Infrastructure Victoria has released its draft 30-year Infrastructure Strategy, which has made 134 recommendations worth around $100 billion aimed at combating congestion, urban sprawl, and boosting housing affordability.
The plan includes all of the usual stuff, including:
- Some new infrastructure projects, such as a $10 billion “Missing Link” road in the north-east and a $5 billion rail line to Melbourne Airport as priority projects for completion within the next 15 years.
- The introduction of a congestion tax to reduce road demand and forestall the need for more infrastructure investment. The report claims that around 20% of car trips between 7am and 9am are not related to work or education.
- Denser development in areas where infrastructure is already well established, including Melbourne’s eastern and southern suburbs, to stop Melbourne sprawling.
Of the 134 recommendations, around 35% are new projects and 45% are behaviour change/supply management initiatives. The remaining recommendations are about better planning and prioritisation and further investigation.
This site has long supported congestion charging, since it discourages drivers who make relatively low value trips. Those who aren’t prepared to pay will make the trip at another time, shift to public transport, or decide it’s not worth making at all.
That said, I doubt this infrastructure plan will do much to stop the slide in Melbournians’ living standards. We have seen similar plans released over the past decade or so, and not much ever seems to change. The city’s population continues to balloon and infrastructure never catches up.
Indeed, the Victorian Government’s own population projections forecast that Melbourne’s population will add roughly 100,000 people annually over the next 30 years, swelling the city’s population by a whopping 75% to 8 million people, mostly via immigration:
It is difficult to see how the relatively modest infrastructure proposed, along with congestion pricing, could possibly mitigate such growth and prevent congestion and overall livability from falling.
The same goes for housing affordability. I am yet to see a city achieve affordable housing by simultaneously restricting sprawl, increasing densification, and growing its population strongly. And it would be foolhardly to think that Melbourne could some how achieve such an outcome this time around. In fact, we have seen this experiment play out in Melbourne over the past 12 years with poor results.
The only thing I can say in favour of this plan is that it is better than nothing. Because if we don’t build it, the people will probably still come.
YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
Greg Jericho is feeding hate far more than any 'hater'
From Greg Jericho today: The simple explanation
Immigration minister cherry picks lies to support a 'Big Australia'
By Leith van Onselen On Friday, Australia's
How the Aussie economy compares to when RBA last cut cash rate
By Gareth Aird, Senior Economist at CBA: Key
ScoMo crashes consumer confidence
I don't usually report the weekly given the
“The report claims that around 20% of car trips between 7am and 9am are not related to work or education.”
Wtf are these people smoking?! Not related to work or education? Should tax that shit out of existence, eh?
What about going to the doctor, going to the barber, going to the gym, going to the supermarket, going to the pharmacy…. Let’s tax/toll that shit travel out of existence, so that the doctor, the barber, the gym and the supermarket have no customers between 7am and 9am.
Splendid plan.
You bloody idiots.
The whole report is a joke. Good luck with 8m people in a crappy city loop configuration that is only capable of taking people in or out of the city. Every other city in the world with a decent population knows this is doomed to fail. The seeds of a second ring loop are needed now.
Wtf are these people smoking?! Not related to work or education? Should tax that shit out of existence, eh?
Undoubtedly mostly retired Baby Boomers heading off to golf. 😀
It would be interesting to know if “education” in that measure includes taking children to school.
Do they mention cycling infrastructure at all, so that Melbourne could to becoming a Melbournhagen?
I rode my bike to/from the city for 4 years when I worked at Goldman – 30km round trip (150km a week). More people cycling could certainly be a bit-part solution. But I doubt much more than that. Melbourne is very big and spread out, as well as hilly.
I did 200-300km commuting a week. Anything south east is not hard. Nepean, Beach Rd. Inner north. West (with bike paths). Near-east.
It depends on the infrastructure and culture, and fitness/practice/time.
5-10 on a commuter/singe/hybrid/whatever is easy.
10-30 by road is eminently doable.
I didn’t say it was easy, but it’s not impossible, and it’s certainly part of the answer.
I saw a video of Copenhagen in peak hour at some traffic lights on the weekend (don’t have the link to hand sorry).
Brazillions of bikes compared to cars.
It’s not going to be the same (we’re attitudinally different and have a horrendous motor-car bias) but it’s definitely part of the mix.
Beach Rd could be a single lane bike train. Cars in lane 2.
Nepean with bike lanes (separated) same deal.
Eastern Hwy for a large part is flat.
I spent a week in Copenhagen and a week in Amsterdam in July. These cities run on cycling. Around 50% of urban trips in Copenhagen are made by bike, and 70% of the population doesn’t own a car. But these are very compact cities, and Melbourne is very spread out. For cycling to become a viable option in Australia we need to densify our cities, which won’t be popular.
Not the way highrise harry densifies anyway…
Never been a fan of riding on main roads. If all the “rat runs” ( parallel Rds and shortcuts through suburban streets) were to become the basis of a cycling network you might start encouraging people to ride/appease locals concerns for safety and leave the die hards their main rds to sit in traffic. This is probably already happening, just needs to be fast tracked whenever locals raise concerns about volumes/ speeding on their streets.
Melbourne’s shitty weather isn’t too conducive to cycling to work and back.
Surprised some hipster/ city council hasn’t secured an unrentable inner city location for secure bike storage where coffee or fee as you leave pays the daily rate, or a gym where you can ride to, shower and get changed. Leave your bike for 4 days a week, and bring in weeks clothes on fifth ( the establishment could even help organise car pool for those weekly journeys). Imagine an old Ferris wheel jammed between two buildings with everyone’s bikes going round and round, pumps and lights falling off randomly.
Lithium batteries have crashed in price – that makes electric bicycles cheaper and changes the equation.
It is all part of a cunning plan. State govs. here will stop infrastructure spending like those in the US. They will wait for the free infrastructure bonds to be provided by the Federal gov. whoever wins. Same will happen here soon.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0kQLv9OOkkg/V_JtomS_a7I/AAAAAAAAo9k/kwP-mk71IIw9hjSHbCt1K8lMeBVARNrXgCLcB/s1600/ConSpendYoyAug2016.PNG
What a drop !
You’re assuming that these things will happen. I’m pretty sure many nimbys (often rightly) will get in the way and a congestion tax that will likely hit many unemployed or underemployed people will be hard to get off the ground. Immigration becoming a major political issue is more likely.
What’s the obsession with the airport rail link btw? Is the bus really that bad? $5b could probably be spent better.
The bus is mostly fine, but it can get stuck in traffic. Not so much a problem when you are coming from the airport, but can cause anxiety when you have a plane to catch. Solution: get a bus to the airport 39 hours before your flight. This is not efficient.
The Melbourne airport link is sorely needed and could be done for $350m. Have a look at this, a fun clip too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O2VFRG0rDU&feature=youtu.be
What’s the obsession with the airport rail link btw?
Same as the obsession with high speed rail – Trains R Cool.
I must admit I struggle to see a huge demographic of people who would actually use airport rail (as opposed to people who say they’d use airport rail). It’s generally going to be one of:
* Conscientious/eco-nerd travellers
* People too poor (or stingy) to pay for a taxi/Uber/parking/hire car (and let’s not forget $20+/pp surcharge to use airport rail links can change that equation pretty quick when multiple travellers are involved)
* People who have no practical choice due to where the airport is (eg: NRT)
Now consider the people who generally wouldn’t touch airport rail with a bargepole:
* Anyone who can expense a taxi/Uber/parking/hire car to their employer
* Anyone travelling with younger children/infants
* Anyone with more than one bag (see above regarding children)
* Anyone who has to make a change more than once en-route (so your airport train better go through central)
* Anyone travelling a long distance (ie: outside the inner suburbs) to/from the airport (see above regarding changes)
* Anyone who doesn’t live within short walking distance from a public transport boarding location (see above regarding bags & changes)
It’s one thing if you can build infrastructure fairly cheaply to throw in a rail link for the relatively small number of people who will use it. But if there’s one thing we can’t do in this country, it’s cheap infrastructure.
A lot of good points there that I didn’t even think of before dismissing this idea. You’re right, travelling as a couple with 2+ suitcases is annoying, especially if you have to somehow get to the station, travel to the city and then back out to the airport. That is already around $25 per person with myiki+airport link fee. Where’s the cost-benefit for this?
Great points there. Couldn’t agree more. There are far bigger priorities.
You haven’t been to Europe have you?
You haven’t been to Europe have you?
We go roughly every three years, usually for a month or so.
Oh, and I spent two years living in Zurich.
Australia is not Europe.
Well put. I travel to HK and Shanghai frequently – first trip expensed taxi for each (no Uber back in the day). Since then, I always use the train/MTR. Both cities have rail networks designed to handle the commute into the city via train and I generally stay at hotels in the business areas. Same story for Osaka, always take the train to Namba and either walk or taxi to the hotel from Namba. Sydney and Melbourne, screw that for a joke. The train from SYD is a complete joke, not conducive to luggage movement and the surcharge is just crazy. Melbourne I either get a car and driver or rent something. Nearly always time my flights to arrive after 8pm to try and avoid the traffic to the city.
Same with Paris, I tried the train to Gare du Nord but the movement with luggage is terrible. Now, I just rent a car at CDG and drive everywhere (from Paris to Munich to Zurich to Barcelona to Lyon and back). Have done the highspeed trains in Europe, China and Japan but nothing beats getting out on the open road or back roads and enjoying a leisurely stroll through some of these amazing small villages and valleys.
@OJ,
I read your comment as ‘rail to the airport is great if done well, but pointless if not’.
Since we are talking about infrastructure that would be built in an Australian capital, I guess it’s easy to guess which side of that line a Melbourne airport link would land.
My understanding is that airport rail link will serve to reduce road traffic which will mostly consist of taxis. A huge chunk of the benefit realisation is the delayed investment in upgrading the tuller and the reduction in assocaited congestion. Locals would still drive to the airport due to the disfunctional train network – basically during peak times, good luck getting luggage on board the train let alone yourself.
Not necessarily. The Sydney airport train to the CBD takes 1/3 the time of a taxi at 1/3 the cost. Even if you can expense the cost, the time saving makes it worth doing.
It’s been a while since I’ve had to go to Sydney, I must admit, but I’d reckon the times of day that the train was substantially quicker door to door, you probably wouldn’t want to be on the train. Especially with a suitcase.
Using the tax system to reduce congestion? Good idea. If the Victorian government wanted to cut commute times it would increase labour mobility by removing conveyancing Stamp Duty, reducing the cost of changing residence to mere transaction charges.
Great job matches – involving an ideally qualified and experienced candidate and an above market specialist role – are deals made in heaven. If that opportunity comes up on the other side of one of our big cities or interstate and must be declined due to worker landholding and an unconscionable commute, the worker, employer and the whole country lose.
increasing labour and business mobility by cutting the cost of changing location can deliver that 5% reduction in vehicles and increase speeds by 10-30%.
There are other big savings in fuel costs, pollution, lowering the divorce rate and on.
If SD were exchanged for State Land Tax, we would have an extra incentive to closely match our holdings to our needs – and fewer impediments to useful change. Together, these reforms would deliver with ease a more flexible and dynamic economy – which politicians endlessly spout about and fail to provide.
This is soooo worth doing.
No better way to grow the economy than by ramming a heap of extra people into it.
Just think, all those extra consumers!
Everyone is happy.
If they keep going, private health insurance might actually become viable.
But I don’t think it would drop in price. Possible, but highly unlikely.
PHI companies will charge what they can get. People still pay ridiculous prices for this, and many services that are a fraction of the price overseas.
And if you don’t have it, the stick of the MLS will whack you!
Also, if they stop the population ponzi now, then we’ll probably get a recession.
No politician wants to wear one of those. That’s a career killer.
So, steady as she goes, just a bit of ineffectual fiddling around the edges.
Pretty much what our government does.
Congestion charge to dissuade people? Lovely. I’m sure all the people sitting in traffic are there for fun. Then we can expand it to the NBN. Start charging extra for peak periods. (Actually some ISPs did/do that. Super useful for those of us who know how to use cron/task scheduler for big downloads but kind of screwed regular customers)
Have you tried it in London? Was there when it was first introduced and seemed to have a major effect, roads freed up but tube and trains became hell along with the buses…. Haven’t been back in 8 years now so not sure how it has worked over the long term.
Any State that can spend $1billion not to build a road and $5billion not to pump water to homes is a winner and gets Gold in the Infrastructure Games.
Can’t wait to see what this mob do with these new proposals.
Don’t know about the water but the $1 billion not to build the road is due to the state libs sticking n a poison pill into the East West contract just before the election. If the benefit/cost ratios that were done are anywhere near correct, it was still a bargain compared to what it would have cost the state over the next 30 years.
Water is that desalination plant in south Gippsland. Built on a take or pay contract but not needed at the moment. A white elephant.
What is going to happen to social cohesion if the population continues to increase at the current rates? And what flow on effect will that have to the rest of Australian society given that Melbourne (and Sydney) represent a huge chunk of the Australian population?
Why not double the car registration fees for foreigners? And actually charge the kids of 457 visa workers fees for studying in a government school?
Make public transport “free” during the off-peak to encourage a switch to public transport.
These foreigners are citizens for taxation purposes meaning they pay the same tax as you and i so why tax them and not citizens?
Citizens are taxed.
Heard of the backpacker tax? And how much tax did Apple pay to Ireland? How much tax did Starbucks pay to Westminster?
They cannot vote, so you can tax foreigners more. The dumbing down of degrees has coincided with a boom in foreign “student” numbers. If they are bribing professors, adding to the overcrowding in schools, trains, hospitals, the least we can do is tax foreigners more:
“skilled” my foot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9lXmFbx_kA
Your logic is all over the place… Those foreigners are working within the law and your anger and frustration should be targeting politicians who are making these laws. Same issue with MB blaming the boomers when it’s a class issue and not a generational one. As for bribery, it doesn’t have a race or a colour so OZ’s are as guilty.