommendations Report, Council suggests that a station in the vicinity of Burke Road should be considered on the RT1/RT2 alignment options. A station at this location, with an extension of tram route 72 (Camberwell), will provide for an integrated public transport connection, traversing both an east-west heavy rail service, and north-south light rail service. Accessibility to the station could be further maximised with the provision of feeder bus services (as indicated by URS with their recommendation for a bus service to Ivanhoe East for example). This will achieve the objectives of achieving an integrated public transport network. A station at Burke Road is further supported by comments which appear in the Draft Recommendations Report which state that the study team feels that there would be merit in introducing a new bus service in Ivanhoe East along Lower Heidelberg Road. This new route could service a larger catchment north of the proposed Bulleen Road station, which could have the potential to support a greater level of bus/train transfer (p. 64). This could be achieved with a station at Burke Road. However Council considers that an integrated public transport network cannot be achieved with a bus route alone, and will require the provision of a station at Burke Road to facilitate transport connections with the route 72 tram service to Camberwell and Ivanhoe, and local bus service connections. The absence of a station at Burke Road, and the recommendation to not proceed with a station at Doncaster Hill results in fewer overall stations along the RT1/RT2 alignment, resulting in further congestion and demand for access to the only two other stations in the Manningham/Boroondara region Bulleen and Doncaster Park & Ride. A station at this location is also supported by the findings of the SNAMUTS modelling contained in the reports by Curtin University (2012). It is suggested that this is taken into consideration when re-evaluating the feasibility study and transport modelling to formulate the final recommendation Kew / Chandler Hwy The impact on traffic congestion at this location will need to be further investigated, as currently, the area experiences significant congestion during both peak and non-peak periods, particularly for north-south access across the Yarra, and east-bound access to the Eastern Freeway. This will have a negative impact on the efficiency of feeder bus services accessing a station at this location. Any new travel demand in the area generated by a railway station and associated Park & Ride and Kiss & Ride facilities, will need to be addressed through either the duplication of Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 24

37 the Chandler Highway bridge over the Yarra River, or improved traffic arrangements for access between the Eastern Freeway, Chandler Highway and Princess Street Victoria Park It is noted that the RT1 option will result in the removal of Victoria Park Station. This station is located adjacent to Johnston Street, currently providing east-west bus connections to the health and educational precincts in Parkville and Carlton. The removal of this station from the RT1 option will eliminate this connection, and require rail passengers to take a longer journey through the Clifton Hill line and City Loop, increasing overall journey times. It is suggested that this recommendation be reviewed in order to determine the impact to accessibility caused by the loss of this station from the public transport network Doncaster Area Rapid Transit (DART) As illustrated in the Draft Recommendations Report, it is understood that bus patronage on the four DART services has increased by 47% on weekdays, 212% on Saturdays and 146% on Sundays, illustrating the growing demand for public transport in the area. The physical number of weekday trips undertaken on public transport is estimated to double to 600,000 by 2031 across Melbourne, with demand for trips to the Melbourne CBD expected to increase from 48% to 66% of all trips by The Doncaster Rail Study Final Options Evaluation Report: Integrated Transport Network Planning Report (pg 22) states that DART patronage is expected to double between 2011 and With the four routes now carrying in excess of 3 million passengers per year, the above figures illustrate significant demand for public transport in the Manningham region; a demand for which supply will not be able to be achieved without the provision of heavy rail. The Draft Recommendations Report states that the current average journey time of DART services between Doncaster and the CBD is 35 minutes. However in the morning peak, this journey time increases to an average of 51 minutes from Doncaster Hill to King/Lonsdale Streets in the CBD (as reflected in the current PTV time table), reflecting the time delays that are occurred to road-based public transport such as buses, attributed to by traffic congestion at peak times (when these services are carrying the majority of their daily load). These delays can often be further exacerbated by delays caused by motorists misuse of bus lanes and the need for buses to negotiate their way through traffic exiting the Eastern Freeway at the Chandler Highway in Kew. Although the current DART system has been successful since its implementation, the increasing level of traffic congestion throughout Melbourne, and its susceptibility to road disruptions, will continue to pose a threat to the reliability and efficiency of road-based public transport services. Therefore, it is imperative that alternative forms of public transport, such as rail, are delivered to provide alternative modes of transport for Melbourne s commuters. It is understood that once rail to Doncaster is delivered, the DART routes will be reconfigured to provide feeder bus services to proposed rail stations. Council seeks to ensure that any changes to the DART network, maintain or improve the current standards of efficiency, frequency and accessibility, in order to ensure that the feeder bus services remain an attractive public transport option for commuters. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 25

38 9.6. Grade Separation (Bus & Pedestrian) at Doncaster Hill In order to achieve the recommended two-minute frequency of buses through Doncaster Hill, grade separation of bus lanes (and pedestrians) through Doncaster Hill, and grade separation of a new bus interchange to service the development of Doncaster Hill, is required. Grade separation through Doncaster Hill will be required with or without the provision of a heavy rail station at Doncaster Hill. Given the competing demands for limited road space and the need to review the location of the bus interchange within Doncaster Hill, an opportunity exists to establish a new, grade separated state-of-the-art bus interchange at or near the intersection of Doncaster and Tram Roads. Such a facility would address the lack of continuity of on-road bus lanes, address the current delays to bus services arising from the need to divert bus services through the Westfield Doncaster interchange, centrally locate the interchange within the Principal Activities Area to maximise pedestrian access, establish safe and attractive pedestrian linkages under (or over) arterial roads, and allow the reallocation of traffic signal phases to better manage future traffic volume increases through key Doncaster Hill intersections. If a station is located in Doncaster Hill, a new bus interchange would likely be required and could be designed to complement any future rail station. This action is consistent with government policy to increase the uptake of sustainable transport modes, reduce road congestion, improve community health and address the adverse environmental impacts associated with continued dependence on private motor vehicles and to increase the density of residential development in and around activity areas. Further, given the limited available road space to achieve the order of magnitude improvement required through Doncaster Hill, it would appear that any solution will rely on grade separating buses (and potentially pedestrians) from cars. This should be taken into consideration in the Final Recommendations Report PTV Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail Council is pleased to see that rail to Doncaster has been considered in PTV s Network Development Plan for the future of Melbourne s Rail Network. Council urges the State Government to build rail to Doncaster as a matter of priority, with both the Doncaster Rail line and the de-coupling of the South Morang line implemented within the 15 year timeframe outlined in PTV s Plan. Council acknowledges that high-capacity signalling is required on the entire rail network in order to maximise the level of capacity that can be achieved on the existing network. Delivery of highcapacity signalling on the Clifton Hill line may result in the Doncaster Rail line being delivered prior to the de-coupling of the South Morang line, by increasing the number of trains that can operate on the Clifton Hill line between Collingwood and Flinders Street De-Coupling of South Morang Council suggests that further analysis be undertaken to assess the viability of delivering rail to Doncaster through a staged approach by implementing high capacity signalling to increase capacity on the Clifton Hill line to cater for demand generated by a Doncaster Rail line, prior to the removal of South Morang trains from the Clifton Hill line. This will ensure that rail to Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 26

39 Doncaster can be delivered and operating, while any long-term construction to de-couple the South Morang line is undertaken. It is noted that the implementation of high-capacity signalling is also a key objective of PTV s Network Development Plan, to unlock capacity on existing rail lines. The argument presented for decoupling appear to be based on an assumption of projected demand along the South Morang line being met prior to the latent and already existing demand in Manningham, Boroondara and the wider eastern suburbs being addressed. Council considers that the findings of the Draft Recommendations Report are too heavily focused on providing a solution for the South Morang line as evidenced by the vast number of the recommendations which relate to that project alone thereby detracting from the focus of providing rail to Doncaster Cycling Council notes that there only appears to be a minimal level of reference in the report of the potential for cyclists to make use of the proposed train route, and that the patronage numbers do not reflect the much wider distance that cyclists may travel to and from a station. This is particularly of note around the Balwyn North, Bulleen, Box Hill North and Doncaster catchments. There are extensive cycling paths alongside the freeway which would allow residents of Box Hill North to access the proposed Doncaster Rail stations. It is considered that this underestimation of overall potential patronage should be corrected in the Final Recommendations Report Pedestrian Analysis The Draft Recommendations Report assumes a station walking catchment of 800 metres. Research based on VIA data indicates that 800 metres is the 50th percentile (SKM, 2009) and the remaining half walk in excess of 800 metres. It appears that transport modelled data has underestimated the walk-up catchments of the stations under each theme. It is understood that the proposed walk-up catchment for the train line was a conservatively short 800m. This considerably underestimates the distance many people will walk to use public transport (it is noted that the median distance is 1.8km). This will dramatically alter the catchment area and potential number of patrons, particularly around Doncaster Hill and Burke Road. The absence of a station at Burke Road to attract passengers from the nearby suburbs of Kew and Ivanhoe is therefore important. If one of the considerations in the proposed timing of the construction is growth in passenger numbers, creating only three stations (and with only two of these being located in the new Manningham catchment the Chandler Highway station in fact perhaps could be considered an alternative to existing Fairfield and Alphington stations) will result in at a minimum a perception of crowding not seen along other services in Melbourne, and this may be what is experienced. This is particularly short-sighted when the much higher than forecast growth for the Perth rail system is considered. Failing to provide enough stations, while assisting in keeping travel times down, will result in a built-in failure mechanism, as passengers become dissatisfied with the service. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 27

40 9.11. Connection to Ringwood Council acknowledges that Stage 1 of the Doncaster Rail Study was to investigate the prospect of heavy rail to Doncaster. However, it is suggested that consideration be given to investigating (at perhaps a high level of the current feasibility study), provision of a rail connection to Ringwood, connecting with the Lilydale and Belgrave lines at Ringwood Station. This would provide an integrated transport connection between the eastern suburbs and the inner, northern and western suburbs of Melbourne, and shift the current nature of Melbourne s rail network from a radial service, to a Metro-style service, in line with PTV s objectives for the future of Melbourne s rail network. 10. Land Use Metropolitan Planning Strategy The Metropolitan Planning Strategy, which is currently being developed, will help guide Melbourne s growth and change over the next years. It will give communities, businesses and local government the confidence, flexibility and certainty needed to make informed decisions about their future. The Strategy s objectives for transport accessibility, economic growth, environmental protection and infrastructure and services to support growth, can be achieved with the provision of heavy rail to Doncaster. The following outlines the correlation between the principles that guide the Strategy and the objectives which rail to Doncaster seeks to achieve. One of the key issues for Manningham, is the provision of appropriate infrastructure (with an emphasis on public transport infrastructure), which is fundamental to ensuring the success of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy. There is a significant focus on the Central City and employment clusters, however, significant improvements to public transport infrastructure (either through new infrastructure, such as Doncaster Rail, or provision of more efficient bus services and associated infrastructure) is essential to the success of Doncaster Hill and the ongoing viability of Manningham s activity centres which will continue to be the focus of local job creation. Public transport underpins all nine principles identified within the Metropolitan Planning Strategy Discussion Paper (released in 2012), but primarily Principle 3 (Social and economic participation). Improved public transport through the provision of a Doncaster Rail link between the city and Doncaster and beyond would provide public transport access for a large portion of the population to education, health and jobs in the inner city. As well as the significant benefit to Manningham, a rail link from the city to Doncaster and beyond will provide a benefit to the entire eastern region when considered as part of an integrated public transport network with feeder bus and tram services. Manningham Council s planning for Doncaster Hill pre-dates the introduction of Melbourne 2030 and aims to provide a framework for the coordinated and successful development of Doncaster Hill, as a 21st Century Sustainable Urban Village, as the regional focus for a diversity of high-density residential living, retail, office, community and entertainment activities. Doncaster Hill (PAA), together with The Pines (MAC) and Manningham s nine Neighbourhood Activity Centres largely form the basis of Manningham s growth strategy and are detailed in Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 28

41 Manningham s Residential Strategy (2012). To achieve a globally connected and competitive city (Principle 2), the Metropolitan Planning Strategy needs to continue the existing policy of directing infill housing and medium density/high density housing development to locations within and nearby activity centres, which are also generally supported by sustainable transport options. This policy direction would contribute to the success of achieving a 20 minute city (an objective of the Strategy). Provision of adequate public transport and accessibility is a key component of building social connections and providing educational opportunities to encourage social participation (Principle 3). Goal 3.1 of the Manningham City Council s Generation 2030 Community Plan seeks to achieve, the provision of an integrated and efficient public transport network providing affordable, well connected and alternative forms of travel. This will be achieved by improved transport infrastructure, extending the hours of public transport and co-ordinating the different modes of transport, so that the bus network links with the train service and tram services etc. Manningham currently relies solely on a bus network, and is supportive of alternative transport services, including Doncaster Rail infrastructure and active travel plans to promote walking and cycling. The Doncaster Hill Activities Area, central to Manningham s strategy to accommodate population growth and future business activity would greatly benefit from a rail link to the Central City. Further, a continuation of the Doncaster Rail line from Victoria Park to Parkville (RT2), would create a valuable public transport link to this health and knowledge centre of Melbourne. The project also provides potential for integrated land use and transport solutions with multiple benefits for the eastern Region. This would achieve the objectives of a polycentric city linked to regional cities (Principle 6) of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy Preserving the Freeway Rail Alignment Council seeks to ensure that the median-strip of the Eastern Freeway is preserved for a future rail alignment, as it was first designed to achieve in the 1970s. Council request that a recommendation be included in the Final Recommendations Report to undertake the necessary planning and approvals to secure the land reservation of the Eastern Freeway. It is recognised that feasibility studies, and any associated planning and environmental approvals required in the process to deliver rail infrastructure along the Rapid Transit Option corridor, could take several years or decades to accomplish. In the meantime, there is the real threat that the median-strip and land reservation could be acquired for other purposes, such as future widening of the Eastern Freeway or appropriation for the East-West road link. 11. East-West Road Link It is recognised that the route alignment of the Rapid Transit options has been forced to adapt to the proposed East-West road link, potentially adding even more cost to the project scope for Doncaster Rail. This is particularly evident on the section between Chandler Highway and Hoddle Street, where the rail alignment has been forced to exit the freeway median reserve, to avoid conflicting with proposed East-West link tunnel portals and new tollway lanes. Arguably, the cost for this should be accrued to the road project, not the rail project. This would further enhance the cost benefit ratio of the rail project. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 29

42 It is noted that transport modelling of the East-West link was not included in the Draft Recommendations Report. This fails to illustrate the impact on traffic demand and congestion when both the Doncaster rail line and East-West link are considered, as well as the impact each project will have on the other. It is recommended that assessment towards the final recommendation for Doncaster Rail should include a review of the likely impact caused by the East-West link proposal. 12. Phase 2 of the Doncaster Rail Study Council is keen to ensure that Phase 2 of the Doncaster Rail Study, does not become heavily focused on assessing and providing a solution to the South Morang capacity constraint issue, and maintains its focus on assessing the best outcome for heavy rail to Doncaster. Council also seeks to ensure that the State Government reaffirm its commitment to deliver Phase 2 of the Doncaster Rail Study within the 2013/14 financial year. It is understood that Phase 2 of the Study will involved a further detailed assessment of the final selected alignment, and determine the funding, timing and staging of the project. Council seeks to ensure that the Study includes sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of the State Treasury Department and Infrastructure Australia. Council suggests that Phase 2 will also need to investigate and assess the cost of a do-nothing approach if a rail line to Doncaster is not built and as station is not provided on the Hill, particularly the impact to the future economic prosperity of Doncaster Hill from the impact of increasing traffic congestion and the lack of adequate public transport access to local businesses and residents on the Hill. Council s key concern will be to see the addition of a rail connection to the fast growing Doncaster Hill Principal Activities Area, when the final Phase 1 Recommendations Report is release later this year. Doncaster Hill requires whole of government support in order to ensure that it meets its objective as an exemplar transit oriented development. 13. Consultation with the DRLGG The DRLGG would like to thank URS and the State Government for consulting with the Group during the early stages of the Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA) phases undertaken by URS. This was to ensure that Local Government had the opportunity to review likely outcomes, and assess any gaps and opportunities from the perspective of Local Government. However, the DRLGG and Local Government were not involved or consulted in the final MCA, thereby missing an opportunity to inform URS and State Government of any missed opportunities, which would have assisted URS in assessing the viability of the final selected alignments and station locations. The DRLGG and Manningham Council request that URS and the State Government include them in any consultation with regard to finalising the Final Recommendations Report in future. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 30

43 Summary Manningham City Council s submission is made for consideration by URS and the State Government in finalising the Doncaster Rail Study Phase 1 Recommendations Report. Manningham City Council generally supports the Report s recommendation for the Rapid Transit Option 1 (RT1) as the preferred route alignment between the Melbourne CBD and Doncaster, including the two proposed stations at Bulleen and Doncaster Park & Ride. In addition, Council also supports the Rapid Transit Option 2 (RT2) as an alternative alignment into the CBD. However Council would like to ensure that the aforementioned concerns and suggestions within this submission are taken into consideration in the Final Recommendations Report, in order to provide the most ideal solution and recommendations to deliver rail to Doncaster. In summary, Council s major concerns are: Inclusion of an extension of the line to Doncaster Hill, with a station provided at the Hill; Review of the cost to provide a more accurate cost-estimate; Inclusion of a station at Burke Road within either of the Rapid Transit options; Consideration of connections with tram routes 48 (North Balwyn) and 72 (Camberwell); Review of population and station patronage data against the 2011 Census data; Investigation of the grade-separation of buses at Doncaster Hill; Consideration of the findings of the reports by Curtin University; Reconsideration of the closure of Victoria Park Station; Inclusion of more detailed modelling in relation to cycling and pedestrians; Preservation of the median strip of the Eastern Freeway reservation; Consultation with Manningham Council and the DRLGG in the final report process for Phase 1; Further assessment of the capacity improvement opportunities of the Clifton Hill Group lines, to deliver rail to Doncaster and the de-coupling of South Morang as a staged approach in that order; and A commitment to proceed with Phase 2 of the Study, focused on Doncaster Rail, with the outcomes to satisfy State Treasury Department and Infrastructure Australia criteria. In addition, Council is looking for bipartisan commitment to completing the Doncaster Rail Line within the 15 year time frame contained within the PTV s Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail (2012). Manningham City Council wishes to thank URS, PTV and the Department of Transport for the opportunity to respond to the release of the findings of the Doncaster Rail Study Phase 1 Recommendations Report (Draft) and looks forward to the receipt of the Final Recommendations Report, addressing the suggestions included within this submission. Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 31

44 Appendices Appendix A Manningham Planning Scheme Map Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 32

45 ARAPILLE AV MACEDON RD OR JOHN JOSEPH ROSA RANLEIGH RISE GIDGEE AV AV AV HIGH SCARLET ASH FYFE DEAN CL WAY ERN BALMORAL AV AV PHILLIP BENAMBRA T MARIANNE WAY ROSINE DION HIGH WAY WINT ERS GREENWOOD WOODLAND BRAESIDE DR RD RD FAIRWAY UDLEY LINK O PL LARA RD RCOURT HEYINGTON ANTON TORONTO Koonung HARCOURT PETTYS FINLAYSON LA AV VIVIAN AV WILSONS BIRRALEE LOG SCHOOL PRIMARY EBON CARINGAL ACHERON KOOLKUNA ARURA EDITH EAERN GOLF COURSE DONCAER BALFOUR SCHOOL BLOSSOM RD AV MARROO AV CARAWATHA EA KATRINA MORRIS DAVIS ARNOLD IDINIA LAWFORD WITTIG RD ADA ATTUNGA ROSE NEEL NAURU BOYD FIRTH RD HANKE CITRUS RD BRIAR RD RD CARNARVON LINEMENS SCHOOL TELECOM AURALIA EILDON COMO MORRISON CR BOYD SOMERVILLE HIGH AV DR MANNINGHAM VIOLET MARALEE HOWARD SODERLUND MELALEUCA AV IRON BARK AV RAPANEA MOSE CASON PL LLE CARE CENTRE HOME AND DAY DONCAER NURSING CRANBROOK QUADRANT BENALONG RATHMULLEN BORDEAUX BURGUNDY INGLIS PRUNELLA OLYMPUS PALMERON RD AV DR AV GEORGE RD AV DR CRAWFORD NEOR AV CL VINE BRENDAN TREVAT SWIMMING CENTRE PECAN CASSINIA IRON BARK BALSAM PARA MADEIRA WEFIELD OLYMPUS ANDROMEDA NIOBE DR AV ATHENA WILLIAMSONS ADELLE TIFFANY LEONARD ZEUSWINON WILLIAMSONS MAGNOLIA DR DR ALBURNUM FEATHERTOP AV KANOOKA MACEDO HO VE DR AFFRAS ACARANDA OAK CYPRESS AV SARGENT CR MALCOLM ELGAR See WHITEHORSE PLANNING SCHEME FRANK Creek GRANGE RD DR JARRAH SASSAFRA S SAS BOX LYNNWOOD PL CONIFER ELDER DR GERARD CR DILLWYNIA AV DR EUCALYPT DR MAGNOLIA RD DR TOTARA BLUEGUM CL LIGNUM CR AV SOPHORA CHA ROMILLY MONT HICKORY PDE WYND RD CAMBRIDGE CL EXETER EY PL ALTHEA MURLLO NETL RS GAIRLOCK KING AV HARVELL WILLIAMSONS BRENTVALE DR PL CL BIRBANK PENDA KERSEY MALL McGAHY THE AV GARDENS WAY GAMBIER AV ELBERTA DR WINBROOK KELLY HILL TULLY DR RISE SCENIC DIOSMA CLANCYS HENRY ARTEMIS PAGODA IVAN GEORGE TONI POINT SOVEREIGN AV THE GLADES SAXON ERIN LANSELL LEYTE THE CANTALA DR HENRY MARGOT VISCOUNT ANLEY ROBIN PL DONALD DR DR JUDITH CL MAVERICK CL GRAEME BOULEVARDE LA THE DR PARK HILL DR WAY BOARD BENTON ROSELAND KIRTON PL CROUCH BOULEVARDE MARTIN TURANA RESERVE SCHRAMMS CORELLA McCALLUM ANTON ANARTH BOTANIC EARL PL ARAM THIELE DIANELLA AMBROSE NDER GR BAYLEY MEA ANGUS GR MERVYN LA OUTLOOK WHITTENS ELLA BAIRD NORTH FRANK CLAY FREDERICK MERLIN WEFIELD DONCAER TRAM DR SHOPPING TOWN TOWER MYERS WALKER THOMAS HARD RIDGE BERKELEY PRIMARY DONCAER GOODSON ROSEVILLE ROBYN COUNCIL SCHOOL SHORT HEPBURN GILMORE GIFFORD RD RD MAPLE PARK LARKSPUR MEADOWBANK AV HIGHVIEW ELMTREE RD ARTHUR BAIRD SOUTH BAIRD EA LA DR COCKAIGNE BLAIR QUEENS OFFICES MUNICIPAL WINDELLA AV TEAK AV QUAD DR DONCAER IBIS CR KALIMNA CURLEW NORMA MARSHALL EDEN ANEMBO AV PLEASANT AV RANLEIGH PELLIER RISE GIDGEE AV CLAYS TOULON HILLCROFT LAWANNA LLON CR DR ER AV FERN CR BALLAMORE BALLAMORE WAY BROOK MUNICIPAL GARDENS DONCAER GARDENVIEW DR BRAIR BER HILLCROFT AM WOODFIELD RD CHURCH MINTARO VEDA DR BIRCHGROVE MOSSDALE CHIPPENDALE GRANGE DELLWOOD RISE CR GREENRIDGE CR FERNDELL AV BUDGE THE GRANGE CIRT NORFOLK CHURCH HAMPSHIRE COOLABAH TANDARA LINDEN AV RD LAUER ZANDER ALMA OLD ORCHARD MILLER GR WAY DR DUNOON WILMA BELLARA DONCAER NATHAN CHURCH SCHOOL HIGH SHARON GOLDEN RD CR RUBICON AV AV BURILLA KIEWA MERRIGUM FROMHOLD GROVER BEMBOOKA RD Koonung BRINDY WAY WILTON RD CRICKLEWOOD DONCAER MUNICIPAL GARDENS CHISWICK WAY KOLOR GLOUCEER ATION WETHERBY TERMINAL S.E.C. DARCY ALTONA RD VIORIA LIBERE DALY RENSHAW TRIANIA ROSS WALDAU DR RYALL DAPHNE MURPHY KEIR MOORE KERRY CL PETER CR SHIRLEY WHALLEY BELINDA ROMSEY RISE CR GEORGE LOXLEY OWENS TYROL DR HISLOP KOALA MITCHELL ELIZABETH KING TYSSEN FARRER BERWICK NORMAN ACACIA WOODLEA PRIMARY SCHOOL RD DR BELINDA WALDAU SANDHUR AV CL CHILTERN BERESFORD PL CL INGLEWOOD NORWICH DEHNERT CHAMPION CELEE ROWAN DUNDAS AV CR LATHAM WORTHING WORTHING AV TRACEY JOCELYN MONICA AV OTWAY BARRABOOL AIRLIE CR MARSDEN WONUKA RD NORAL AV TREVINDEN CL RESERVE PL BELVEDERE SIERRA AV DAVIS MAJOR RODERICK RODEN BAREENA PL GR LEROY RANDELL RD CRELLIN SAXONWOOD CR MONET LEAWARRA LAUTREC RD KENNON OAKWOOD ELM BEAVIS RD TAPAROO GAINSBOROUGH FRIARS DR BARTON HERTFORD RD CAMELOT ELIZABETH LOWE LAWRENCE Creek GEDYE HATFIELD KAREN CALVIN BULLEN CR LORD MERYL GEDYE VICKI BARBARA MORINDA KAURI THEA DUCKETT BARATTA LEEDS CR SHARNE RESERVE DONCAER FINCH ROSELLA CASSOWARY DAMALA RAVEN FALCON HAMILTON FRANKLIN CR BEVERLEY RD DR HAWK KARA RD MORNA CANARA GR BORONIA GR DEVON MAXIA RD.CHARLES R.C. SCHOOL PRIMARY COMMUNITY TUCKERS WHITE RAND CL NOORILIM CL NE WLYN CHURCH RD HAMPDEN THE WOLD PL GREENOCK RISE COTTS CALEWOOD CHIPPENDALE BEE PL CHELMSFORD AV CROFT MILLWOOD BEE CROFT CR MILLWOOD LEIGH PARKLEA PL CR THORN CROFT AV ASH THA CL DENHAM SAM AN JARMA COVE RISE OLRON LA GLEN DORA PL SKYE CL MEWS HONNI LAROOL CRAIGLEA CAWARRA REBECCA CR DON HAVEN BURLEIGH DR TAUNTON PUSHKIN TOLS TOY RD LARNACA LARNACA TUCKERS RD BROWNING PLANE TUCKERS RUNNYMEDE MALDON GRIMSBY RD TAUNTON HERTFOR WENSLEY THE F PRIORY WAY WYENA T KING RIPPON ATHENAEUM PERSIMMON CHAPEL WAY COLSON CL GLEN DENE JISING SUPREME YALLAROO KIANDRA SILVERDALE TOW ONG DEVON JACKSON DR PL REGENCY RISE DOMAIN NOTTINGWOOD BELVOIR TOINETTE CAVALIER DONCAER GEORGE HIGH SCH SHERWOOD TURNONE ROGER MORNA SELL TOINETTE CHAUCER DRYDEN BELVOIR ROMFORD RETFORD SA FRANKLIN BEVERLEY GR BORONIA THEA CASSOWARY MAXIA ROSELLA AVOCET DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 DDO7 D MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act. State of Victoria. This map should be read in conjunction with additional Planning Overlay Maps (if applicable) as indicated on the INDEX TO MAPS. MAP No 7DDO DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AURALIAN MAP GRID ZONE 55 INDEX TO ADJOINING METRIC SERIES MAP 21/7/2015 Printed: N AMENDMENT C106 Scale: 1:9, m Overlays Design And Development Overlay - Schedule 1 Design And Development Overlay - Schedule 7 DDO7 Design And Development Overlay - Schedule 8 Design And Development Overlay - Schedule 8-1 Design And Development Overlay - Schedule 8-2 Design And Development Overlay - Schedule

46 Appendix B Doncaster Hill Population and Household Forecasts (City of Manningham) Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 33

47 City of Manningham Doncaster Hill Population and household forecasts 2011 to 2036 population forecast Compiled and presented in forecast.id.

48 Table of contents Home 2 About the forecast areas 4 Drivers of population change 7 Population summary 8 Population, households and dwellings 10 Components of population change 13 Population and age structure 16 Household types 18 Dwellings and development map 20 Population and age structure map 22 Household types map 24 Residential development 25 Net migration by age 26 Non-private dwellings 27 Births and deaths 28 About the forecasts 29 Factors of population change 31 Household and suburb life cycles 33 Forecast modelling process 37 Notes on base data 38 Glossary 41

49 Welcome to the City of Manningham population forecasts The City of Manningham population and household forecasts present what is driving population change in the community and how the population, age structure and household types will change each year between 2011 and The forecasts are designed to provide community groups, Council, investors, business, students and the general public with knowledge to make confident decisions about the future. These forecasts were last updated in February 2014 by.id, the population experts, on behalf of the City of Manningham. Forecasts are available for each year from 2011 to Important Population 2016 Population 2036 Change Statistics 121, , % forecast.id forecast.id forecast.id Forecast areas City of Manningham Legend Small areas City of Manningham Page 3 of 43

50 Source: Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Forecast population Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, February Page 4 of 43

51 About the forecast areas Doncaster Hill is part of the suburb of Doncaster and is bounded in the north by Westfield Dve, a line to the west of Roseville Ave, Goodson St and Schramms Reserve, in the east by JJ Tully Dve and Whittens Ln, in the south by a line to the south of Doncaster Road generally to the south of Hepburn Rd, Merlin St and an east-west line following Briar Crt and Carawatha Rd and in the west by the eastern boundary of the Eastern Golf Club, a line generally to the north of Firth St, Meader St and 5 Sovereign Point Court'. Important Population 2016 Population 2036 Change Statistics 2,572 7, % Page 5 of 43

52 Forecast areas Doncaster Hill Legend City of Manningham Small areas Source: Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 6 of 43

53 Drivers of population change Development History Manningham City Council is located in Melbourne's north-eastern suburbs, commencing with its western boundary in Bulleen, 10 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD and extending to Wonga Park at its eastern extremity, 32 kilometres from the CBD. The City encompasses a total land area of 114 square kilometres, including a substantial 17% green open spaces. The non-urban areas include a large tract of the Green Wedge, and are used mainly for rural residential living, conservation and small scale agriculture. The City includes the suburbs of Bulleen, Doncaster, Doncaster East, Donvale, Nunawading (part), Park Orchards, Ringwood North (part), Templestowe, Templestowe Lower, Warrandyte, Warrandyte South and Wonga Park (part). The City's main centre is located at Doncaster Hill, but it also features a range of smaller shopping centres, namely The Pines, Templestowe Village, Bulleen Plaza, Macedon Square, Tunstall Square, Goldfields Plaza, Jackson Square and Devon Plaza. The main development phase in the City of Manningham dates from the 1950s onward. Development spread into the City from the west and the south and around older villages such as Templestowe, Doncaster and Warrandyte. As car ownership increased and roads improved in the 1960s and 1970s, development spread across the City, with more areas being converted to residential and rural residential. By the early 1980s, the more established suburbs such as Bulleen and Templestowe Lower began to decrease in population. This was a result of limited residential development and because households had become smaller, with the children of the original settlers growing up and leaving home. This is a process that has spread across the City, with most areas seeing a maturation of the population. This process led to an overall population decrease in the City between 1991 and In recent years, the population has stabilised and begun to increase again as a result of higher levels of residential development. During the mid to late 1990s, surplus government land from utilities and former school sites provided more development potential and a number of larger remnant greenfield parcels were developed, notably in Sheehans Road, Bulleen. There was also an acceleration in the amount of redevelopment with unit and townhouse development more common in many areas of the City, notably Doncaster and Doncaster East. Migration patterns The primary housing market role that the City played in the post war era was to provide housing for young and established families. This role continues to some extent, although many areas attract more mature families, as increasing house prices and improved services has made these areas increasingly desirable. The main source of population growth in the City of Manningham tends to be from overseas, while young couples and families tend to leave the City for more affordable areas to purchase housing or to inner city locations to rent. It is assumed that a number of the migration patterns will continue into the future, most notably flows into the City from overseas and loss of persons to neighbouring areas. Page 7 of 43

54 Historical migration flows, City of Manningham, 'Overseas' refers to arrivals only. Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Page 8 of 43

55 Note: The migration flows depicted above are historical and do not represent future or forecast migration flows or subsequent council boundary changes. The arrows represent migration flows to the area as a whole and do not indicate an origin or destination for any specific localities within the area. Overseas flow shows overseas arrivals only, based on answers to the census question where did the person usually live 5-years ago. Housing role and function Within the City of Manningham, areas have developed and will continue to evolve different roles within the housing market. Variations occur due to when areas were settled, the range of land uses in the area, developer interest and the varying planning policies in play. Bulleen and Doncaster Hill tends to gain people in their late teens and twenties due to a combination of factors. These include affordability and relative proximity to the City (Bulleen) and access to services and available rental stock (Doncaster Hill). Areas such as Doncaster East, Donvale, Park Orchards, Templestowe, Templestowe lower, Warrandyte-Warrandyte South and Wonga Park attract established and mature families, due to the type of housing stock available. Doncaster Balance attracts a combination of young adults and mature families. Housing supply There are also significant differences in the supply of residential property within the City which will also have a major influence in structuring different population and household futures over the next five to twenty years. Doncaster Hill has been identified as the main focus for residential development, with a large increase in apartments and units expected. Development had been relatively moderate to 2011; although a number of development sites were completed shortly after the census. Many more residential sites are expected to be built in Doncaster Hill over the next five to ten years. Other significant residential development sites can be found in Doncaster Balance (the Eastern Golf Course development) and Doncaster East ( Andersons Creek Road and Reynolds Road). Most other future residential development is anticipated to be increasingly concentrated in medium density areas adjacent to commercial centres and along transport corridors, notably in the suburbs of Doncaster, Doncaster East, Donvale and Bulleen. Some form of residential development is expected in most other parts of the City, albeit at a much lower rates. Other resources Page 9 of 43

56 Population summary This table summarises the population for the City of Manningham and each of its small areas. This enables you to see how population change is affecting different parts of the LGA in different ways. Some small areas may be rapidly growing whilst others are stable or even declining in population. Continue to the forecast results section to see detailed forecasts of population, households, and dwellings for each of the small areas. Please note that population numbers in forecast.id for the 2011 base year are derived from Estimated Resident Population from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These differ from (and are usually higher than) Census counts as they factor in population missed by the Census and population overseas on Census night. They are generally considered a more accurate measure of population size than Census counts. Population summary City of Manningham Forecast year Change between 2011 and 2036 Area Total change Avg. annual % change City of Manningham 116, , , , , , , Bulleen 11,245 11,556 11,950 12,204 12,440 12,667 +1, Doncaster Hill 930 2,572 3,592 4,715 6,145 7,553 +6, Doncaster Balance 18,797 19,587 20,976 22,654 24,017 25,326 +6, Doncaster East 28,308 29,841 31,304 32,419 32,979 33,525 +5, Donvale 12,888 12,954 13,048 13,222 13,493 13, Park Orchards - Ringwood North 4,514 4,454 4,422 4,426 4,450 4, Templestowe 17,078 17,132 17,195 17,462 17,874 18,250 +1, Templestowe Lower 13,824 14,190 14,380 14,640 14,887 15,074 +1, Warrandyte - Warrandyte South 6,164 5,965 5,870 5,849 5,867 5, Wonga Park 3,207 3,249 3,222 3,207 3,225 3, Doncaster (Suburb Total) 19,727 22,159 24,568 27,369 30,162 32, , Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 10 of 43

57 Population, households and dwellings This summary shows the results of the forecasts for population, households and dwellings in the City of Manningham. The period 2011 to 2026, as the short to medium term, is likely to be the most accurate and useful forecast information for immediate planning purposes. It is important to look at the relationship between population and average household size. If the average household size is falling, then there will need to be growth in the number of households (and dwellings for them to live in) to maintain or grow the population. Forecast population, households and dwellings Doncaster Hill Forecast year Summary Population 930 2,572 3,592 4,715 6,145 7,553 Change in population (5yrs) -- 1,641 1,020 1,124 1,430 1,408 Average annual change % 6.91% 5.59% 5.44% 4.21% Households 396 1,045 1,497 1,999 2,630 3,260 Average household size Population in non private dwellings Dwellings 439 1,163 1,663 2,223 2,923 3,623 Dwelling occupancy rate Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 11 of 43

58 Forecast population, households and average household size Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Key findings In 2011, the total population of Doncaster Hill was estimated to be 930 people. It is expected to increase by over 3,700 people to 4,715 by 2026, at an average annual growth rate of 11.43%. This is based on an increase of over 1,600 households during the period, with the average number of persons per household rising from 2.35 to 2.36 by Page 12 of 43

59 Components of population change There are two ways in which populations can change, through net migration and/or through natural increase (births minus deaths). Some areas are more driven by one or other of these factors. Migration is largely driven by housing development, whereas natural increase is a function of the age of the population. Components of population change Doncaster Hill Forecast period Component 2012 to to to to to 2036 Births Deaths Natural increase/decrease Net migration 1, ,012 1,280 1,224 Change in persons in non-private dwellings Total population change 1,641 1,020 1,124 1,430 1,408 Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Forecast population change Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Page 13 of 43

60 Forecast births, deaths and natural increase/decrease Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Page 14 of 43

61 Forecast in, out and net migration Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Page 15 of 43

62 Population and age structure Knowledge of how the age structure of the population is changing is essential for planning age-based facilities and services, such as child care, recreation and aged care. The forecast age groups of the City of Manningham is a function of the current age of the population (people aging each year, being born and dying) as well as the age of people migrating into and out of the area. This in turn is driven by location (fringe, city centre, regional or rural) the existing housing stock (separate dwellings, medium or high density), the amount and type of new residential development (same as existing stock, or diversifying) and where the area is in a cycle of change. We call this the area s residential role and function. You can learn more about this in the section household and suburb life cycles. Forecast age structure - 5 year age groups Doncaster Hill - Total persons Change between 2011 and 2036 Age group (years) Number % Number % Number % Number 0 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to and over Total persons , , ,623 Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 16 of 43

63 Forecast age structure - 5 year age groups Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Page 17 of 43

64 Forecast change in age structure - 5 year age groups Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Key findings In 2011, the dominant age structure for persons in Doncaster Hill was ages 25 to 29, which accounted for 9.7% of the total persons. The largest increase in persons between 2011 and 2026 is forecast to be in ages 25 to 29, which is expected to increase by 455 and account for 11.6% of the total persons. The largest 5 year age group in 2026 is 25 to 29 years, with a total of 546 persons. Page 18 of 43

65 Household types Analysing the future household structure in City of Manningham, especially in conjunction with age structure, provides insight to the role the area plays in the housing market. Some areas, usually with separate housing stock, are dominated by families. Others, with more dense housing in inner city locations have significant numbers of lone person households and couples without dependents. Forecast household types Doncaster Hill Change between 2011 and 2036 Type Number % Number % Number % Number Couple families with dependents Couples without dependents Group households Lone person households One parent family Other families Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Forecast household types Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Page 19 of 43

66 Forecast change in household types, 2011 to 2036 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing, [Parameter].[StartYear] Compiled and presented in economy.id by.id, the population experts. Key findings In 2011, the dominant household type in Doncaster Hill was Couples without dependents, which accounted for 29.3% of all households. The largest increase between 2011 and 2026 is forecast to be in Couples without dependents, which will increase by 497 households and account for 30.7% of all households. In contrast Group households is forecast to increase by 67 households, to comprise 4.1% of all households in 2026, compared to 3.8% in Page 20 of 43

67 Dwellings and development map Visualising the geographic pattern of growth in dwelling stock across the City of Manningham is a good starting point for assessing the scale and type of change each part of the area is undergoing. Some areas will be experiencing significant growth in new dwellings, either through greenfield development or densification and renewal. However it would be a mistake to assume that areas not experiencing significant housing development are not undergoing change. Other processes will be at work such as the aging-in-place of the existing population and changing household structures. The age structure and household type maps will uncover these population shifts. Forecast dwellings and development map City of Manningham, 2011 to 2036 percent change Legend City of Manningham Small areas 3.3 to to to to to Source: Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 21 of 43

68 Forecast dwellings and development City of Manningham Change between 2011 and 2036 Area Number % Number % Number % City of Manningham 43, , , Bulleen 4, , Doncaster Hill , , Doncaster Balance 7, , , Doncaster East 10, , , Donvale 4, , Park Orchards - Ringwood North 1, , Templestowe 5, , Templestowe Lower 5, , Warrandyte - Warrandyte South 2, , Wonga Park 1, , Doncaster (Suburb Total) 8, , , Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 22 of 43

69 Population and age structure map Knowing when and where to deliver age-based services is an essential part of local government planning. Mapping the distribution of selected age groups across the City of Manningham provides the evidence-base for efficiently targeting and delivering these services. You can learn more about how places move through cycles of change which affect their age by visiting population and age structure. Population and age structure map - persons aged 0 to 4 years City of Manningham, 2011 to 2036 percent change Legend City of Manningham Small areas -6.3 to to to to to Source: Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 23 of 43

70 Population and age structure - persons aged 0 to 4 years City of Manningham Change between 2011 and 2036 Area Number % Number % Number % City of Manningham 5, , Bulleen Doncaster Hill Doncaster Balance , Doncaster East 1, , Donvale Park Orchards - Ringwood North Templestowe Templestowe Lower Warrandyte - Warrandyte South Wonga Park Doncaster (Suburb Total) , Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 24 of 43

71 Household types map Mapping the distribution of different household types across the City of Manningham provides insight into the roles that different areas play in the housing market and how these are changing. It also identifies where there are concentrations of households which have specific service requirements. You can learn more about how places move through cycles of change which affect their household structure by visiting houshold types. Forecast household types map - Group households City of Manningham, 2011 to 2036 percent change Legend City of Manningham Small areas 7.9 to to to to to Source: Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 25 of 43

72 Forecast household types - Group households City of Manningham Change between 2011 and 2036 Area Number % Number % Number % City of Manningham , Bulleen Doncaster Hill Doncaster Balance Doncaster East Donvale Park Orchards - Ringwood North Templestowe Templestowe Lower Warrandyte - Warrandyte South Wonga Park Doncaster (Suburb Total) Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Page 26 of 43

73 Residential development The addition of dwellings to the housing stock is a major driver of population growth in an area, providing opportunities for households to relocate from other areas or new households to form locally (such as young people leaving the family home or separations/divorces). Residential development can take various forms depending on the availability of land. These include new housing estates on greenfield sites, subdivision in existing residential neighbourhoods (often called infill development), conversion of industrial lands to residential lands, and densification of housing by building up..id's forecasters worked with Council planners to understand the likely development activity in each small area. This forms the development assumptions for the forecasts. This table shows the quantity of new development assumed in each small area in the City of Manningham. Select each small area to see detailed assumptions. List of forecast land developments and infill assumptions: dwelling additions are based on an assessment of major site activity and building approvals, lagged by months. Assumptions concerning development over the forecast period include: 6-16 Berkeley St & 16 Tower Street dwellings (2012) Doncaster Road dwellings (2012) Tram Road - 98 dwellings (2012) Tram Road - 83 dwellings (2013) 7-11 Berkeley St - 69 dwellings (2014) Doncaster Hill Future Development - 2,660 dwellings ( ) No Residual area development assumed Forecast residential development Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Page 27 of 43

74 Net migration by age Migration is one of the most important components of population change. Once you have established the amount of development activity in an area, the next step is to make assumptions about who will move into the area as well as who is leaving the area. Net migration by age is an excellent way of understanding housing markets. The most mobile age groups in the population are young adults. They tend to move to attend educational institutions, seek work and express a change in lifestyle. Market research has shown that empty nesters are more likely to move to smaller accommodation when appropriate and affordable alternative housing is supplied in the local area that is accessible to established social networks. Select each small area to see how migration patterns differ for each area across City of Manningham depending on their housing markets and stage in the suburb life cycle. Major migration assumptions: Migration gain in all age groups Major gain in 8-24 years attracted to rental opportunities in new apartments Minor gain in the older adult and 'empty-nester' and retiree age groups (50-74 years) Forecast net migration by age group Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id the population experts, February Page 28 of 43

75 Non-private dwellings Residential non-private dwellings include aged care facilities as well as defence force facilities, hospitals, prisons, staff quarters and boarding houses. As a general rule, an increase in people aged 18 to 24 living in non-private dwellings indicates a growth in student accommodation, defence force facilities or prisons. Similarly an increase in people aged over 75 living in non-private dwellings indicates growth in aged care facilities. Persons in non-private dwellings City of Manningham Year Change between 2011 and 2036 Area Total change Aged 18 to 24 years Aged 75+ years City of Manningham 1,443 2, Bulleen Doncaster Hill Doncaster Balance Doncaster East Donvale Park Orchards - Ringwood North Templestowe Templestowe Lower Warrandyte - Warrandyte South Wonga Park Doncaster (Suburb Total) Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February Key findings There were 1,443 people estimated to be living in non-private dwellings in the City of Manningham in The number of persons in non-private dwellings in the City of Manningham is expected to increase to 1,943 persons in 2026 and with a gain 2,007 persons in Between 2011 and 2026, Templestowe is forecast to experience the greatest change, with a gain of 334 persons in non-private dwellings. This is due to an increase of persons in non-private dwellings aged 75 years and over, which is predominantly aged care. Page 29 of 43

76 Births and deaths The number of births in the City of Manningham are derived by multiplying age specific fertility rates of women aged by the female population in these age groups for all years during the forecast period. Birth rates are especially influential in determining the number of children in an area, with most inner urban areas having relatively low birth rates, compared to outer suburban or rural and regional areas. Birth rates have been changing, with a greater share of women bearing children at older ages or not at all, with overall increases in fertility rates. This can have a large impact on the future population profile. Forecast fertility rates (births per woman) City of Manningham Death rates Year Change between 2011 and 2036 Area Number City of Manningham Bulleen Doncaster Hill Doncaster Balance Doncaster East Donvale Park Orchards - Ringwood North Templestowe Templestowe Lower Warrandyte - Warrandyte South Wonga Park Doncaster (Suburb Total) Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by.id, the population experts, February The forecast number of deaths in the City of Manningham is a reflection of death rates assumed for small areas. For historical years, this will equal the number of deaths published by the ABS, where this information was available at the time of forecasting. These rates are based on historical estimates for the City of Manningham, which have been extrapolated into the future, assuming an increase in expectation of life in all age groups (except 85 years and over). Death rates are influential in shaping the numbers of older people in an area's population. Death rates too have been changing, with higher life expectancy at most ages, with men's life expectancy increasing more than that of women. Page 30 of 43

77 About the forecasts The City of Manningham population and household forecasts are undertaken by.id, the population experts, on behalf of the City of Manningham. During the forecast modeling process,.id assesses what is driving population change in the area and forecasts how the age structure and household types will change as result. Forecasts are only as good as the assumptions they are based on, and.id works closely with the council to ensure we have detailed information about current and planned residential development activity. The forecasts are updated on a rolling cycle to take into account changes in the real world. All assumptions, as well as the results of the forecasts, are made available in this site. The forecasts were last updated in February Forecasts are available for the City of Manningham and small areas for each year from 2011 to The forecasts are designed to provide community groups, Council, investors, business, students and the general public with knowledge to make confident decisions about the future. Whilst all due care has been taken to ensure the content of this website is accurate and current, there may be errors or omissions in it and no legal responsibility is accepted for the information and opinions in this report. In addition, as the website is based on historic information which is subject to revision, we do not guarantee its currency. Page 31 of 43

78 Factors of population change Page 32 of 43

79 At the small area level, the key factors of population change are the age structure of the existing population, the housing markets attracted to and away from an area and their associated demographic characteristics (fertility patterns, household types etc.) and the supply of dwellings and mix of housing stock in the area. Dwelling additions The addition of dwellings is the major driver of population growth, providing opportunities for new households (such as young people leaving the family home and divorces) or households relocating from other areas. Current age structure The age structure of the local population impacts on the City of Manningham's household types and size, the likelihood of the local population having children and to die, as well as the propensity for people to move. Age specific propensities for a population to have children or die are applied to each small area's base population. An older population will have fewer births, more deaths, while a younger population will have vice versa. Birth rates Birth rates are especially influential in determining the number of children in an area, with most inner urban areas having very low birth rates, compared to outer suburban or rural and regional areas. Birth rates have been changing, with a greater share of women bearing children at older ages or not at all, with overall increases in fertility rates. This can have a large impact on the future population profile. Death rates Death rates are influential in shaping the numbers of older people in an area's population. Death rates too have been changing with higher life expectancy at most ages, with men gaining on women's greater life chances. Migration Migration is one of the most important factors of population change. While births and deaths are relatively easy to predict due to reliable age specific behaviour, migration is volatile, often changing due to housing market preferences, economic opportunities and changing household circumstances. Migration patterns vary across Australia and change across time, but most moves tend to be short and incremental in nature. Regional areas have larger moves due to the distances between towns and cities, where people often move for economic reasons, mainly the availability of employment or education and training opportunities. The most mobile age groups in the population are the young adults. They tend to move to attend educational institutions, seek work and express a change in lifestyle. It is for this reason that young people often move the greatest distances and sometimes move against pre-established patterns. Market research has shown that empty nesters are more likely to move to smaller accommodation if appropriate and affordable alternative housing is supplied in the local area that is accessible to established social networks. Page 33 of 43

80 Household and suburb life cycles Household life cycles The type of households that people live in and changing preferences over time affects the way in which a population changes. As people grow from children to adults and into old age, they change the type of households that they live in. The traditional path has been to start as a child in a family household, move into a group or lone person household as a youth, becoming a part of a couple relationship within 5-10 years. Rearing of children is followed by an empty-nester period and ultimately being a lone person, as partners die. Understanding the changes that people make at different ages in their life, and the different types of housing they are likely to consume at those life stages is an important factor in forecasting future population and household types. The life stage which the majority of households in an area are going through gives an insight into its location in the suburb life-cycle (see below), and the likely life-path of those households in the future. Suburb life cycles The dominant household types present in a suburb or town - where the majority of the populations sit in the household life path - dictate in part the role and function of the area. This is shown by its place in the "suburb life cycle". Page 34 of 43

81 New areas are typically settled by young households (young couples and young families, perhaps some mature families). As the families grow and mature, household size increases. After initial rapid development, most households "age in place", with slowly shifting demand for services, facilities and dwelling types. As households age further and children begin to leave home, the average household size decreases, resulting in more empty nester (two person) households, often still living in large family homes. Family breakups can also result in single parent families and lone person households. If a suburb can't attract young families back to the area, it slowly becomes populated by older couples whose children have left home and older lone persons whose partners have died, resulting in declining population for some time. Alternatively, if a suburb is in a location close to economic drivers of change, it may be able to attract families to move back into the older dwellings in the area, increasing household size and population again. This will generally happen sooner, with less loss of services if the area has a diversity of housing options suiting a wide variety of household types. Empty nesters are likely to downsize into lower maintenance properties, freeing up larger format housing for families to move into, and continue the cycle again. The loop in the diagram represents the process of sustainability of an area, if it can attract families back into older housing in the area. Depending on the proximity of an area to work and education it may also attract young lone persons and group households. The attractiveness of an area to family groups, group and lone person households is shown in the migration assumptions section. Generally, more diverse communities are more sustainable in the long term, as they are able to maintain a range of services and facilities useful to all age groups. Certain policy responses can influence the suburb life cycle in different directions. Page 35 of 43

82 Forecast modelling process Approach The diagram below describes the general approach used by.id in its population and household forecasts. An analysis of the current population and household structure often reveals the role and function of an area and the degree to which an area may be going through some form of demographic transition. Demographic changes, such as birth, death and migration rates are applied to the base population. At the same time, scrutiny of urban development drivers is undertaken (residential development opportunities, vacancy rates etc.). The combination of varied assumptions about these inputs results in forecast population and households by type. Page 36 of 43

83 Modelling process The modelling process used for producing the small-area forecasts is based on a 'bottom-up' approach, with all assumptions being derived from a local perspective. The components of the model are derived exclusively from housing and demographic assumptions. The drivers of the forecasts are predominantly based on levels of new residential development and demographic assumptions, such as in and out migration rates from the local areas. The diagram below describes the detail of the modelling process used by.id in its population and household forecasts. The population forecasts are based on a combination of three statistical models. They include a cohort component model, a housing unit model and a household propensity model. Each of the models has a series of inputs, which when linked to the other models gives the forecast outputs. The models are further explained below. Page 37 of 43

84 Cohort Component Model The cohort component model is a standard demographic model used for population forecasts. It takes a base population by single year of age and sex and makes assumptions about future levels of births, deaths and migration, with the result being a forecast population by age and sex. Each year the population ages by one year, with additions to population through in-migration and births. Births are derived by multiplying age specific fertility rates of women aged by the female population in these age groups for all years during the forecast period. The population decreases are based on out-migration and deaths. Deaths are derived by multiplying age and sex specific mortality rates for all age groups for all years during the forecast period. In and out migration is based on multiplying the population in each age group by a migration matrix. The base year population is derived from 2011 Census counts and then adjusted to an estimated resident population by small area. Each year through the forecast period, the population is run against age-specific birth, death and migration rates to create new population figures. Housing Unit Model The housing unit model is used to forecast future levels of residential development in areas and the resulting impact on the total population and the number of households. This model is critical in giving population forecasts credibility, especially in areas where there are residential development constraints and where historical migration patterns would be expected to change. The housing unit model is based on forecasting a number of variables. These include total population living in private and non-private dwellings, the number of households and the number of dwellings. The share of housing stock that does not contain households is known as the vacancy rate. The population living in private dwellings divided by the number of households is known as the average household size. These variables have changing relationships over time, as households undergo normal demographic processes, such as family formation and ageing. Levels of residential development, vacancy rates and average household size (see housing propensity model below) are used as the drivers of the model. Every year there is an assumption about the level of residential development activity, which adds to the stock of dwellings in an area. This stock of dwellings is multiplied by the vacancy rate, which gives the total number of vacant dwellings and the total number of occupied private dwellings (households). Households are multiplied by the assumed average household size for the year to derive the new number of persons living in private dwellings. The average household size is derived from the household propensity model (see below). Population in non-private dwellings is modelled separately. A non-private dwelling is a form of housing, which is communal in nature. Examples of non-private dwellings include nursing homes, student accommodation, boarding houses, nursing quarters, military barracks and prisons. In forecasting the number of persons in non-private dwellings, the population is analysed according to the different types of living arrangements. Decisions about future changes may be based on local knowledge through consultation with institutions or local government if there are a large number of people living in non-private dwellings. Household Propensity Model This model is used to integrate the cohort component and housing unit models to ensure consistency between the outputs of both models. The model works by assuming that the age structure of the population is an indicator of household size and type. These differences are assumed at the local area based on the household type and size from the 2011 Census. The population is divided into household types based on five year age groups and sex. Each of these household types has an associated household size. From this relationship, all the household forming population (adults and any non-dependents) effectively represent a share of a household. Dependents in a household (children) represent no share of a household, although their departure frequently drives demand for housing in the region. Lone persons represent 1 or 100% of a household. Couples with dependents represent 50% of household. Couples without dependents represent almost 50% of a household (as they can include related adults). Lone parents represent 100% of a household. Group household members' and other household members' shares vary according to the region Page 38 of 43

85 (20%-45%, 5 persons to 2.5 persons per household). These relationships are extrapolated forward from 2011 with some adjustments, depending on the type of area. While for some areas, it is assumed that a greater share of the population will live in smaller households in the future, many areas will go against this trend, depending on their place within the life cycle of suburbs. Page 39 of 43

86 Notes on base data Base population estimates The population figures used in the forecasts for 2011 are based on estimated resident population from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These figures are published at the Statistical Area 1 (SA1) level, which are then aggregated to the chosen small area or local government area, sometime splitting SA1s if necessary. These figures are subject to change or updating from time to time, most notably after Census release (usually one to two years after the Census is conducted). Base household estimates The household estimates used in the forecasts for 2011 were based on age and sex-specific population propensities by different household types. Estimated Resident Population by Statistical Area 1 was multiplied by household factors to give estimated Resident Households. The multiplying factor varies depending on the household type (and the area), such as a factor of 1 for persons living in lone person households to 0.5 for an adult in couple families with dependent households. Children and other dependents, such as elderly parents, are not assumed to form households. Page 40 of 43

87 Glossary Age specific propensities (birth and death) This relates to the modelling of births and deaths. At each year of age, there is a certain statistical likelihood of a person dying or giving birth. These age specific propensity rates are applied to the base and forecast population for each year of the forecast period. Ageing in place This refers to an existing resident population ageing in their current location, as distinct from other impacts on future population such as births, deaths and in and out migration. Average annual percentage change A calculation of the average change in total population for each individual year. Average household size The average number of persons resident in each occupied private dwelling. Calculated as the number of persons in occupied private dwellings divided by the number of occupied private dwellings. This excludes persons living in nonprivate dwellings, such as prisons, military bases, nursing homes etc. 'Bottom up' forecast Population forecast based on assumptions made at the local area level. Local drivers of change such as land stocks and local area migration form the basis. Broadhectare Land or Sites Broadhectare land refers to undeveloped land zoned for residential development on the fringe of the established metropolitan area. These areas are generally used for rural purposes until residential subdivision takes place. This type of land is also referred to as greenfield. Commencement The construction of a new dwelling (or beginning of). Dwelling A habitable residential building. Dwelling stock The supply of dwellings (either occupied or unoccupied) in a given geographic area. Empty nesters Parents whose children have left the family home to establish new households elsewhere. Estimated Resident Population (ERP) This is the estimate of the population based on their usual residence. The ERP at the time of the Census is calculated as the sum of the enumerated (counted) population plus persons temporarily absent less persons who are nonpermanent (visitor) residents. An undercount of population by small area at Census time is also accounted for. The ERP used in these forecasts is then backdated to June 30. The ERP for forecast years are based on adding to the estimated population the components of natural increase and net migration. Page 41 of 43

88 Forecast period In this report, the forecast period is from 2011 to Most data on the website has focused on the period from 2011 to 2036 plus 15. Household One or more persons living in a structural private dwelling. In-centre development Residential development based on increasing dwelling densities around suburb and town centres. Usually around existing transport nodes and service infrastructure, rather than developing previously undeveloped land on the urban fringe. 'Infill' development Residential development, usually of a relatively small scale, on redevelopment sites in established urban areas. This can take place on land previously used for another urban purpose such as industry or schools or on existing residential allotments where new dwellings are added. Also referred to as intensification of existing areas. Mature families One and two parent families with older children, generally of secondary and tertiary school age. Migration The movement of people or households from one location to another. Natural increase The increase in population based on the births minus deaths, not including the impact of migration. Net household additions The overall increase in occupied dwellings, determined by the level of new dwelling construction that is permanently occupied, or conversion of non-permanently occupied dwellings to permanently occupied minus demolitions. Non-private dwellings These dwellings include persons resident in establishments such as prisons, student or nurses accommodation, nursing homes, boarding houses, military facilities, and hospitals. Occupancy rate The proportion of structural private dwellings that are occupied by a household. Occupied Private Dwellings (OPD) These are all Structural Private Dwellings (SPD s) that are occupied by a household. Excluded are dwellings that were under construction, being demolished or where the house was temporarily vacant. Private dwellings Self-contained dwelling including houses (attached or detached), flats, townhouses etc. Retirement village units are also private dwellings as are houses or flats rented from the government. Redevelopment sites These are sites in already established areas not originally developed for residential uses, but identified for conversion to residential use. Examples include former school sites, quarries, derelict industrial land, former petrol stations and the like. Page 42 of 43

89 Structural Private Dwellings (SPD) This is the stock of houses, flats, and other dwelling types. The SPD is the usual base stock from which commencements are added and demolitions deducted. 'Top down' forecast Population forecast based on assumptions made at the State and National level and allocated into smaller regions e.g. Local Government Areas, suburbs. Vacancy rate The proportion of structural private dwellings that are not occupied by a household. Young families One and two parent families with young children, generally of pre and primary school age. Page 43 of 43

90 Appendix C Revised Doncaster Hill Planning Permit Map (February 2013) Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 34

91 TERENCE TI FF AN Y C T LL E ADE LANSELL DR VINE WEFIE REISLING MADE IRA PARA X Precinct 4 LD DR TONI Westfield Dr M WILLIA CORELL N DR The Berkeley 9-11 Williamsons Rd HUMMELL 13 Berkeley St Canvas 1 Firth St CAR TO WER BAYLEY GV 7 Williamsons Rd V ON NAR WAY LEW CUR Precinct 1 Bunnings MC 2 C ON BEA HL FIRT CR Halcyon Views BERK ELEY H FIRT KALIMNA J J TU LLY ME ADER IDINIA Westfield Doncaster RD LAWFORD Precinct 6 ARNOLD GV GOODSO SONS Precinct 5 Precinct 3 CRANBROO BENALONG Westfield Car Park The Crest K The Gardens A R ROBYN GROSVENO The Ridge TURANA T COUNCIL IN GN PO LE AV EI SOVER ROSEVIL Imperial QD Pearl RATHMULLE N ANGUS GV ES CORELL THE GL AD CL BORDEAU KIRTON K A WINBROO INGLIS PRUNEL LA BURGUNDY DR BENTON KELLY A 602 Doncaster Rd South Point 600 Doncaster Rd Doncaster Rd RAM SCH A MS L Magnolia BLAIR Panorama AV ENS QUE SHORT T LD S The Pinnacle CLAY DR SFIE Nest 537 Doncaster Rd 8Hepburn 2 COMPLETED MC Doncaster Rd Permit issued 30 July 2010 Containing library, art gallery, cafe and social, child and youth services Precinct 2 Canvas - 7 Berkeley St PERMIT 13 Berkeley St Permit issued 30 April storey / 69 Apts Permit issued 14 June storey / Offices & 4 Apts 12 storey / 158 Apts & Offices WHITTEN RD RD Precinct 6 COMPLETED 1 Firth St 3 storey / 8 Apts PERMIT 537 Doncaster Rd Permit issued 17 April storey / 20 Apts Bunnings Doncaster Rd & 2, 4-6 Tower St Permit issued 31 Oct Amended plans received 24 June storey / 385 Apts, Retail & Trade Supplies The Pinnacle Doncaster Rd COMPLETED Permit issued 5 December 2007 Precinct 7 COMPLETED 95 Tram Rd Precinct 4 Permit issued 19 November storey / 98 Apts 8 storey / 27 Apts BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING 88Tram - 88 Tram Rd COMPLETED 36 Westfield Dr Amended permit issued 4 June storey / 60 Apts COMPLETED Westfield Doncaster Doncaster Rd 3 storey / 20 Apts Retail, Restaurants, Cinemas & Car Parks Magnolia Hepburn Rd Permit issued 31 October storey / 181 Apts BUILDING Pearl - 1 Grosvenor St PERMIT Westfield Doncaster Car Park Doncaster Rd 8Hepburn - 8 Hepburn Rd Permit issued 30 January storey / 67 Apts MARKETING Nest Doncaster Rd Permit issued 4 July Amended permit issued 18 February storey / 251 Apts, Cafe, Restricted Retail (and Swimming Pool) PERMIT 602 Doncaster Rd Permit issued 23 April storey / 270 Apts, Restricted Retail, Offices & Cafe/Restaurant PERMIT Doncaster Rd PERMIT 23 Frederick St Permit issued 29 May storey / 296 Apts, Retail & Restaurant (on-premises liquor license) Permit issued 13 May storey / 5 Townhouses & 3 Units Precinct 3 COMPLETED The Berkeley - 14 Berkeley St Permit issued 25 November storey / 49 Apts COMPLETED The Berkeley - 6 Berkeley St Permit issued 13 May storey / 67 Apts Permit issued March towers (10 storey, 4 storey & 3 storey x 3) / 185 Apts Permit issued 1 October level carpark with 854 car spaces The Madison - 91 Tram Rd COMPLETED Permit issued 2 February storey / 83 Apts BUILDING COMPLETED The Ridge - 1 Sovereign Point Ct Panorama Tram Rd Permit issued 5 June Plans endorsed 12 June storey / 201 Apts, Retail (& Gym) MARKETING Gardenhill - 5 Elgar Ct Amended permit issued 10 July storey / 132 Apts 600 Doncaster Rd PERMIT New application received 16 June storey / 173 Apts, Offices Precinct Elgar Rd PERMIT New application received 20 June 2014 Construction of 8 x 3 storey townhouses 6 storey / 54 Apts COMPLETED The Gardens - 3 Sovereign Point Ct 3 & 5 storey / 32 Apts COMPLETED The Crest - 2 Sovereign Point Ct 9 storey / 39 Apts BUILDING Imperial Doncaster - 5 Sovereign Point Ct PERMIT 7 Williamsons Rd PERMIT 9-11 Williamsons Rd COMPLETED Halcyon Views - 18 Tower St 4 & 5 storey / 45 Apts COCKAI GNE GILMORE 23 Frederick St COMPLETED PERMIT COMPLETED South Point - 8 Clay Dr 88Tram RD Precinct 1 Precinct 2 GIFFORD TRAM RR D The Madison ELG A Precinct 7 ROSE A RD S LA ICK 95 Tram Rd 810 Elgar Rd CARAWATH FREDER Gardenhill BRIAR HEPBUR N RD Permit issued 28 February storey / 93 Apts Permit issued 3 February storey / 73 Apts New application received 30 June storey / 143 Apts & Retail Meters Produced by Manningham GIS/GPS/3D on 17 August, 2015

92 Appendix D Initial Assessment of Accessibility & New Funding Opportunities for the Doncaster Rail Project, and Doncaster Rail: what are its Prospects? Reports Manningham City Council Submission Doncaster Rail Study Phase One Recommendations Report Page 35

93 i Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute Doncaster Rail: What are its prospects? Peter Newman This report has been prepared for the Doncaster Rail Local Government Group September 2012

94 ii Executive Summary The Doncaster Rail Accessibility and new funding options project has two parts to it: the first is an assessment of the accessibility benefits associated with ten different scenarios for providing public transport in the Doncaster corridor along with value capture funding opportunities; the second is an analysis of the prospects and possibilities for a Doncaster rail system using the best scenario outlined in the project report, Initial Assessment of the Accessibility and New Funding Opportunities for the Doncaster Rail Project. The key findings in the Accessibility and New Funding Opportunities report consist of: 1. The most effective option for a transit system is a fast rail down the Eastern Freeway, but it is critical that it is provided with good public transport connections across the corridor; this model has been shown to be extremely effective on the Southern railway in Perth. 2. The catchment for this combination of fast train and cross corridor bus and tram connections is considerably wider than originally suggested by the Victorian Government s consultants, URS s Eastern Freeway rail option scenario in this area. This integrated corridor solution scenario will distinctly improve the quality and scale of transit accessibility in the project s primary, secondary and tertiary accessibility catchments. 3. This new high quality transit catchment area will significantly improve in land value as a result of the monetized accessibility benefits of being within the catchment. Cross sectional comparison (rail vs. non-rail catchment) studies in Brisbane have demonstrated a difference of more than 20% consistently for the past 25 years in land values in comparable areas with quality transit over areas without good transit. 4. This increased value can be captured by new funding practices that ring fence and hypothecate some of this increased land-based tax revenue into a Fund to help pay for the transit. It is crucial to understand that this is not a new tax but simply a

95 iii recognition of the increased land value if the infrastructure is built. If it is not built then the land value does not increase. 5. This report presents a new kind of funding opportunity for the Doncaster Rail project with the suggested creation of the co-ordinated Doncaster Value Capture Revenue Fund to collect the revenue from different funding mechanisms into one fund to be used to defray the costs of the infrastructure investment. This report is a statement of the potential prospects of the Doncaster Rail moving into a next stage where it could be considered as a realistic option for further consideration. The following additional conclusions are suggested: 1. The proposed Doncaster rail project could attract around 100,000 passenger trips per day when fully operational. This is equivalent to the number of people projected to be carried by cars in the competing East-West road tunnel. This road tunnel is framed as a freight project and is currently being assessed by the Victorian and Federal Governments through Infrastructure Australia. 2. The East-West road tunnel which has variously been estimated at between $5 and $9 billion has been shown in its first assessment to have a very low benefit cost ratio and to not fulfil the requirements for Federal funding as it does not consider other options such as public transport. 3. The Doncaster rail project could provide this other option to be considered, especially if it is linked to the proposed Melbourne Metro project by extending the line to the Knowledge Centre at the proposed Parkville station. 4. The East-West tunnel provides only limited value for freight movement given its limited industrial and commercial catchment and is likely to increase transport economic costs by inducing additional car based congestion and emissions. 5. Comparisons with other recent rail projects (like Perth s Southern Rail) suggest the cost of constructing the Doncaster rail, complete with a heavy rail down the Eastern Freeway from Doncaster to Victoria Park, or Collingwood, and new buses and new trams required to complete the cross-corridor linkages, would be something in the order of $850 million, with an extension to Parkville station costing in the order of an additional $300 million. Detailed costings would be

96 iv needed. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the locations and interaction between the proposed Doncaster Rail Rapid Transit alignment, the East-West link road tunnel, and the proposed Melbourne Metro project. 6. The Doncaster rail project substantially improves public transport accessibility in its catchment area and offers the prospect of increasing land values flowing from that higher accessibility; by comparison, the East-West road tunnel provides additional traffic congestion in the corridor and increased air and noise pollution, rather than reducing these issues. It may be possible, with some ingenuity, to bring the two concepts together, to find a way to bring the Doncaster Rail down the Eastern Freeway and continue into the East-West tunnel, peeling off near the Parkville Station and into the CBD via the Melbourne Metro. Perhaps truck priority on the road part could be considered. 7. The East-West Link has been given substantial planning and assessment funding by the Federal and Victorian Governments. As outlined in the Infrastructure Australia Reform and Investment Framework any major project needs to carry out an Options Analysis which shows why the proposed project has considered all the different options for solving the transport and land use problem. As shown in this report there is a real option provided by a Doncaster Rail project in solving eastwest passenger transport needs. This should now be taken seriously as part of the next stage of transport planning in the corridor, either combined into the East- West road tunnel or as a stand-alone railway. 8. The Doncaster rail project could provide the opportunity to develop the first railbased PPP using value capture in Australia.

97 v

98 vi Denis Stn Westgarth Stn Fairfield Stn Alphington Stn Arden Stn (Melb. Metro Proposed) Parkville Stn (Melb. Metro Proposed) East West Tunnel Eastern Freeway to CityLink (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 5 Km Fitzroy Stn (Possible) with tram interchange Rapid Transit Tunnel Vic. Park Station to Proposed Parkville Stn (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 4.0 Km Clifton Hill Stn Victoria Park Stn with tram interchange Collingwood Stn Rapid Transit Tunnel to Vic Park Station (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 1.5 Km Proposed Tram Route from Kew Junction to North Melbourne Stn Rapid Transit at grade rail corridor in the median of the Eastern Freeway Approx. Distance 9 Km Rapid Transit Tunnel to Collingwood Station (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 1.8 Km Chandler Hwy Stn (Proposed) with feeder Smart Bus interchange Kew Junction existing tram interchange North Melbourne Stn with tram interchange Figure 1 Southern Cross Stn Flagstaff Stn CBD North Stn (Melb. Metro Proposed) CBD South Stn (Melb. Metro Proposed) Flinders St Stn Parliament Stn Jolimont Stn Western section of the indicative corridor alignments for the proposed scenarios and the interaction the various projects with the existing public transport network (overlaid over a Google Earth Image) North Richmond Stn West Richmond Stn Proposed East-West Link LEGEND Possible Rapid Transit Scenario tunnelled sections Stage 1 Possible Rapid Transit Scenario tunnelled sections Stage 2 Possible Rapid Transit Scenario at grade sections Proposed Melbourne Metro Rail Possible Tram Route Extensions Possible Smart Bus Route Existing Rail Network and Station Locations Tunnel Entry/Exit Locations

99 vii Clifton Hill Stn Victoria Park Stn with tram interchange Collingwood Stn Nth. Richmond Stn West Richmond Stn Westgarth Stn Denis Stn Rapid Transit Tunnel to Vic Park Station (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 1.5 Km Rapid Transit Tunnel to Collingwood Station (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 1.8 Km Fairfield Stn Chandler Hwy Stn (Proposed) with feeder Smart Bus interchange Proposed Tram Route from Kew Junction to North Melbourne Victoria Gardens Stn (Proposed) with Tram interchange Local Access Tunnel from Kew Junction to Melbourne Central Stn (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 6.0 Km Darebin Stn Kew Junction existing tram interchange Ivanhoe Stn Alphington Stn Eaglemont Stn Rapid Transit at grade rail corridor in the median of the Eastern Freeway Approx. Distance 9 Km Harp Village existing tram oriented centre Local Access Tunnel from Kew Junction to Hawthorn Stn (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 1.6 Km Heidelberg Stn Burke Road Stn (Proposed) with Tram and Bus interchange Dickens Corner existing tram oriented centre Bulleen Road Stn (Proposed) with Kiss & Ride Bus interchange Existing Burke Road tram line Heidelberg existing neighbourhood activity centre Proposed Extension of the Burke Road tram line (or new Smart Bus) from the Rapid Transit Station to the Heidelberg Stn Approx. Distance 4 Km North Balwyn existing tram oriented centre Local Access Tunnel from Kew Junction to Doncaster Hill TOD Stn (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 9.0 Km Proposed Extension of the Burke Road tram line to the Rapid Transit Stn Approx. Distance 2.9 Km Proposed Extension of the Doncaster Road tram line (Routes 24 and/or 48) to the Rapid Transit Approx. Distance 1.9 Km Greythorn existing neighbourhood activity centre LEGEND Possible Rapid Transit Scenario tunnelled sections - Core Possible Rapid Transit tunnel Connections Options Possible Rapid Transit Scenario at grade sections Possible Local Scenario tunnelled sections - Core Possible Local Scenario tunnelled Connections Options Possible Orbital Network Scenario tunnelled sections Possible Tram Route Extensions Possible Smart Bus Route Existing Rail Network and Station Locations Existing Cotham Road tram line Doncaster Road Stn (Proposed) with Park & Ride, Tram and Bus interchange Rapid Transit Tunnel to Doncaster Hill TOD Stn (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 1.8 Km Orbital Network Tunnel from Box Hill to Doncaster Hill TOD Stn (Possible Route) Approx. Distance 3.6 Km Doncaster Hill TOD Stn (Proposed) with Bus interchange Burnley Stn Hawthorn Stn Glenferrie Stn Auburn Stn Camberwell Stn Camberwell East Stn Canterbury Stn Figure 2 Eastern section of the indicative corridor alignments for the proposed scenarios and the interaction the various projects with the existing public transport network (overlaid over a Google Earth Image) Chatham Stn Surry Hills Stn Mont Albert Stn Box Hill Stn

100 viii

101 1 1 THE 10 MYTHS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DONCAER RAIL PROJE The Doncaster Rail Local Government Group (DRLGG) asked for a summary of the key ideas behind the need and prospects of the Doncaster Rail. They are set out as responses to ten myths that have been heard as the reasons why the Doncaster Rail should not happen Lack of Population Density - there is insufficient population density along the Doncaster corridor to warrant a rail service a) Density for rail lines works best for pedestrian catchments (400m 800m), but they can be extended using feeder bus services and park and ride at dedicated transfer facilities. b) Park and ride, extended feeder tram and bus services extend the traditional catchments outside of corridor and pedestrian catchments, to cover significantly increased distances. c) The Doncaster Rail should have a broader catchment model that incorporates feeder buses and enhanced tram network, like Perth s northern and southern rail lines. d) The existing residential density along the Doncaster Rail would be greater and more built out than the southern rail line in Perth that now carries 20 million passengers per year, after only 4 years of operation. e) Dense residential and commercial development can be increased along the catchments to the Doncaster Rail (including the feeder catchments) due to the increased accessibility that it provides. This kind of transit-induced density is now happening along the Southern Rail at certain stations while others remain more for transfers and Park and Ride Inter-modal transfers - people will not change modes from feeder buses to access Doncaster rail along the Eastern Freeway median. a) With integrated ticketing (Myki) and short headways on both the Doncaster Rail and feeder services at peak times there would be no cost and limited time penalties per trip which would be far outweighed by the increased public transport (PT) service speed and reliability. b) The proposed system would not be subject to on-road congestion, and would therefore save time and increase reliability of the trip. It is likely to save time compared to travelling by car.

102 c) The increased reliability of the PT systems would improve the delivery of the overall PT network key performance indicators (KPI s) when compared to the existing systems as they are mostly highly unreliable due to traffic. d) The experience on the northern and southern rail lines in Perth demonstrates that transfer penalties presented by some critics of rail are not real and should not be included in the service model for the Doncaster Rail. The experience of the northern line was transferred into the modelling on the southern line and proved to be correct: people did not worry about transfer penalties as the overall transit experience was faster and more enjoyable than the previous bus or car journey Doncaster Rail & Capacity - the DART Smart Bus service is sufficient to meet public transport needs on the Doncaster corridor. a) Public Transport system capacity is dependent on the carrying capacity of the PT vehicles, the headways they operate on, the capacity of the signalling system, the speed of the system and the level of the existing PT congestion. b) Bus based systems are limited in their appeal to induce people from their car due to generally poor ride quality and time constraints when compared to the car or rail, and suffer from service unreliability due to congestion. c) The proposed Smart bus would be affected by road based congestion once it entered the road network at the end of the freeway, and would incur bus bunching within the CBD. To avoid this would require a massive system upgrade outside of the vehicles which has not been used in any comparisons. d) The induced patronage demand from rail is significantly higher than bus. This is illustrated with Perth s southern rail line which prior to implementation was a bus based system within its own right of way which had patronage of 14,000 per day, the southern rail line had patronage of 54,000 per day in 2010 after only 4 years of operation and is now over 69,000 as of March e) It is therefore possible to imagine similar significant shifts in mode along the corridor if a rail system was built that cannot be imagined with the Smart Bus. 2

103 Doncaster Rail & Travel Speed - the DART Smart Bus can substantially match the travel speed of Doncaster rail. a) Bus based modes will be subject to the congestion of the road network especially when entering the CBD and are inherently slower than electric rail systems. b) If buses are to have the required right of way all the way to the CBD such that they are not subject to road based congestion, the apportionment of the road network to achieve this will significantly reduce the carrying capacity of the road network for cars and induce further congestion on the road network. c) Once you have the number of buses required to compete with rail entering the CBD there will be bus bunching as in George St Sydney. d) Doncaster Rail is outside the congested road network for the entirety of the trip, and will have significantly higher travel speeds (the southern line in Perth averages 90 Km/Hr, and the top speed is over 100km/hr and is not affected by any form of delay like the Melbourne rail system with average rail speeds of 33 Km/Hr. e) Significant travel time savings should be expected with the rail compared to buses which is why rail is being built in over 100 US cities, why Metros are being built in 82 Chinese cities and 14 Indian cities, and why all Australian capital cities are now upgrading their rail networks due to massive demand increases Cost vs Benefit - a Doncaster Rail service along the Eastern Freeway median is costly ($1.7b) compared with the DART Smart Bus ($ b). a) The rail based solution goes to the CBD, and if the bus based model does not, then it is not directly comparable as suggested by Eddington s Report. If the bus solution was to go in a tunnel or overhead bridge to the CBD then costs would be very similar though these numbers have not been done. b) The economic modelling associated with the transport system cost due to the congestion relief, and broader network effects from the rail is likely to outstrip the bus based solution. c) The land based metropolitan shaping affects of rail are significant whereas the bus based ones are negligible (including alternative funding options which are not found to be associated with buses).

104 d) The Doncaster Rail will significantly reduce the PT and car based network travel times due to decongestion along the corridor where the bus based solution will not as they will be entering the road network competing with cars, or requiring road space for right of ways which reduces the carrying capacity of the existing road network. e) A land value capture approach to funding rail can show significant economic opportunities that a bus based system would not Road vs Rail - linking the Eastern Freeway with the Tullamarine Freeway via a road tunnel (East-West Tunnel) will ease traffic congestion better than a new rail connection and demand for road transport facilities is greater than demand for public transport. a) The East-West link tunnel has already been assessed and has a low BCR (under 1) and is therefore not comparable to Doncaster Rail. b) The East-West link tunnel solves a different trip purpose to that proposed by the Doncaster Rail, in that the tunnel forms a missing link in the road network, especially for freight, though recent estimates suggest 100,00 cars/day would use it. c) The East-West link tunnel provision for cars would be much better met by a public transport solution as car use in the CBD and along the Eastern Freeway is highly constrained. d) Demand for rail is far exceeding expectations around the world and is particularly marked in Melbourne. Peak car use has happened in most industrial cities including all Australian cities. This is probably due to fuel prices that are not expected to ease under any scenarios being presented but are likely to get worse. Cities with rail systems down every corridor will flourish compared to those that keep expecting car, bus and truck traffic to continue growing. e) Spending $5 to $8 billion on the East-West link tunnel would remove most of the public transport options from the Victorian Government s potential list of projects for a long time Land Availability & Topography - physical land constraints to locate rail sidings, park and ride facilities and the topography of the area inhibits construction of underground rail (i.e. deeper stations required = higher cost). a) The land along the corridor is very similar to that of the northern and southern rail lines in Perth, where a high frequency rail line fed by feeder buses and park and ride works very well. 4

105 b) The median is of a significant size along the length of the freeway such that the rail could operate at grade in its own corridor without requiring significant changes. c) The Doncaster Rail line extends past the end of the freeway and would require tunnelling into the Doncaster hill and to the CBD, which would be similar to the Northern and Southern rail connections into Perth. d) Through improvements to the existing capacity constraints on the inner rail lines it would be possible to enter the existing rail network along the existing rail lines earlier and enter the CBD that way rather than construction of a new tunnel for the final stage if required Lacks a network-wide benefit - this line will primarily only offer a local benefit, and not one to the wider Metro transport network. a) There are many network connectivity opportunities through tram extensions from the Burke Road tram line onto the Doncaster Rail at the Burke Road overpass of the Eastern freeway and an extension of the Doncaster Road tram line down to the freeway which would connect into the Doncaster Rail. Bus connections across the corridor offer many new opportunities for cross-corridor access as well as easing pressure along other adjacent corridors. b) These PT network connections would relieve the exiting road based PT network to carry increased existing corridor based trips with reduced PT and road based congestion. c) A reconfiguration of the feeder bus network with some extensions onto the Doncaster Rail will increase modal shift from car to PT. d) The modal shift to PT from car based trips will be significant in the road based network especially around the end of the Eastern freeway. e) The SNAMUTS model has shown significant benefits in accessibility due to the proposed Doncaster Rail, and will be a valuable model for further analysis of the project Crime - train lines encourage antisocial behaviour and might attract problems to the area. a) Evidence of crime being attracted to modern, safety oriented rail stations is not backed up by evidence from across the world. b) There has been no evidence of increased anti social behaviour and crime at the new northern and southern rail lines in Perth. 5

106 6 c) The social exclusion generated by urban sprawling, car based suburbs is becoming the source of significantly greater trends in the sources of crime Capacity Issues - the Clifton Hill rail group (and the Burnley Group somewhat) is at capacity and cannot support additional rail services. a) Capacity constraints are able to be overcome through investment in particular locations, but prior to further comment these sites require further site analysis. b) The effect of the proposed Doncaster Rail corridor patronage may be able to be overcome through improved signalisation of that area of the network, and discrete infrastructure upgrades. c) Further work will be needed to answer these questions, but are unlikely to be show stoppers. d) The biggest capacity constraints are in the road network where travel times are a source of considerable frustration and if a rail option were provided would provide many advantages to the Doncaster region.

107 7 2 THE CONTEXT The context of the Doncaster Rail project is that there are two other large transport infrastructure corridor projects that are being developed concurrently, and undergoing assessment by Infrastructure Australia. The two projects that are currently being developed are: the Melbourne Metro tunnelled rail project, and the East West road tunnel project (as shown in Figure 1). These will be examined before seeing how a Doncaster rail option fits in with them Melbourne Metro - Rail Project The proposed Melbourne Metro proposes a nine kilometre rail tunnel project from South Kensington in the west, and South Yarra in the south west and will connect the sunshine and Dandenong rail corridor via the Melbourne CBD (Figure 3). Figure 3 (Left) Proposed Melbourne Metro route alignment 1 (Right) City Loop Connection for the Victorian Government Proposed Doncaster Rail Rapid Transit Express to City Theme The proposal will deliver the benefits of 17 additional train services per hour in peak periods, which will provide capacity for another 24,000 per hour initially, rising to potentially 60,000 additional passengers per hour once the network adjustments have been fully implemented. 1

108 8 As part of the development of the scenarios for the Doncaster Rail project, of the two city bound scenarios, the most likely scenario to be implemented (primarily due to cost considerations), is the Rapid Transit Express to City or eastern freeway scenario. This can end at Victoria Park or Collingwood or it could be taken further and integrated with the proposed Melbourne Metro station at Grattan Street/Royal Parade in Parkville (this is illustrated in Figure 3). This report looks at why it would make sense to take the rail connection through to Parkville. The approximately 3.5KM tunnelled extension of the Doncaster Rail project from the end of the Eastern Freeway to Parkville to connect into the Melbourne Metro project is a natural extension to this important transport project for the future of Melbourne. There are several reasons why the Doncaster Rail should be extended to the proposed Melbourne Metro Parkville station: 1. The Parkville connection provides the Doncaster Rail catchment to Melbourne s Knowledge Centre 2 a significant education (Melbourne University and RMIT), as well as the large medical precinct (Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Women s Hospital, Royal Children s Hospital). This station would be critical to the Doncaster Rail project not only as key employment and education trip attractors, but also serving a key public access to the hospital services in particular for a catchment with low level access to public hospitals. 2. A connection to the Melbourne Metro project could be viewed as a natural extension, or stage to the project, given the similar goals of providing public transport access and capacity to the whole Melbourne public transport network and the CBD. This increase in access to the Melbourne CBD in particular is increasing the agglomeration benefits of the access to the Melbourne CBD and the Melbourne Knowledge Centre, and would add to the Wider Economic Benefits (as specified by the Infrastructure Australia submission assessment methodology) for the introduction of the Melbourne Metro and Doncaster Rail projects. 3. Perhaps the biggest rationale for taking the Doncaster rail through further is that it will complete a major East-West connection. 2

109 East West Link - Road Project The East-West road project is currently in its early planning stages and is being developed by the Linking Melbourne Authority, which is a special purpose statutory authority, responsible for managing complex road projects on behalf of the Victorian State Government 3. The project was initially suggested by the Eddington Report, 2008 as an important east west link for the city, and though it is yet to have a final alignment announced, the latest one in the media released on 30/06/2012 in Melbourne s Herald Sun Newspaper (see Figure 4) shows the proposed tunnel following an approximate five kilometre straight line from the end of the Eastern Freeway to the Citylink freeway. Figure 4 (Left) Possible East-West Link road tunnel route alignment 4 (Right) City Loop Connection for the Proposed Doncaster Rail Rapid Transit Express to City Theme The East-West Link project is being promoted by the Victorian Government as a freight corridor connection project to increase the capacity and efficiency of Melbourne s road based freight network. However the first cut at the benefit-cost ratio of the East-West Link shows that it cannot possibly be justified without considering car access. The Doncaster rail project is an east-west transit link. If it were extended through to Parkville then it will in fact be in direct conflict with the car-based East-West Link. Both will essentially be trying to move people down the wider Doncaster corridor and either into the CBD or across into other parts of Melbourne

110 3 THE DONCAER RAIL PROJE S ALIGNMENT WITH THE CURRENT MELBOURNE INFRARUURE AURALIA PROJES 3. 1 Melbourne Metro The core focus of the Melbourne Metro project is to increase the capacity of the existing lines coming into the city loop, and introduce rail stations into the inner city of Melbourne where it had not previously been. The Doncaster Rail project is primarily an extension in scale of the Metropolitan public transport network and as such will further increase the public transport access to an area of Melbourne designed for rail-based public transport (the median of the Eastern Freeway was designed to allow for rail). The Spatial Network Analysis for Multimodal Urban Transport Systems (SNAMUTS) analysis of the Doncaster Rail scenarios demonstrated that the introduction of a train down the Eastern Freeway median alignment, which is then fed by surface public transport extensions (tram and bus), would deliver a level of public transport accessibility equal to the other tram and train corridors experienced by the rest of Melbourne. Therefore the Doncaster Rail project should be seen as an extension to the proposed Melbourne Metro, and be badged not as Doncaster Rail, but possibly as Melbourne-Metro 3 illustrating its natural synergies with the current Melbourne Metro proposal East-West Link If the present proposal for the East West Link project were to be assessed for Federal Government funding, it would be likely to be rejected by Infrastructure Australia, as being in conflict with one of their core objectives. This position is reflected by the statement within the introduction to their 2012 Reform and Investment Framework 5 : 1.1 Urban Roads Several submissions to Infrastructure Australia in the past year have continued to focus on the development of large urban motorways, presented as freight roads, when 80-90% of the projected traffic is expected to be private vehicles. In several cases, the use of tolls to fund these roads was rejected. At the same time, the jurisdictions have asked for the Australian Government to meet all or the great delines_v5.pdf

111 majority of the cost of these projects. Yet Australian Government outlays on transport are at an historic high. Infrastructure Australia believes proposals for urban road upgrades (particularly those in our larger cities) need to demonstrate a clear focus on: Making better use of existing networks; The efficient movement of freight; and The efficient movement of road-based public transport. Infrastructure Australia is highly unlikely to support the proposal for funding by the Australian Governments unless urban road proposals are scoped in line with these principles or provide for tolling/charging to recover the costs of the project(s), and send signals that will influence demand. In the context of this clear statement by Infrastructure Australia, it is unlikely that the Victorian Government would obtain support in their East-West Link submission. 4 EIMATED PATRONAGE FOR DONCAER RAIL LINE An estimate of around 100,00 people per day has been made for this line s potential patronage, which is of course indicative because it has not been comprehensively modelled. There is however a basis to the estimate that goes beyond the ability of many present transport catchment models to predict. These models have never been required to explain an accessibility catchment model quite like the Southern Railway in Perth. This rail system has two fundamental differences to anything in the Melbourne system: 1. The speed of the railway is considerably faster than in Melbourne. The Southern rail system averages 90 kph and the Melbourne rail system averages 33 kph. This extra speed has led to dramatic time savings for people on quite a wide corridor of access. People can take a bus and transfer to the train and still be faster than going by car. This induced Time-Advantaged Transfer model for public transport journeys has not been experienced before in Australia to such an extent. We are proposing a similar system for Doncaster. 2. The extra time advantage (lower travel time) model means that the catchment is considerably wider than anything normally considered part of a rail catchment. In Melbourne the perceptions of how many people will use the train are based on what has been found on other lines which would mostly be walk-on traffic. The 11

112 Southern Rail system in Perth was built on a model of only 9% walk-on patronage see diagram below. We are proposing a similar wide catchment with bus and tram connections as well as kiss n ride and park n ride. The area chosen to estimate the patronage from is very similar in urban density as set out in Figures 5 and 6, where residential catchment densities comparisons Southern Line (Perth) Catchment Density mainly between 6 15 dwellings/hectare Doncaster rail Catchment Density mainly between 5 15 dwellings/hectare Both indicative catchments (shown with the red dashed lines) have more dense patches, but are pretty similar in general. 12 Murdoch train station Figure 5 Dwellings per hectare in Southern Perth

113 13 Figure 6 Dwellings per hectare in Metropolitan Melbourne

114 14 The kind of land use along the Southern corridor is shown from Google Earth of the Murdoch Station (Figure 7) Figure 7 Google Earth Image of Murdoch Rail Station In March, 2010 Murdoch Station had 6733 boardings per day, up to 8383 passenger boardings in March, 2012 with 4950 (59%) of these being bus to train transfers, and there are park and ride spaces (approximately 700 spaces) 6. This now makes Murdoch the busiest station outside of Perth Central. The station has effectively no residential pedestrian catchment given the walking distance from property, but is within walking distance to a new 6 Source the Department of Transport

115 and existing hospital precinct (approximately 500m) and Murdoch University (approximately 1500m). The next thing is to estimate the area of the catchment that could be able to use the Doncaster fast rail. The area was based on the extent of the connections out on either side of the proposed rail line. The catchment is very hard to be exact about, just as it is hard to say how far away people come from to use the Southern Rail system. However the area of the green, i.e. the enhanced accessibility beneficiary zone from the SNAMUTS analysis, can be justified as the very least of the potential catchment. The area is shown in Figures 4-6 below. The potential catchment is around 6000 ha though it could go beyond this to a much bigger area especially if the eventual extension to Ringwood is made as this would enable the large catchment of the Lilydale line to be channelled through this fast rail access. The number of dwellings in the 6000 ha catchment would be around 100,000 based on the kind of densities already there. Increased densities would occur close to station areas and along the connections thus making a much higher number eventually. 100,000 dwellings is 300,000 people in the catchment which we have estimated for the first stage of this rail project. However when fully operational there would be a much larger catchment as shown in the URS s proposed alignment which includes the second stage link to Ringwood. The public transport modal split for these people is also very difficult to estimate as it will be a far more attractive journey time than people in the corridor have ever experienced. The mode split is likely to be much higher than currently and in other corridors where slow trains are the norm. The 100,000 potential patronage for the fully operational service has been chosen because: 1. Fully operational means taking a much larger catchment out beyond Ringwood. The buses presently using the Eastern Freeway come from as far as Warrandyte and Mitcham. 2. The DART bus carries at present around 11,000 people (and increasing significantly) down the Eastern Freeway emergency lane and a similar figure was carried on the busway down the Kwinana Freeway in Perth; however within a year the Southern Rail was carrying over 50,000 and now it carries 70, The growth in the Southern Rail was 19% in 2011 and hence a figure of 100,000 is not hard to imagine within a few more years. There would seem to be no reason why 15

116 16 Melbourne could not do similarly well in attracting people to a service that would leave freeway traffic behind in its comparative speed. The figure was also attractive as it was the number of cars (equal to people) being estimated to use the East-West tunnel. This kind of figure is not easily estimated and similar guesses were significantly wrong on most of Australia s recent toll roads where such numbers were seriously important to get right. Legal action was taken against consultants who vastly overstated the Clem 7 data in Brisbane, and Sydney s Cross City Tunnel. The figure of 100,000 potential patronage when fully operational is only provided as an indicative potential in order to show that the rail could have a significant role to play in the corridor and could indeed be similar to what the East-West tunnel is being planned to take at much higher cost. That issue remains the key question: why is Doncaster rail not being considered seriously? It is probably because it is not seen as a significant part of the transit system. However if a different model based on the Perth fast train were used, and then a different perception would be created.

117 xvii Figure 8 The proposed alignment for the Express to City scenario by the URS, which has been adapted to include, an alternative alignment and connection to Collingwood Station and to Parkville, the additional surface connections include a moved and an additional station, additional tram routes and extensions which are shown in bold dashed blue lines, (the proposed additional bus routes specified in this scenario are not shown).

118 18 Figure 9 The SNAMUTS accessibility analysis of the 2026 Status Quo

119 19 Figure 10 The SNAMUTS accessibility analysis of the proposed Express to City with Surface Adaptations alignment, where the proposed rail alignment is a heavy blue dashed line, and the tram extensions is the light blue dashed line.

120 20 Figure 11 The SNAMUTS accessibility analysis of the proposed Express to City with Surface Adaptations extended to Ringwood and connected to the Melbourne Metro

121 21 Figure 12 Perth Southern Railway Rapid transit passenger catchment model