The Western Roads Upgrade

The $1.8 billion Western Roads Upgrade project was launched in 2018 and completed in 2021.

And included upgrades to eight arterial roads in Melbourne’s west.

Massive new intersections.

And the resurfacing of 260 km of existing roads between Footscray to Werribee.

So why haven’t these roads fallen apart in the years that have followed?

It’s because the upgrade was delivered part of a convoluted public–private partnership between the Department of Transport and Planning and a private consortium called ‘Netflow’, which sees the government give them buckets of money for the next 20 years to maintain the road, with a compliance regime that will penalise them for as little as a pothole.

To manage these contractual obligations, you need data – so the Netflow consortium has a fleet of inspection vehicles continually doing laps of the western suburbs.

Covered in LiDAR sensors looking for faults in the road surface.

And maintenance crews in ‘Western Roads Upgrade’ branded vans ready to swoop in and fix faults ASAP.

Their marketing blurb describing it as:

Netflow is transforming the way road maintenance is performed in Victoria, using real-time data on the condition of the network to employ maintenance strategies that minimise disruption and maximise whole-of-life value.

This more efficient maintenance program is resulting in an average of one road per week being resurfaced.

The core of Netflow’s whole-of-life maintenance solution is the central Network Delivery Hub.

The 24/7 hub monitors the performance of the network in real time, providing a seamless interface with the Department of Transport, local councils and other third parties to implement dynamic-scheduled works, keep communities informed, predict and prevent issues, and coordinate timely responses to incidents.

The use of vehicle-mounted street scanning technology, drones, 3D modelling and physical inspections allow Netflow to schedule preventative maintenance and reduce road closures.

This whole-of-life approach provides best-in-class maintenance of the road network at a lower cost.

Meanwhile for every other road in Victoria, the government just keeps kicking the can down the road, because they aren’t accountable to anyone.

So why not keep doing it

If the Western Roads Upgrade project was so successful in getting rid of potholes, why doesn’t the government do more upgrades like this? Turns out the private companies behind it lost money by underbidding.

The Andrews government’s $1.8 billion Western Roads Upgrade has stalled after a key subcontractor walked off the job with just $920 remaining in its accounts, leaving other subcontractors millions of dollars out of pocket.

The Sunday Age can also reveal the head contractor on the project, South-African headquartered and Perth-based WBHO, has reported $133 million in losses after it admitted to under-bidding to win the work, and its executive chairman, Louwtjie Nel, conceded the project was the company’s “biggest error in 50 years”.

WBHO’s main subcontractor, little known western suburbs-based civil engineering firm Civilink, quit in August and has gone into liquidation, owing creditors at least $13 million.

And so the tender process on the South Eastern Roads Upgrade Project and Northern Roads Upgrade Project were terminated in July 2020 – replaced by the $2.2 billion Suburban Roads Upgrade to be delivered as 12 individual projects by a pre-qualified panel in an approach modelled on the Level Crossing Removal Project.

Footnote: digging into the legalese

The full details of the public–private partnership can be found in the “Outer Suburban Arterial Roads Program – Western Package” Project Deed.

For a start, look at the corporate structure.

Minister for Roads and Road Safety on behalf of the Crown in right of
the State of Victoria
(State)

Netflow OSARS (Western) Pty Ltd as trustee for Netflow OSARS (Western) Unit Trust for and on behalf of the Netflow OSARS (Western) Partnership and Cintra OSARS (Western) Pty Ltd as trustee for Cintra OSARS (Western) Unit Trust for and on behalf of the Netflow OSARS (Western) Partnership (Project Co)

And it’s contractors, investors and financiers all the way down.

D&C contractor

The D&C contractor is WBHO Infrastructure Pty Ltd. Project Co has appointed the D&C contractor to design and construct the eight Arterial Road Upgrades and the Initial Rehabilitation Works.

Significant subcontractors

The D&C contractor has appointed the following significant subcontractors to deliver elements of the Arterial Road Upgrades:
• Ace Infrastructure Pty Ltd;
• Civilex Victoria Pty Ltd; and
• Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd

Contracts with other subcontractors are expected to be executed shortly.

Equity investors

The following entities have committed to provide the equity required for Project Co:
• Plenary Investments (Western OSARS) Pty Ltd
• Cintra OSARs Western Ltd

Financiers (long term)

The following entities have provided the long term debt required for the Project:
• DB Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
• Pensionskasse Des Bundes Publica
• Samsung IFM Global Infrastructure Debt Professional Investment Private Investment Trust No. 1
• Manulife Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited
• Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America

Financiers (short term)
The following entities have committed to provide the short term debt required for the Project:
• Westpac Banking Corporation
• Bank of China Limited
• Mizuho Bank, Ltd
• Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited

VicRoads gives this as their justification for completing the upgrade as a public–private partnership.

A range of procurement options that are typically considered for high-value road construction projects were assessed based on their suitability and value for money drivers in reference to the specific characteristics of the Western Roads Upgrade. The following four procurement options were shortlisted on the basis that they represented models currently in use and have a history of utilisation by VicRoads or other State agencies:

• design and construct;
• alliance;
• design, build and maintain; and
• design, build, finance and maintenance (availability-based PPP).

Following a procurement options assessment of the shortlisted procurement options, the availability based PPP delivery model was the highest ranked procurement option. This option was recommended, and subsequently approved by the State, for delivery of the Project.

The key considerations in recommending an availability-based PPP model are summarised below.

• The model provides increased opportunity for the State to harness private sector innovation and structure a contract that incentivises whole-of-life efficiencies to arterial road investment.
• The bundling of construction and maintenance tasks under a long-term agreement (subject to vigorous competition) can drive efficiency in delivery and asset management. Introducing private finance also provides additional discipline and scrutiny of risk (for example, financier due diligence and oversight). The PPP model can also be expected to deliver improved and more consistent road asset conditions under a PPP commercial structure involving an appropriate KPI and abatement regime.
• On a ‘whole-of-life’ cost comparison basis, PPPs have been documented to deliver better value for money outcomes as compared to traditional contracting delivery methods (separate, unbundled contracts) and have been successfully deployed across a range of sectors (including roads) in Victoria. These benefits are not only limited to cost savings but also include improved and more consistent road asset conditions. A focus on longer term, ‘whole-of-life’ contracting also incentives private sector innovation in terms of how best to maintain the asset over the term in the most cost effective and efficient manner.

Prior to the release of an invitation for EOI, a market sounding of the relevant industry, including sponsors, contractors, road maintenance providers and financiers, was undertaken. The feedback from this process supported the State’s selection of a PPP model to deliver the Project and achieve the State’s objectives.

Along with a calculation of the ‘Public Sector Comparator’ that they used to argue that a PPP saved the government money.

The Public Sector Comparator is an estimate of the hypothetical, risk adjusted, whole-of-life cost of the Project if delivered by the State. The PSC is developed in accordance with the output specification and risk allocation proposed for the private sector party arrangement and is based on the most likely and efficient form of conventional (that is, non-PPP) delivery by the State.

The PSC is expressed in terms of the net present cost (NPC) to the State, calculated using a discounted cash flow method taking full account of the costs and risks that would arise through State delivery. The PSC includes amounts for the design and construction of Arterial Road Upgrades and Initial Rehabilitation Works, as well as maintenance and lifecycle and other costs during the Maintenance Phase of the Project.

The PSC is made up of a number of elements as contained in Table 7.

Components of the PSC	NPC ($millions)
Arterial Road Upgrades and Initial Rehabilitation Works (construction costs)	$ 622
Maintenance and lifecycle costs	$ 438
Raw PSC	$ 1,060
Transferred risk	$ 100
Proposal Comparable PSC	$ 1,160

The quantitative value for money assessment, as demonstrated by the estimated savings between the Proposal Comparable PSC and the final Proposal is shown in Table 8.

Public Sector Comparator (NPC – $millions)	$ 1,160
Final Proposal (NPC– $millions)	$ 1,133
Estimated savings (%)	2.3%

Something much easier to understand is the scope – divided up into three objectives:

Arterial Road Upgrades (ARU)

The design, construction and financing of eight ARUs in Melbourne’s west during the Initial Phase, consisting of:

• The duplication of Dunnings Road between Point Cook Road and Palmers Road and the duplication of Palmers Road between Dunnings Road and Overton Road;
• The duplication of Palmers Road between Overton Road and Boundary Road and Robinsons Road between Boundary Road and the Western Freeway including the realignment of Palmers Road across Sayers Road;
• The duplication of Derrimut Road between Sayers Road and Dohertys Road;
• The duplication of Leakes Road between Fitzgerald Road and Derrimut Road;
• The duplication of Dohertys Road between Fitzgerald Road and Grieve Parade;
• The duplication of Dohertys Road between Foundation Road and Palmers Road;
• The duplication of Forsyth Road between Old Geelong Road and Wallace Avenue, including the re-alignment of Forsyth Road and Old Geelong Road; and
• The replacement of the existing Duncans Road Bridge over the Princes Freeway West and the addition of westerly (or Geelong) orientated ramps.

Initial Rehabilitation Works

Improvement works on road pavements and structures within the Maintenance Network during the Initial Phase to meet service standards.

Maintenance Services

Delivery of maintenance and lifecycle services (routine and periodic) within the Maintenance Network during the Maintenance Phase.

As are the key performance indicators Project Co is required to meet.

The KPIs set out in the KPI Summary of this Annexure B are separated into 7 categories, being:
1. Inspections;
2. Response;
3. Compliance;
4. Pavement performance;
5. Structures performance;
6. Reporting; and
7. Safety.

Which then explodes into an enormous level of detail regarding the Project Scope and Delivery Requirements (PSDR).

1.1 Hazard Inspection
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that safety inspections are carried out in accordance with the safety inspections requirements set out in the Code of Maintenance Standards.

1.2 Defect Inspection
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that inspections are carried out in accordance with the defect inspections requirements set out in the Code of Maintenance Standards.

1.3 Structure Condition Inspection
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that inspections are carried out in accordance with the condition inspections requirements set out in section 8.2(b)(i)(B) of Part F7 and section 8.3(b)(ii) of Part F7 of the PSDR and the Code of Maintenance Standards.

2.1 Hazard Response
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that the hazard response, from the time Project Co identifies a hazard by inspection or receives notification from the State or VicRoads of a hazard to the time the hazard is rectified by Project Co, is compliant with the requirements set out in the Code of Maintenance Standards.

2.2 Defect Response
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that the Defect response, from the time Project Co identifies a Defect by inspection or receives notification from the State or VicRoads of a Category A and/or a Category B Defect to the time the Defect is rectified by Project Co.

2.3 Emergency Response
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that the emergency response, from the time Project Co receives notification from the State or VicRoads of an Emergency Event to the time the Emergency Event is responded to by Project Co.

3.1 Code of Maintenance Standards
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that all activities (to the extent not already captured under KPI items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) set out in the Code of Maintenance Standards, under items RM411 to RM416 and RM611 to 613 and RM 615 identified in the Table 750.H11 -Routine Maintenance Intervention Criteria and Response are completed in accordance with the requirements set out in the section 7 of Part F7 of the PSDR.

3.2 Forecast Maintenance and Refurbishment Plan
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that all activities set out in the Forecast Maintenance and Refurbishment Plan are completed in accordance with that plan (as updated and reviewed by the State in accordance with the Review Procedures on an annual basis to reflect the condition monitoring of Project Assets).

3.3 Communications and Community Relations Plan During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure that all activities set out in the Communications and Community Relations Plan are completed in accordance with that plan.

And into the gory details of road surface quality.

4.1 Roughness – Network based
During the Maintenance Phase (Initial), Project Co must ensure roughness limits set out in section 8.2(a)(ii) of Part F7 of the PSDR, are as a minimum achieved for pavement on the Project Roads.

4.2 Rutting – Network based
During the Maintenance Phase (Initial), Project Co must ensure rutting limits set out in section 8.2(a)(iii) of Part F7 of the PSDR, are as a minimum achieved for pavement on the Project Roads.

4.2.1 Rutting – Pavement Reporting Section based
During the Maintenance Phase (Full) an individual KPI Incident will occur for each 100m lane section of any Pavement Reporting Section failing to meet these requirements as set out in section 8.3(a)(iii)(B) of Part F7 of the PSDR.

5.1 Structures Performance
During the Maintenance Phase (Initial) in relation only to Existing Structural Assets, Project Co must ensure that Existing Structural Assets are operating at their designed load, speed, and availability levels with no restrictions applied, in accordance with the requirements set out in section 8.2(b)(i)(A) of Part F7 of the PSDR.

Submitting paperwork.

6.1 Asset Management System Availability
During the Maintenance Phase, Project Co must ensure the Asset Management System is available to the State and VicRoads, in accordance with the requirements set out in section 1 of Part D of the PSDR.

7.1 General Reporting
During the Initial Phase, Project Co must submit Monthly Development Phase Progress Reports and the Monthly Maintenance Phase Performance Reports in accordance with the Deed.

And finally – Safety.

8.1 Safety
During the Initial Phase and Maintenance Phase, an individual Safety KPI Incident is an Event for incidents which result in a Lost Time Injury (LTI), Total and Permanent Disability or Fatality to any employee, or contractor, or consultant of Project Co or its contractors or sub-contractors in connection with the performance of the Services or Works.

at least they’ve created a lot of email jobs along the way.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post A public–private partnership for pothole repairs appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The fall

For years the state government had been underinvesting in rail infrastructure, leading to debacles such as the 2008 Oaks Day failure:

Connex did not have enough staff to respond to a rail meltdown on Oaks Day last year that left tens of thousands of furious racegoers stranded, the state’s rail safety chief has found.

Trains between Flemington and the city failed on the afternoon of November 6 last year, just as 90,000 people were spilling from the racetrack.

Overhead wires melted above one train stopped between North Melbourne and Newmarket. This knocked out power and halted all services in the area.

Hundreds of passengers were left stranded aboard one hot, airless and broken down train. The risked their lives by abandoning the train and walking on train lines to escape.

Tens of thousands more in the CBD had peak-hour trips home thrown into chaos by the fault.

Victoria’s director of public transport safety Alan Osborne has today released his findings into the incident.

He found Connex’s contingency plans for the emergency were “somewhat inadequate”.

However, despite finding Connex did not have sufficient staff to manage the incident, it had complied with all safety procedures, Mr Osborne said.

Experienced rail maintenance staff at the time of meltdown told The Age it had occurred due to long-term neglect of Melbourne’s rail system.

But Mr Osborne did not find this to be the case. Instead, he said that all maintenance procedures had been followed.

However, Mr Osborne noted that the city’s entire rail network was now being checked to make sure identical faults did not occur.

And mass cancellations during the 2009 summer heatwave:

Melbourne’s frazzled train commuters should brace for another nightmare day, after one of the worst in Connex’s history yesterday.

The city’s crumbling rail system failed as tracks buckled and trains broke down amid baking temperatures for the second consecutive day.

And with the mercury already in the mid-30s this morning on the way to an expected top of 43, Connex had already cancelled 34 trains by 8am, following the failure of about 234 services yesterday.

Scores of trains were cancelled due to faulty air-conditioning and other heat-related faults. Passengers on the Hurstbridge and Epping lines faced extra delays after tracks between Jolimont and Flinders Street buckled.

Connex repair teams, armed with hoses, sledgehammers and crowbars, worked for more than an hour to bash the rails back into shape.

Rails on the Glen Waverley line, at Holmesglen, also buckled in the heat.

Clawing back

Connex eventually responded by ramping up maintenance, such as replacing rotting timber railway sleepers with concrete ‘partial replacement sleepers’.

Wanting to hang onto the contract to run the train system:

Connex admits it could have done more to cope with Melbourne’s record surge in rail patronage and the resulting passenger frustration, but it wants another chance to run the network for at least the next eight years.

As Connex fights to renew its contract before the Government’s mid-year decision on who will run Melbourne’s rail system, chairman Jonathan Metcalfe conceded that the organisation had made mistakes.

But the biggest problem, he said, was record patronage growth on a network neglected for decades by state governments..

“We’ve had more than our fair share of issues and difficulties,” Mr Metcalfe said. “(But) have we made mistakes? Yes, we have. Of course we could have done more and we should have done more, but the sheer scale of (patronage growth) has been greater than anywhere in Australia or probably anywhere else in the world.”

But lost the contract during the 2009 renewal process.

The decision to oust Connex is likely to be warmly greeted by train passengers who have become increasingly infuriated with late, overcrowded and cancelled services across the network.

May was the fifth month in a row that Melbourne trains did not meet punctuality targets with almost one in 10 failing to arrive at their destination on time.

Connex this year had $11 million wiped from its revenue by the Government after 2.8 per cent of all train services were cancelled in the first months of the year.

Asked if the tender decision was a condemnation of Connex, Mr Brumby said it “wasn’t helpful to look back”, but he admitted Connex’s record showed that in some areas “obviously their performance could have improved”.

Ms Kosky, a regular target of commuter fury, said MTM would deliver improved reliability and fewer cancellations for Melbourne’s train passengers.

The people of Melboune were hopeful that something might change – some wags even put on a ‘Goodbye to Connex’ party.

Enter Metro Trains Melbourne

November 30 saw the first Metro Trains Melbourne branded train break cover at Newport Workshops.

And head for Flinders Street Station.

Where Premier John Brumby and Transport Minister Lynne Kosky were in attendance, along with Metro Trains Melbourne CEO Andrew Lezala, and members of the press.

But in the end, nothing really changed.

Thirteen months after Labor scrubbed the tarnished Connex brand from Melbourne’s history, Metro’s performance record is even worse. This, despite the newcomer costing Victorians many millions more in its first year than Connex in its last. The Brumby government is no more and ALP state secretary Nick Reece has pointed to disruption in train services before the November poll as a key factor in his party’s demise.

While it is early days for Metro in its eight-year contract, there is a widely held view among rail industry insiders and commentators that the company has hit a wall in Melbourne; that an entrenched inertia and old boys’ network in the state bureaucracy and unions has made reform in Melbourne public transport impossible.

Metro neglected rail infrastructure.

The tracks on Melbourne’s rail network are riddled with serious faults – some left unfixed for years – a leaked internal Metro Trains report shows.

And an email sent by one of the rail operator’s senior staff last month appears to show the company responding to the massive repair backlog by simply deleting reports of faults if they had not yet failed.

But in 2016 was given the exclusive right to negotiate a contract extension, which was awarded in 2017.

And a trainspotting footnote

X’Trapolis train 863M-1632T-864M – 897M-1649T-898M was the first in the fleet to receive the Metro Trains Melbourne livery.

Further reading

I’ve also got a ‘photos from ten years ago‘ series.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Ten years since Connex left Melbourne appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

But it wasn’t just garden variety late running and chronically dirty buses that led to the company being dropped, but something that slipped under the radar of the Melbourne media – a lack of essential maintenance that resulted in so many buses becoming unroadworthy in September 2017 that other operators had to be called up to assist in the running on normal bus services.

It begins

The rumours of a roadworthy crisis at Transdev started swirling in the world of bus spotters (yes, it’s a thing!) but the first public sign came on 18 September 2017, when buses from Dyson Group started appearing on routes normally operated by Transdev Melbourne.

As did vehicles from Sita Buslines.

Confirmation

The first media outlet to pick up the story was the Manningham Leader on September 19 – the area is dependant on buses for public transport, so I guess that’s why they noticed.

More than 30 of Melbourne’s Transdev buses ordered off the road after failing roadworthy checks
Andrew Rogers
Manningham Leader

More than 30 Melbourne buses have been ordered off the streets after being deemed unroadworthy.

Transport Safety Victoria ordered an emergency safety inspection at bus contractor Transdev’s Doncaster and North Fitzroy depots on September 11 and 12 after routine tests by VicRoads found safety breaches with 33 buses.

In a staff bulletin seen by Leader News, Transdev managing director Warwick Horsley told employees the company would now carry out checks on its entire fleet of more than 500 buses.

“We will continue to work closely with TSV to assess the remainder of our fleet for any defects, as well as any issues with our maintenance procedures,” he said.

The company — which operates 30 per cent of Melbourne’s buses — was forced to withdraw 33 buses from service after they were found to have safety defects, but VicRoads has refused to publicly detail the findings.

Shaun Rodenburg, acting director of bus safety at TSV, said: “We are working with Transdev to make sure the immediate safety issues are effectively managed and their safety systems are sufficiently robust to ensure the ongoing safety of their bus services.”

Transport Safety Victoria has confirmed it will follow up with another safety audit once Transdev has fixed the faulty buses and has ordered a more frequent audit regimen to monitor the company’s vehicle maintenance.

Transdev is yet to respond to Leader’s questions relating to the safety defects and how routes and customers will be affected.

It took The Age a day later to pick up the story.

Melbourne’s second biggest bus operator has been ordered to take a dozen of its buses off the road due to serious defects that posed a danger to passengers.

A blitz by safety inspectors on two Transdev bus depots found 33 defective buses, with 12 in such poor condition they were ordered off the road for urgent repairs.

Victoria’s transport safety watchdog, Transport Safety Victoria, said it was the highest number of defective buses it had ever taken off the road in a blitz.

Transport Safety Victoria said it would increase its inspection regime of Transdev’s fleet of buses until it is satisfied the company’s maintenance standards are adequate.

It is currently inspecting about 40 buses a day for potential safety problems.

“We are working with Transdev to make sure the immediate safety issues are effectively managed and their safety systems are sufficiently robust to ensure the ongoing safety of their bus services,” said Shaun Rodenburg, the acting director of bus safety at Transport Safety Victoria.

Defects included engine and transmission faults, fluid and air leaks, loose fitting panels and suspension faults.

The high number of potentially dangerous faults earned a rebuke from Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan.

“This was not acceptable and we’re taking this situation very seriously, as the safety of people travelling on buses is our highest priority,” Ms Allan said.

Public Transport Victoria is reviewing the maintenance failures “so we understand the root cause of this issue and stop it from happening again”, Ms Allan said.

With Transport Safety Victoria issuing a media release on September 22.

In response to safety data analysis, Transport Safety Victoria (TSV) recently engaged with Vic Roads to run a series of safety inspections over two nights on Transdev buses.

As a result of this work:

• TSV issued 12 Prohibition Notices to Transdev, “grounding” 12 buses which presented a risk to safety;
• TSV issued one Improvement Notice to Transdev requiring it to assess its fleet for any more buses which may be unsafe and propose a remedial action plan for those buses before they be used to provide passenger services;
• TSV issued one Improvement Notice to Transdev requiring it to review its Maintenance Management System (MMS) to find how and why it failed and how to ensure the failure cannot recur; and
• TSV will conduct a targeted safety audit to test the effectiveness of Transdev’s remedial actions once they are complete. A more frequent audit regime will be applied until TSV is satisfied Transdev’s Maintenance Management System (MMS) is operating effectively.

“We are working with Transdev to make sure the immediate safety issues are effectively managed and their safety systems are sufficiently robust to ensure the ongoing safety of their bus services,” said Shaun Rodenburg, Acting Director Bus Safety at TSV.

And Public Transport Victoria adding a curt acknowledgement of the crisis on their website.

Replacement buses operating on some Transdev routes
Added: 22 September 2017

As a result of additional maintenance checks on Transdev buses, a number of their regular buses are currently out of service.

Transdev have made arrangements with other operators for replacement buses to supplement the fleet. These replacement buses may look different as they are branded by a different operator.

Customers will still need a valid myki to travel and should continue to touch on and touch off as normal on replacement buses. If a replacement bus does not have myki equipment, customers will be allowed to travel without touching on or touching off.

Real time information may not be available as some of the replacement buses are equipped with a different tracking system. Real time information on SmartBus displays, our PTV app and Next 5 on our website for these services will then display scheduled departure times.

We are working closely with Transdev to ensure that regularly scheduled services on Transdev routes are maintained and any disruptions are minimised.

The crisis grows

‘Foreign’ buses continued appearing at Transdev depots across Melbourne.

As the workshops started to fill up with unroadworthy Transdev buses.

By September 26 over a hundred Transdev buses were off the road, as Transport Safety Victoria inspectors made their way to each depot.

Now 110 @Transdev_Melb buses failed safety inspections, what does it take to actually DO something about the contract?? @JacintaAllanMP pic.twitter.com/SApbl72irg

— Transdev Watch (@TransdevWatch) September 26, 2017

Ventura, who lost a number of bus routes to Transdev back in 2013, was one of the operators called up to help.

As well as operators for further afield – like Mitchell Transit from Seymour.

CDC Ballarat.

And McHarry’s from Geelong.

But the replacement buses left a lot to be desired – plenty of older high floor vehicles were called back up into frontline service, like this one from Kastoria Bus Lines.

CDC Melbourne.

And this coach from Nuline Charter.

By October 6 Transdev managing director Warwick Horsley confirmed that 70 replacement buses were now in service.

Public transport @Transdev_Melb is significantly out of pocket after a safety audit pulled several buses from the road @laura_spurway #9News pic.twitter.com/2HbandcBhl

— Nine News Melbourne (@9NewsMelb) October 6, 2017

But it seems that even the replacement buses couldn’t avoid their death touch, as this broken down bus on hire to Transdev seems to suggest.

And back to ‘normal’

By late October the use of replacements buses operating on Transdev routes had petered out, but the quality of the bus fleet still left a lot to be desired.

Grafitti covered back seats.

Broken next stop buttons.

Duct tape holding together the front fairings.

Cracked front bumpers.

But it took until August 2018 for Transport Safety Victoria to close out their side of the investigation.

Transdev improving safety systems
2 August 2018

Since the grounding of 12 buses in September 2017, Bus Safety Victoria has been working closely with Transdev to ensure the operator’s safety systems are sufficiently robust to ensure the ongoing safety of its bus services.

A targeted audit program of Transdev began earlier this year, focussing on maintenance requirements and safety culture, and audits will be conducted at all Transdev depots.

To date we are seeing that Transdev has implemented many changes to improve their safety systems and culture.

And it took until December 2018 for the full scale of the roadworthy crisis to be made public.

Transdev pulled nearly 140 buses off the road after they were found to be defective last last year, The Age has confirmed.

I guess it just goes to show how little Melbourne cares about or bus system – if 20% of our tram or train fleet was pulled out of service due to flawed maintenance, it would be front page news.

A Myki related footnote

Public Transport Victoria mentioned myki use on replacement buses in passing.

Customers will still need a valid myki to travel and should continue to touch on and touch off as normal on replacement buses. If a replacement bus does not have myki equipment, customers will be allowed to travel without touching on or touching off.

But something they didn’t mention was that none of the buses with myki readers fitted ever had them switched on – turns out the equipment onboard each bus is only configured with the routes run by a given depot, so buses from other operators were unable to ‘log in’ to the system as a Transdev route, leaving the readers as dead weight.

Further reading

The November-December 2017 edition of Australian Bus Panorama has an article by Craig Halsall covering the Transdev fleet crisis in further detail.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Looking back at Transdev Melbourne’s fleet maintenance crisis appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Town Hall Station

Town Hall Station will be located below Swanston Street, next door to Flinders Street Station, and will have two street level entrances: one beneath City Square at Collins Street, the other on Swanston Street beside Young and Jacksons Hotel.

Construction of the southern entrance requires the compulsory acquisition of a number of properties: the McDonalds, KFC and Commonwealth Bank buildings on Swanston Street, and the Port Phillip Arcade on Flinders Street.

Once construction of the Melbourne Metro tunnel is completed, the site will be turned over to the private sector to build an over site development.

The development was approved in October 2017, and is subject to the following conditions:

This document allows for demolition, including bulk excavation, and the development and use of the OSD Land for Shop, Food and drink premises (excluding Hotel and Tavern unless with the consent of the Minister for Planning), Office, Place of assembly, Education centre, Residential hotel, and advertising signage generally in accordance with the following plans and subject to the requirements of this document.

The maximum building height is 40 metres, in order to protect solar access south of the site.

Any future development must not increase the shadowing of Federation Square between 11am – 3pm from 22 April to 22 September.

Any future development may consider the shadowing of the Flinders Street station steps between 11am – 3pm from 22 April to 22 September.

State Library Station

State Library Station will be located below Swanston Street, next door to Melbourne Central Station, and will have two street level entrances: one on Franklin Street, the other at the corner of Swanston and La Trobe Street.

Construction of the latter entrance requires the compulsory acquisition of a number of properties: the Hungry Jacks restaurant on the corner, an apartment building to the west, and a future apartment block site to the north.

Once construction of the Melbourne Metro tunnel is completed, the site will be turned over to the private sector to build an over site development.

The development was approved in October 2017, and is subject to the following conditions:

This document allows for demolition, including bulk excavation and the development and use of the OSD Land for Accommodation (including but not limited to Serviced Apartments, Residential Building, Student Accommodation and Residential Hotel but excluding any beds within the podium levels of the building/s), Education Centre, Office, Place of Assembly (other than Amusement parlour and Nightclub), Restricted Recreation Facility, Retail Premises (other than Adult sex bookshop, Department store, Hotel, Supermarket, and Tavern unless with the consent of the Minister for Planning) and advertising signage and staging generally in accordance with the following plans and subject to the requirements of this Incorporated Document.

The maximum building height is 180 metres at the north-western corner of the site – around 55 storeys tall – stepping down to 150 metres at the south-west corner, and 113 metres at the south-east corner, in order to protect solar access to the State Library forecourt.

Any increase to the building heights indicated on the Building Envelope Plan required for a matter listed above in notes(i) (a)-(c) must demonstrate that there is no net increase in shadow impact (from the combined impact of existing, under construction (393 Swanston Street and 224-252 La Trobe Street (Aurora)) and planning permit approved (2011013727A and TP-2013-817) shadows as at October 2017), on the State Library Forecourt between the hours of 11am and 3pm from 22 April to 22 September.

Parkville Station

Parkville Station will be located below Grattan Street, next door to Melbourne university, and will have three street level entrances.

The station entrances will be built on land acquired from the University of Melbourne, with no over site development planned at the site as part of the rail project due to the site being located under a road reserve. From the Melbourne Metro business case:

The Department has assessed the potential for over site or air rights developments at Parkville station. However, this station is proposed to be located within existing road reserves and as such is not considered to provide a footprint suitable for a significant over site development.

However the design of the new station entrances is required to preserve the ability for the air space to be developed in future.

7.3 Parkville Station

7.3.3 include an entrance on the northeast corner of the Royal Parade and Grattan Street intersection (Royal Parade entrance);

7.3.10 provide a design and construction solution at the Royal Parade entrance that does not preclude the construction of 60 metre high OSD and does not preclude OSD with a clearance of eight metres above the existing natural surface;

7.3.4 include an entrance on the north Grattan Street frontage of the University of Melbourne between the Gate Keeper’s Cottage and the Medical Faculty Building 181 (University entrance);

7.3.11 provide a design and construction solution at the University entrance that does not preclude OSD with a clearance of eight metres above the existing natural surface; and

7.3.12 if any part of the main Station box is located on land acquired from the University of Melbourne, provide a design and construction solution which does not preclude the construction of 60 metre high OSD over the portion of the Station box which is on acquired land.

These requirements replaced earlier plans to build underground retail tenancies inside the station box.

Amend the edge of the Parkville Station box footprint immediately to the south of the existing Triradiate Building (Building 181) by removing the retail along the northern edge of the Station box, such that that Station box does not encroach into or otherwise impact the development potential of University of Melbourne and at this location (-495m2).

North Melbourne (Arden) Station

North Melbourne Station (originally called Arden) is located west of Laurens Street in North Melbourne.

Located on a brownfields site owned by the State Government and previously leased by a variety of industrial tenants, these buildings are being cleared to make room for a construction compound, open cut station box, and the station entrance.

Once construction work is complete, the site will be turned over to the State Government as part of the Arden-Macaulay Precinct urban renewal project.

Development of the site is being managed separately from the Melbourne Metro project.

Commercial development on surplus land at Arden – the urban renewal opportunities at the Arden-Macaulay Precinct will have limited direct interface with the Arden station works. Accordingly, a separate government agency will be responsible for overseeing the urban renewal of this precinct and commercial developments at Arden will not be procured as part of Melbourne Metro.

But the design of the new station must allow for future over site development.

Arden Station must:
7.2.1 be located west of Laurens Street;
7.2.3 include an entrance at Laurens Street (eastern entrance);
7.2.8 be developed to not preclude an OSD (designed and constructed by others) of mixed used development up to 150 metres in height, sited over the Station and Station entrance.

Anzac (Domain) Station

Anzac Station will be located below St Kilda Road at Domain Interchange. The Melbourne Metro business case examined possible development opportunities, but did not find any.

The Department has assessed the potential for over site or air rights developments at the Domain station. However, this station is proposed to be located within existing road reserves and as such is not considered to provide a footprint suitable for a significant over site development.

So who profits from these developments?

The government likes to crow that they have fully funded the Melbourne Metro project, but that is a half truth – they have signed taxpayers up to yet another Public Private Partnership, where we agree to pay a private company a bucket-load of money over a 30 year period, instead of the government borrowing the money at a cheaper rate.

The government’s official description of the financial arrangement is:

A multi-billion dollar availability based Public Private Partnership (PPP) includes the design and construction of the twin nine-kilometre tunnels and five underground stations, private finance and the provision of maintenance and other services during the operating term.

PPP works will be undertaken by the Cross Yarra Partnership (CYP) consortium. CYP comprises Lendlease Engineering, John Holland, Bouygues Construction and Capella Capital.

A PPP model drives innovation, best practice and value for money on the project. In an ‘availability PPP’ the State Government provides regular payments to the private party for making the asset ‘available’ for use. For this package, that will mean making the tunnel and stations available for public transport operations and Victorians to use.

The Registration of Interest (ROI) document issued by the government in November 2015 details the full scope of the PPP:

Tunnels and Stations (Availability PPP)
• 9km twin tunnels and five underground stations including fit-out
• Mechanical and electrical systems
• Tunnel and stations maintenance
• Commercial development opportunities

But this Public Private Partnership is a little different from those those seen in Victoria before – the concept of “value capture” is being used to reduce the cost of the taxpayer, as described by the Melbourne Metro business case dated February 2016.

Opportunities exist to partially defray the cost of the project through value associated with air rights development at CBD North and CBD South, and through the sale of surplus land. Additional opportunities also exist at Arden.

It then went into some specifics of the type of the value capture opportunities.

Value capture opportunities considered as part of this assessment have included the potential to:

– Incorporate retail or other commercial opportunities within the new stations
– Expand station infrastructure to accommodate additional development
– Capture value from existing properties and/or planned developments in the vicinity of the new stations (such as by offering direct pedestrian access via underground pedestrian walkways)
– Develop ‘air rights’ above the new infrastructure (over site development)
– Develop surplus land (land required for construction purposes but not for ongoing use by the project)
– Stimulate urban renewal and capture value from the associated new development activities.

As well as detailing who would be best placed to delivering these opportunities.

Commercial opportunities associated with the project include general amenity retail offerings in stations, station airspace rights (over site development) and broader precinct development opportunities. The preliminary packaging considerations in relation to these opportunities are:

– Commercial opportunities in stations – it is desirable to package these with the Tunnel and Stations package so that stations can be designed to best accommodate retail and other potential opportunities

– Station airspace rights – over site development opportunities exist at CBD North and CBD South stations. Given the significant interface between design and construction of the station boxes and any over site developments, it is desirable to package these development opportunities with the Tunnel and Stations package

– Commercial development on surplus land at Arden – the urban renewal opportunities at the Arden-Macaulay Precinct will have limited direct interface with the Arden station works. Accordingly, a separate government agency will be responsible for overseeing the urban renewal of this precinct and commercial developments at Arden will not be procured as part of Melbourne Metro.

In July 2017 it was announced that the Cross Yarra Partnership (CYP) – a consortium led by Lendlease, John Holland, Bouygues Construction and Capella Capital – was selected as the preferred bidder for the AU$6 billion tunnel and stations public private partnership, with contracts signed in December 2017.

The rights to the over-site development at Town Hall Station were assigned to Lendlease through their subsidiary Lendlease (OSD South) Pty Limited, while the rights to the over-site development at State Library Station were assigned to John Holland via their subsidiary John Holland Nth OSD Developer Pty Ltd.

I wonder which site is worth more money, and how the allocation of developers was decided – the maximum height limit at the CBD North site is far higher, but CBD South is in a busier part of the city.

Some curious ways of cashing in

Next door to the Town Hall Station site, the owner of the KFC building at 27-29 Swanston Street made a curious planning application in October 2016, in a bid to inflate the amount they would receive following the compulsory acquisition of their property.

The owners of the KFC building at 27-29 Swanston St in October lodged a planning application with the City of Melbourne for 14 apartments above the three-storey building.

The Melbourne Metro Rail Authority (MMRA) in October 2015 made it known that the building was among those it was looking to acquire to build the CBD South Station.

The planning application comprises little more than architectural drawings, with the council still seeking essential details before it can properly assess the bid.

The owners are seeking council permission to build the extra seven floors, construct two apartments per floor and connect each of them direct into the heritage-protected Nicholas Building, which they also own.

Under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, compensation is based on the value of properties at the time of acquisition. In an information sheet prepared by the MMRA in 2015, the authority said: “Compensation recognises the value of improvements and renovations that add value to your property.”

The Australian Financial Review explains further:

For the sum of $8189 the Cohens and their co-investors submitted a plan for 14 single-bedroom apartments, adding more than 1500 square metres of residential space overlooking St Paul’s Cathedral.

On rough estimates, that extension if granted could add between $10 million and $15 million to the worth of the building.

Its owners could expect that additional value to be reflected in any acquisition by the MMRA.

Therein lies a question for the authorities: why approve an extension to a building that is going to be knocked down anyway?

While over at the State Library Station site, a different agreement was reached between the State Government and an existing landowner – Scape Student Living.

Student accommodation developer Scape Student Living has struck a unique “collaboration agreement” with the Victorian government, which is acquiring two of its sites for the Melbourne Metro Rail project.

Title documents show the state government’s economic development department has filed caveats on two Scape-owned properties on La Trobe Street and Little La Trobe Street on the basis of purchaser contracts.

Scape, backed by global investors Bouwinvest, APG and China’s ICBCI International, had planning approvals to build around 800 student units in two towers, worth $200 million or more, on the adjacent sites that sit above the new metro’s CBD North Station.

The government did not use its powers of compulsory acquisition for the transactions. Those powers are only available after full planning for the rail project and its multiple underground stations has been approved.

Compulsory acquisition would have been a far more costly process for the government, which may have had to pay not only for the real estate, but an estimated development return and a proportion of the earnings that the facilities generated for Scape in the future.

Given Scape’s expenditure on development planning, the government may have outlaid upwards of $40 million to buy the two properties.

The acquisitions considered early purchases for the Metro project, made through agreement with Scape.

While the government cut its acquisition costs, Scape also benefits from the so-called collaboration agreement, which gives it opportunity to return eventually to develop its proposed facilities above the site.

The agreement between the developer and the government allows the consortia building the Metro Rail station to engage with Scape on the potential for student accommodation above the new station.

A government spokesman declined to comment. Scape’s Craig Carracher confirmed the existence of an agreement to “help with planning and development of the new CBD North Station”.

This arrangement is reflected in the signatories to the Metro Tunnel Tunnel and Stations PPP, Commercial Development Agreement, CBD North:

Developer:

The unincorporated joint venture comprising

John Holland Nth OSD Developer Pty Ltd ACN 623 274 564 of Level 5, 380 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne VIC 3004

and

Scape Little Latrobe Operator Pty Ltd ACN 607 697 183 of Tenancy 3A Swanston Square, 551 Swanston Street, Carlton VIC 3053

Guarantor:

John Holland Property Developments Pty Ltd ACN 617 899 297 of Level 5, 380 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne VIC 3004

More plans

These plans are from the ‘Metro Tunnel: Over Site Development Incorporated Document’ linked below – CBD North / Town Hall.

And CBD South / State Library.

Sources

• Metro Tunnel Tunnel and Stations PPP, Project Scope & Technical Requirements Part A: Project Scope
• Metro Tunnel Tunnel and Stations PPP, Commercial Development Agreement, CBD North
• Metro Tunnel Tunnel and Stations PPP, Commercial Development Agreement, CBD South
• Melbourne Metro Rail Project, Expressions of Interest – November 2015
• Melbourne Metro business case – February 2016
• Melbourne Metro Rail Project, EES Map Book – April 2016
• Metro Tunnel: Over Site Development – CBD North Incorporated Document – October 2017
• Metro Tunnel: Over Site Development – CBD North Incorporated Plans – October 2017
• Metro Tunnel: Over Site Development – CBD South Incorporated Document – October 2017
• Metro Tunnel: Over Site Development – CBD South Incorporated Plans – October 2017

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Building atop the Melbourne Metro stations appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Worked started on January 3, with lifts at Flagstaff and Parliament taken out of service, rendering the stations inaccessible to anyone unable to use an escalator.

These passengers are being directed to Melbourne Central station, where a wheelchair accessible taxi will carry them on the final leg of their journey.

Of course, alternate transport is no good if you don’t know about it.

Disabled train passengers have been left stranded at Parliament and Flagstaff stations, as drivers keep forgetting to let them know lifts are out of action.

Disability advocates are fed up with the lack of warnings, as the lifts have been down for nearly a month.

Metro Trains has told its drivers to broadcast warnings on the approach into the City Loop but they are still regularly failing to do so.

Sarah Nankervis, who suffers from a serious fainting condition that prevents her from using escalators or stairs, said she was recently caught at the bottom of Parliament station not knowing what to do.

“There was no warning on the approach into the city to get off at Melbourne Central,” she said. “I had to go up the escalators and doing that makes me really dizzy and there is chance I can faint.

“My disability isn’t as bad as some people. I’ve got friends in wheelchairs who couldn’t get to where they needed to go.”

Ray Jordan, of the All Aboard group, said Metro Trains had promised him there would be alerts on every train since work began to replace the lifts on January 3.

“I believe it happened in the first couple of days but then we just forgot about it,” he said.

“If you’re going to do this, you need to get it right and do it consistently. We understand there was a need to upgrade the lifts. But you need to have a backup plan and right now it isn’t working as it should be.”

Metro spokesman Marcus Williams said information on the upgrades was being provided through a “wide range of channels” including train ­announcements.

“Passengers requiring lifts and wishing to disembark at Parliament or Flagstaff should travel to Melbourne Central station where staff are on hand to provide a maxi taxi to either station for their onward journey,” he said.

Metro Trains told disability support groups earlier this month it would take up to two weeks for consistent messaging by drivers due to a “wider driver management and support issue”.

A senior Metro source said there was no reason why it should take a fortnight for drivers to follow the directions.

At least since the works started, signage has improved – I found this sign at Flagstaff station.

Plus the extent of the works has been clarified – Flagstaff station still has a working lift linking the two platform levels.

But there is still one question – why close the lifts at two stations at the same time?

This isn’t like a level crossing removal project, where it makes sense to work on multiple work sites while the trains are not running. The lifts at each station in the City Loop all operate independently from each other, so why not stagger the works, and complete each station in turn?

To prove my point

Sunday January 29th illustrated why closing the lifts at two City Loop stations at the same time was a bad idea – at Melbourne Central the single shopping centre lift linking the eastern station concourse with Swanston Street failed.

The workaround – taking the long way around through the shopping centre.

One lift failure at Melbourne Central – with a cascading effect on every City Loop passenger. I wonder if the extra usage thanks to passengers diverted from other stations contributed to the failure?

Diversity in access

Having multiple ways of accessing the platform other than stairs isn’t new.

Boronia station was rebuilt in a cutting back in 1998, and has stairs and a pair of lifts linking platform and concourse.

But by the mid-2000s this practice went out of fashion – the designers of Laverton, Coolaroo, Westall, Footscray, Thomastown, Epping and South Morang stations took the cheap option, and provided just a single lift to each platform, with no alternate access for people unable to use the stairs.

Laverton station is infamous for failing lifts and standard passengers:

Greens MP Colleen Hartland tabled a question in Parliament asking how many times the lifts at Laverton broke down between July 2010 and April 2011.

Transport Minister Terry Mulder told Parliament in his reply that they were inoperative on 105 occasions. And he said that a $15 million footbridge at Footscray station, also built last year without ramps, had lifts that broke down 117 times over the same period.

”It is quite clear that they didn’t put any thought into these two stations,” Ms Hartland said.

The stations were unsafe without ramps, she said, because in an emergency wheelchair passengers and parents with prams needed an alternative to broken lifts. ”They need ramps at these stations before someone is seriously injured.”

In response to these failures, at the 2010 State Election the Liberal opposition made a commitment that they would ensure all new railway stations would feature ramps as well as lifts. Ted Baillieu won the election, and duplicated access to railway platforms has been part of all projects since, from both sides of politics.

Footnote

During the first few days of the lift outage, audio announcements still included the January 3 start date in their spiel. Thankfully someone has realised that small bit of information is superfluous given that the work had already started, and the announcement has been trimmed down.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Poor planning replacing the City Loop lifts appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

CityLink consists of two tunnels – the shorter Domain Tunnel that carries westbound traffic, and the longer Burnley Tunnel that carries eastbound traffic – with roadheaders being used to construct the majority of each tube. However at each end of the tunnel, the project faced the same problems as the Melbourne Metro tunnels.

At the western end of both tunnels is Grant Street and St Kilda Road, full of both road and tramway traffic.

Here a ‘top down’ methodology was adopted while digging the massive hole.

Excavations for cut & cover works at Grant Street May 1998 (Ian Hill, SLV image H99.20/24)

The 2002 book Journey and Arrival: The Story of the Melbourne CityLink published by the Institution of Engineers, Australia elaborates:

The conventional cut-and-cover method was not used at the Grant Street portal, in part to accommodate the impact on the adjacent Victorian College of the Arts (VCA). The size of the excavation necessary for cut-and-cover was huge: 35 metres wide and progressively increasing in depth to about 25 metres at St Kilda Road.

The top-down technique used along Grant Street involved the installation of columns along the alignment of the outer walls of the tunnels, and along the centre line which would ultimately form the barrier between the two tunnels. This was achieved by drilling holes about 900 mm in diameter to bedrock, and then backfilling the holes with concrete. A concrete beam was then constructed along the top of the columns to form the support for the tunnel roof. Once the spans were in place, Grant Street was reinstated and excavation took place unimpeded beneath the deck.

The top-down variation of the cut-and-cover method also reduced the disruption on St Kilda Road, a major thoroughfare with busy tram lines. In fact tram services were closed on only one weekend. The crossing of St Kilda Road was undertaken in stages. Initially the outer service roads were closed and traffic was diverted to the central roadway. This allowed the construction of the columns and tunnel roof in the same manner as along Grant Street. However, extensive propping was necessary under the surface to support the columns against the 25 metre depth of soil pressure. Once work on the outer service roads was completed, traffic was re-diverted to allow work on the central part of the road.

Meanwhile at the east end of the Domain Tunnel was the Yarra River, which passed only a few metres above the future tunnel roof.

It was decided to build the river crossing in two stages, with a coffer dam being used to keep the water out while allowing the river to keep flowing.

Coffer dam construction in Yarra River for Domain Tunnel 26/4/97 (Ian Hill, SLV image H99.20/10)

Again, Journey and Arrival: The Story of the Melbourne CityLink gives the technical details:

The construction of the cut-and-cover crossing of the Yarra River represented some of the cleverest engineering of the whole project. Essentially, a trench had to be cut in the riverbed, the tunnel built in it, and the riverbed placed back on top.

As these works could not proceed easily underwater, the river had to be diverted away from the riverbed worksite during construction. The most efficient way to do this, while ensuring minimum disruption to river flows and traffic, was to work on the crossing in two parts: initially shutting off about two thirds of the river from one bank, and, when completed, switching to the other bank, then closing the other third of the river to complete the process.

What does it mean for Melbourne Metro?

Back in April 2015 how to built the Melbourne Metro tunnels beneath the Yarra River was still unresolved – possible solutions being an immersed tube tunnel, or CityLink style cut and cover using a coffer dam.

This week the final solution was announced – a tunnel boring machine would do the work, with the tunnel running to the east of Princes Bridge, around seven metres below the riverbed, and 11 metres below the surface.

More photos of CityLink

The State Library of Victoria holds the ‘Melbourne City Link Project Series‘ – images taken by photographer Ian Hill during the construction of CityLink.

• Concrete pour for roof of Domain Tunnel inside coffer dam in Yarra River
• Grant Street entrance for Domain Tunnel showing cut & cover works
• Entrance to Domain Tunnel at Grant Street

There is a lot more technical details in Journey and Arrival: The Story of the Melbourne CityLink – I’ve just scraped the surface in this post.

VicRoads also have an interesting CityLink related document on their website – Exhibit I Project Scope and Technical Requirements.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post CityLink’s clever tunnelling technologies appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Here is his full statement on the problems with transport planning in Victoria:

Victoria badly needs a new, independent, statutory authority to plan, co-ordinate and manage our public transport system. Despite Labor’s many plans and announcements, Victoria’s and Melbourne’s public transport needs have been poorly planned for and badly financed. John Brumby has not provided the safety, reliability and efficiency that Victorians deserve.

At the 2010 State Election the Coalition won government, and their promise for a independent, statutory transport authority was one that actually was fulfilled – in April 2012 ‘Public Transport Victoria’ came into operation to coordinate, promote and expand the bus, tram and train networks. So what plans have the government put into place since then?

PTV Network Development Plan

In March 2013 Public Transport Victoria published their ‘Network Development Plan’ – a strategy for growing capacity on the rail network over the next 20 years. Public Transport Terry Mulder had the following to say when it was released:

Mr Mulder said that the Victorian Coalition Government’s creation of Public Transport Victoria (PTV) a year ago as an independent statutory authority, was now bearing fruit.

Mr Mulder said Public Transport Victoria (PTV) was established by the Coalition Government to improve public transport and properly plan for the future. PTV is responsible for planning, procuring and delivering Victoria’s train, tram and bus services, infrastructure and assets.

“This is PTV’s strategy for growing capacity on the rail network over the next 20 years, and it takes into account all parts of Melbourne, particularly areas of growth,” Mr Mulder said.

“It is a very detailed plan – in fact no Government has released a plan this detailed and this transparent since 1969. This is exactly why we established an independent public transport body – a detailed rail strategy like this is just what we expected and wanted.

“The Network Development Plan is a carefully considered, holistic, strategic plan for development of our rail network during the next 20 years, which will be used to help inform future funding decisions.

“Many initiatives identified in the plan for the next decade are already being planned in detail, such as the introduction of high capacity trains and signalling and Melbourne Metro.

Key components of the plan included:

• New high capacity trains, able to carry up to 1100 passengers,
• High capacity signalling trial on Sandringham line,
• Melbourne Metro rail tunnel project,
• Dandenong rail corridor upgrade,
• High capacity signalling on the Sandringham, South Morang and Hurstbridge lines, and between Sunbury and South Yarra.

So how about the implementation?

Bayside Rail Project

In May 2013 Premier Denis Napthine announced the $100 million ‘Bayside Rail Project’ with the following headline:

$100 million Bayside rail upgrade brings newest trains to Frankston line

Then elaborated further:

“Since the November 2010 election, the Coalition Government has announced orders for 15 new X’Trapolis trains, but these trains could only carry passengers on the Alamein, Glen Waverley, Belgrave, Lilydale, Hurstbridge and South Morang lines due to the different position in which the driver sits in the cab, affecting the ability to see some signals.

“This $100 million will mean the Frankston line will also be able to accommodate the X’Trapolis trains, giving passengers the fastest, most reliable and most comfortable commute to and from the city,” Dr Napthine said.

Before the announcement of the Bayside Rail Project, the only people who cared about what kinds of train operated on a a given railway line were railfans who lacked a grip on reality – the average passenger just wants a clean and comfortable train that runs on time. Now we have a politician throwing $100 million at a problem that doesn’t exist.

Free CBD trams and cheaper fares

In March 2014 Premier Denis Napthine announced “free CBD trams, cheaper trains and buses for Melbourne“:

Dr Napthine said the changes would provide significant cost of living relief for families as a result of commuters being able to travel in Zones 1 and 2 for the price of a Zone 1 fare.

“Tram travel within the CBD and Docklands will be free in a move that will enhance Melbourne’s reputation as an international city.”

The changes will come into effect from the 1 January 2015 and will make public transport more accessible for commuters and tourists and make it easier to move around Melbourne.

This initiative will cost around $100 million per annum and will be accounted for in the upcoming State Budget.

However when making the announcement, Dr Napthine forgot to tell one important group of people – the companies that actually run Melbourne’s trams, trains and buses. The Age went on to say:

None of the train, tram and bus companies that operate Melbourne’s public transport system were consulted or even told about the Napthine government’s decision to change the ticket zoning system and provide free trams in the city centre.

Metro, Yarra Trams and bus operator Transdev began investigating on Wednesday how the ticketing changes will affect their operations, after learning about the policy announcement through the media.

Tram overcrowding in the CBD rose sharply last year, with 14 “rolling hour” load breaches – meaning an hour in which passenger numbers exceed tram capacity – compared with nine in 2012.

Hopefully come January 2015 Yarra Trams have a plan in place to deal with an influx of freeloaders on trams in the Melbourne CBD, otherwise the increased overcrowding will discourage previously fare paying passengers from using public transport.

Cranbourne-Pakenham Rail Corridor Project

Another random transport announcement made in March 2014 was the Cranbourne-Pakenham upgrade project. The media release spruiked the following points:

The massive investment will provide:

• 25 new next generation trains;
• 21st century high-capacity signalling along the rail corridor;
• removal of four level crossings;
• pre-construction funding for another five level crossing removals;
• newly rebuilt stations at Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Clayton; and
• a new train maintenance depot at Pakenham East.

What the government forgot to say is that they didn’t come up with the idea – it was an unsolicited proposal from a private sector consortium, involving a public-private partnership to cost the taxpayer billions over the term of the contract. An investigation by The Age found the following:

The cabinet-in-confidence documents reveal taxpayers will be left to pay up to $360 million a year as “annual service payments” to the consortium until 2034 in “nominal” dollars – the actual amount spent, including inflation. The total payments in nominal terms will be as much as $5.2 billion.

The $2.5 billion figure released by the government is a “net present” figure. In government, politicians tend to cite the net present, or today’s money, figure, pointing out that home-buyers think of the cost of their house as the sale price, not the additional cost of loan repayments and interest over decades.

Expanding capacity on the Dandenong railway line has been a pressing need for years – the first serious government commitment appeared in the 2006 ‘Meeting Our Transport Challenges’ plan, when the construction of a third track between Caulfield and Dandenong was proposed. Now those plans are in the bin, replaced by a concept drawn up by a private company more interested in rent seeking than in a cost-effective outcome for the taxpayer.

Melbourne Rail Link

Yet another example of established plans being thrown in the bin can be found in May 2014, when Premier Denis Napthine announced a new rail tunnel running from Southern Cross to South Yarra, via Fishermans Bend and the Domain. The media release had the following glowing words for the new project:

The Melbourne Rail Link will do for rail passengers in the 21st century, what the City Loop achieved last century – high frequency rail services moving more people, more often and more conveniently.

What the government forgot to say is that their new plan was a replacement for the previous ‘Melbourne Metro’ scheme – which The Age revealed the government had still endorsed as late as February 2013:

The original Melbourne Metro was being strongly backed by the state government just a year ago, with Transport Minister Terry Mulder indicating engineering issues around Swanston Street had been resolved, new documents reveal.

The February 2013 letter, from Mr Mulder to then treasurer Kim Wells, said the business case for the multi billion-dollar project had been completed and a comprehensive impact statement would be completed by the end of 2013.

The letter, obtained by The Age through freedom of information, said “significant work was undertaken during 2012 to update the Melbourne Metro business case and ensure it met the requirements of the high value high risk process, Infrastructure Australia guidelines and federal government requirements. This work has proved critical to resolving key issues, including the vertical alignment along Swanston Street.”

Once again, we have see a previously agreed upon transport project tossed in the bin, replaced by a hastily conceived replacement that appears to be favouring the interests of the private sector instead of the public.

Transport planning is off the rails

After looking at the half-baked projects found above, it makes you wonder what was the point in creating an independent public transport authority, when their carefully made plans just get thrown in the bin by politicians as soon as votes or vested interests get involved.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Taking the politics out of transport planning? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The clock was built in 1882 for the original Flinders Street Station, where it sat at the end of Elizabeth Street.

SLV image A14246 accession H20751

It was then relocated a number of times – first to Princes Bridge Station in 1902 to allow the construction of the current Flinders Street Station.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 1185

And then to Spencer Street Station in 1910.

VPRS 12903/P1, item Box 495/01

There it remained until 1967 when the old Spencer Street Station building was erected, resulting in the mechanism being given to Museum Victoria and the turret sold for scrap, but later rescued by private collectors.

Eventually the clock ended up back in public hands, when in 1999 the then-Minister for Transport purchased the clock intending for it to be placed back at Flinders Street Station, but the project stalled, resulting in it being placed on display at the Scienceworks museum at Spotswood.

In February 2014 it was revealed that the clock would be moving home yet again – this time back to Southern Cross Station.

Work on a new stand for the clock at the Collins Street station entrance commenced in April.

With a LED video screen being installed inside the stand.

On May 14 a stage, seats and lighting were all set up ready for the unveiling of the clock.

With Transport Minister Terry Mulder carrying out the official unveiling.

The screen beneath was displaying a video loop describing the history of the Water Tower Clock.

At the bottom of the screen were animated trains, each flying a flag of a corporate sponsor.

As to the industry super fund logos – it turns out the ‘IFM Investors’ (formerly ‘Industry Funds Management’) sponsored the restoration of the clock.

The same day a government media release was issued, with a telling quote from the Transport Minister:

“The restoration of the clock has been made possible by a partnership between Southern Cross Station operators and Public Transport Victoria,” Mr Mulder said.

Fast forward to May 19, and look what is displayed on the video wall – full screen advertisements!

Don’t get between the management of Southern Cross Station and their adverting revenue!

Footnote

The Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure has since uploaded a video of the official unveiling, which features the video loop describing the history of the Water Tower Clock.

At the same event a number of JCDecaux staff were in attendance – the same company manages advertising at Southern Cross Station. I should have twigged to this earlier…

June 2014 update

Looks like somebody in charge wasn’t happy about the non-stop advertising beneath the clock – a shortened version of the historical video has now been inserted into the loop of commercial messages.

Fun fact

The clock was 3D scanned by a laser to determine its size, so that the glass case could be created for it.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Southern Cross Station’s new Water Tower Clock appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

So what concerns me is a single line in the media release from the Victorian Government:

“This project is the first under the Government’s new unsolicited proposals process, which is designed to harness the innovation of the private sector and hasten the delivery of better infrastructure and services to Victorians at the best possible price,” Dr Napthine said.

The “unsolicited proposal process” is something new, only being made public back in February 2014. The Department of Treasure and Finance has the following to say:

The new guideline provides a transparent and consistent process where private parties can directly approach Government seeking support and approval to provide a project or service. The Government can also use the process to directly approach a private party to deliver a project.

Government will only pursue proposals that offer something genuinely unique and the best value for Victorians.

They also detail the steps involved:

A five stage process will guide the assessment of unsolicited proposals, detailed further in the guideline:

• Stage One: A private party submitting an unsolicited proposal for Government consideration, with full information requirements;
• Stage Two: The Government conducting a preliminary assessment of the merits of the proposal and deciding whether to enter into an exclusive negotiation;
• Stage Three: The Government and the private party entering into an exclusive negotiation to develop a full proposal for Government consideration;
• Stage Four: The Government entering into final negotiations to finalise outstanding issues with an intent to enter into a final and binding offer; and
• Stage Five: The Government awarding the contract.

So what has the Victorian Government been offered by the private sector?

Dr Napthine said the multi-billion dollar transformation of the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines would be delivered by MTR, with John Holland Construction and UGL Rail Services, with construction starting in 2015 and concluding in 2019.

The project would deliver:

• 25 new next generation, high-capacity trains;
• 21st century high-capacity signalling on the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines – one of the first uses of this technology in Australia that will enable more trains to run, more often;
• four level crossing removals at Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena; Koornang Road, Carnegie; Clayton Road, Clayton; and Centre Road, Clayton;
• planning and preconstruction funding to remove a further five level crossings;
  newly-rebuilt stations at Clayton, Murrumbeena and Carnegie; and
• a new train maintenance depot at Pakenham East, which will create local jobs.

Here is my laundry list of probity concerns.

New Trains

An order of 25 trains is on the small side: at present Melbourne’s smallest class are the 29 original X’Trapolis trains (which are actually made up of two 3-carriage units) followed by the 36 Siemens trains (which also come in 3-carriage units). The largest proportion of the fleet are the 96 Comeng trains, which were delivered back in the 1980s and the first of which will reach the end of their working life in 2017-18.

The last time Melbourne decided to order new trains there was a competitive bidding process between the two companies that had previously supplied trains to Melbourne: Alstom and Siemens. The result of this was 53 additional X’Trapolis trains (each made up of two 3-carriage units) being supplied by Alston.

Will the result of this unsolicited proposal see UGL Rail Services winning the contract to supply 96 Comeng-replacement trains by default, because we already have 25 of their ‘next generation’ trains?

New Signalling

Melbourne’s railway signalling systems are currently a mishmash of different ages and technologies, supplied by a variety of companies. Modern high-capacity signalling systems don’t have to be locked down to once supplier (Hong Kong uses the SACEM system, mixing equipment provided by Siemens and Alstom) but it is still a point to think about.

Will the result of this unsolicited proposal see UGL Rail Services winning the contract to upgrade the rest of the Melbourne suburban network with their ‘next generation’ signalling?

New Grade Separations

Every new level crossing grade separation project in Melbourne involves a contract being awarded through a bidding process – in the case of Springvale Road in Springvale, it was a consortium of companies including McConnell Dowell, Balfour Beatty Rail, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Beca.

Will the result of this unsolicited proposal see John Holland Construction receive the contract to carry out the four grade separation projects (Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena; Koornang Road, Carnegie; Clayton Road, Clayton; and Centre Road, Clayton) as well as the next five level crossings, and station rebuilds at Clayton, Murrumbeena and Carnegie?

Train Maintenance

When Metro Trains Melbourne won the contract to operate Melbourne’s train network, they also brought in house the majority of train maintenance. The exception was the Siemens trains, due to a 15-year long Fleet Maintenance Agreement with the manufacture’s subsidiary, Siemens Rail Services.

Will the result of this unsolicited proposal see UGL Rail Services winning the contract to maintain Melbourne’s “next generation” train fleet for a contractually obligated period of time?

Footnote

Brad Vann, partner at law firm Clayton Utz, has more to say on the Victorian Government’s “Unsolicited Proposal Guideline for Projects and Services”:

On paper, the Victorian Unsolicited Proposal Guideline seems to strike a good balance between providing confidence and certainty of process to the private sector.

Following the footsteps of its New South Wales counterpart, the Victorian Government has released a new Unsolicited Proposal Guideline for infrastructure projects and services from the private sector.

In particular, on the topic of probity:

One of the main objectives is for the process to “incorporate open competition wherever possible”. The guideline allows for the Victorian Government to open a proposal up to a competitive process at the conclusion of Stages Two and Three. In the absence of competition, the guideline also outlines a “value for money evaluation”, whereby the Victorian Government will be required to consider appropriate costing mechanisms, such as building a cost comparator, seeking independent assessment of a proposal or using benchmarking data.

It looks like we are in for a fun ride.

May 2014 update

In May 2014 The Age journalists Adam Carey and Royce Millar revealed the real cost to the taxpayer of the unsolicited Dandenong rail upgrade proposal, which was found in leaked cabinet documents:

The government spruiked the project as costing $2 billion to $2.5 billion. But the cabinet-in-confidence documents reveal taxpayers will be left to pay up to $360 million a year as ”annual service payments” to the consortium until 2034 in ”nominal” dollars – the actual amount spent, including inflation. The total payments in nominal terms will be as much as $5.2 billion.

The $2.5 billion figure released by the government is a ”net present” figure. In government, politicians tend to cite the net present, or today’s money, figure, pointing out that home-buyers think of the cost of their house as the sale price, not the additional cost of loan repayments and interest over decades.

They also give evidence that the private companies know that the State Government is in desperate need of good news stories on public transport before elections, and modified their timelines to suit the electoral cycle:

The leaked documents detail an in-principle deal between the government and the consortium, and reveal a key ”milestone” to be a ”contractual close” by September 29, two months before November’s state election. A timeline for the project lists elections in both 2014 and 2018 as milestones.

Once again the public is getting played for fools – by rent-seeking private companies and politicians who only look to the next election.

March 2015 update

On 31 March 2015 the new Labor Government announced the unsolicited proposal for the Dandenong line was dead, to be replaced by their own upgrade plan – you can find more detail on Daniel Bowen’s blog.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Dandenong line upgrade and probity concerns appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

What are they building

Three changes are being made to the Bourke Street Bridge at Southern Cross Station. First up are two retail pods at the eastern end.

This has forced the relocation of the next train displays at the entrance to the station.

The second part of the works are myki gates to check the tickets of passengers accessing the country platforms.

Two banks of four gates flank the entrance to platforms 5 and 6.

And finally, a new retail pod to replace the temporary news stand next door to the suburban ticket office.

This VicTrack diagram shows the extent of the works. The new paid area is shaded red, with three banks of four myki gates controlling access; while the orange, yellow and green shading show the additional shops.

The extent of the shops at the eastern end of the Bourke Street bridge above platform 1 and 2 can be seen in this diagram.

So how did we end up with more shops cluttering up the joint?

The story starts

Unlike previous obstructions added to the concourses of Southern Cross Station, the current round of works needed to be approved by the City of Melbourne, due to a public access easement existing on the Bourke Street Bridge.

The minutes from the April 15, 2013 council meeting go into great detail regarding the changes.

The purpose of this report is to advise the Future Melbourne Committee on three applications for planning permits for easement variations on parts of the Bourke Street Footbridge, which crosses over Southern Cross Station

The station and bridge are owned by Public Transport Victoria (PTV). The bridge is encumbered by an easement of way for pedestrian purposes in favour of the public. The easement provides a legal right for through pedestrian movement between Docklands and central Melbourne. Permanent obstructions cannot be placed on the bridge unless the easement is first removed from the affected land.

PTV is seeking to install myki ticketing barriers on the bridge for its regional platforms, whilst SCS Retail Pty. Ltd. (SCS) which manages retail operations in the station complex, seeks to construct several retail pods.

The council wasn’t too concerned about the addition of ticket barriers along the south side of the Bourke Street Bridge.

Pedestrian modelling indicates that there is little likelihood of the PTV proposal adversely affecting the public use of the bridge. However, in the future there may be the desire to remove the works and have the easement reinstated should long term changes to the bridge’s use levels warrant this.

Being happy to approve the works, but with a few conditions in place:

9.3.3.1. remove the barriers and associated works after 10 years (with a potential extension at Council’s sole discretion):
9.3.3.2. provide a shelter for the general public to replace the existing shelter affected by the proposed barriers;
9.3.3.3. requiring the reinstatement of the easement should the approval not be extended;

However the addition of shops on the Bourke Street Bridge was a greater concern, where two ‘pods’ would block the eastern end of the bridge near the main access stairs, with a third pod to be located at the western end near the suburban ticket office. The council listed their concerns:

The concession area is situated proximate (several metres) to the prime steps providing public and commuter access from Spencer Street to the bridge. It is considered the pods will negatively impact upon the public realm and the use of the Bourke Street Bridge as a main pedestrian thoroughfare.

Their final decision only gave the go ahead for one of the shops.

9.4. issue a planning permit in relation to planning application TP-2011-126 for the easement variation related to the SCS western retail pod subject to the Minister for Planning first approving the associated works;

9.5. issue a refusal to grant a planning permit in relation to planning application TP-2011-157 for the easement variation related to the SCS eastern retail pods;

On July 2, 2013 the City of Melbourne met again to consider an updated development proposal. The minutes of the meeting detailed a number of objections to the proposal:

Four objections were received. These were from the AFL; Melbourne Stadiums Limited/Etihad Stadium; Places Victoria and from the Franchise Manager of the Theobrama Chocolate Lounge. The Lounge operates at bridge level opposite the proposed eastern retail pods.

All of the submitters had concerns as a consequence of the proposed easement removal and works, on pedestrian amenity and safety on the bridge at times of egress from major events held at Etihad Stadium. The Lounge had additional concerns on the effects of the construction works on their business.

The Lounge has not participated in subsequent consultation but has confirmed the objection remains.

The AFL and Melbourne Stadiums have unconditionally withdrawn their objections.

Places Victoria has consented to the application subject to the certain conditions being included in a Notice of Decision to issue a permit. The conditions, which follow, relate more to the operation of the myki barriers than to the easement application itself.

None the less, parts of council were still not happy with the proposal.

The easement removal is not supported by Manager Urban Design and Docklands on the following grounds:

• there is no justification for loss of public space at the top of the Bourke Street stairs;
• there is ample space for additional retail in the adjacent Spencer Outlet Centre;
• it creates a physical and visual barrier at the top of the stairs;
• it will adversely affect critical air movement between the bridge and the station;
• it will obstruct views into the station, which would significantly compromise the current competition-winning design; and
• a permanent structure as required by the applicant, as compared to a temporary structure, does not allow for regular reassessment of its effects on public space issues;

But at least safety concerns were considered:

The applicants have provided detailed pedestrian modelling including factoring commuter rush times and spectator discharge from sporting and non-sporting events at Etihad Stadium. These have been prepared by two independent traffic management consultants. Those being AIRBIZ for DoTPLI and Urbantrans/Movendo for SCS. The pedestrian modelling shows all of the works should have little impact currently and in the near future on pedestrian use of the bridge.

Additionally there is little likelihood of a significant event such as a large crowd crush occurring as a result of those works, but the implications of such happening could be severe. Considerable comfort comes from PTV advice that the myki barriers can be promptly and easily opened in the unlikely event on an emergency such as a public crush and that back up contingencies also exist.

It took until August 6, 2013 for council to approve the additional shops on the bridge, with the meeting minutes reading:

It is considered the proposal is acceptable providing it is conditioned on the lines of the myki related approval. Measures need to be in place giving Council the full discretion at any future time to have the retail pods removed and the easement reestablished.

The reasons for those actions should not be restricted to safety as was the case for the myki approval, but expanded to include urban design and general amenity related matters to address the recommendations of Manager Urban Design and Docklands.

So ten years of more shops cluttering up the Bourke Street Bridge, until the City of Melbourne finds them to be a bad idea, and revokes the permit.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Still more shops at Southern Cross Station appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.