Infrastructure Victoria: Mass immigration will destroy Melbourne

Infrastructure Victoria yesterday released its Draft 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy, which forecasts that liveability in Melbourne will be destroyed as the population bulges from mass immigration:

Victoria’s population boomed in the last decade, adding more than 1.2 million people…

Over coming decades, pressures on Victoria’s transport system will only get worse as the population grows. Trips will become longer, less comfortable and more unreliable, costing people and businesses time and money. This pressure will be largest in Greater Melbourne, where an extra 4.0 to 6.8 million trips are projected to be made every day on roads and public transport by 2036, across our modelled scenarios.

Road congestion could cost the state $10.2 billion by 2031 as drivers face longer journeys with increasingly unpredictable travel times… On average, congestion could cost Melburnians each an extra $1,700 each year by 2030.

Congestion and overcrowding on public transport mean longer and more variable travel times, resulting in frustration and lost productivity. Modelling indicates train lines improved by the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project could exceed crush capacity as early as 2031 and more than 30% of public transport trips could be undertaken in crowded conditions by 2046. Poor public transport performance could lead to more people choosing to travel by car, which, in turn, would create even more congestion…

Population growth and development are reducing private open space, gardens and tree canopy cover in established suburbs…

Our modelling used multiple scenarios, which showed different population levels in Melbourne’s inner and middle suburbs. Inner Melbourne suburbs added about 500,000 to 800,000 residents between 2018 and 2051, and middle Melbourne suburbs added between 600,000 and 1.3 million extra people, ranging across the different scenarios.

Growth rates were generally higher in inner suburbs than in middle suburbs. Inner suburbs ranged between 1.3% – 2.0% population growth, on average each year to 2051. Middle suburbs’ growth ranged between 0.9% and 1.8%, on average, in the same period. Even with lower overall population growth, Melbourne’s inner and middle suburbs will still likely need to accommodate more than a million extra people in the next three decades. In some scenarios, it could be more than 2 million…

Infrastructure Victoria also warns of chronic water shortages as Melbourne’s population balloons:

While climate change is making parts of Victoria drier, population growth places pressure on water supplies from increasing consumption and sewage volumes. Urban expansion is causing more runoff from impervious surfaces such as roads, paths and buildings.

The environment is absorbing less stormwater in these places, with more untreated and potentially polluted water flowing into waterways.

Let’s remember that Infrastructure Australia has already modelled the outcomes for Melbourne as its population surges to a projected 7.3 million by 2048 under three development scenarios, namely:

  • Expanded Low density: 60% of development to take place in existing urban areas;
  • Rebalanced Medium density: 70% of development to take place in existing urban areas; and
  • Centralised High density: 80% of development to take place in existing urban areas.

Under every single development scenario, liveability in Melbourne is projected to deteriorate, with increased congestion and commute times, as well as reduced access to jobs, schools, hospitals and green space:

Instead of addressing the population problem at its source, Infrastructure Victoria instead recommends more infrastructure investment, alongside sweeping changes to the way we are charged to use road and rail, in order to ‘manage’ demand.

The obvious question arises: given its dire forecasts for Melbourne’s liveability, why hasn’t Infrastructure Victoria recommended that the state take in less migrants in the future to ease these population pressures?

The answer is obvious: Infrastructure Victoria’s board is stacked with big business representatives, which privatise the gain from having more people via expanding their domestic markets and lowering wage costs:

CEO

Michel (Masson) started his career at Deloitte before joining the Bollore Group where he held various senior finance positions in the transport and logistics division in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. In 2005 he joined Keolis as head of Finance and Operations for the International Division where he was responsible for leading public transport operations in seven countries and held various non-executive director positions in UK and German rail franchises.

Chairman

“Jim Miller chairs the Infrastructure Victoria board. He is also Vice Chair at J.P. Morgan, an Advisory Board Member at Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and Director at Household Capital…Jim was an Executive Director at Macquarie Capital from 1994-2015…”

Deputy Chair:

“Maria Wilton’s experience in the investment industry spans thirty years. Maria is a member of the global Board of Governors of the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) Institute…”

Board

“Ann (Sherry) is one of Australia’s leading business executives with a career that spans Government, Banking and…”

Infrastructure Victoria is like a meeting place for the very people who represent the champions of mass immigration and over-development.

It does not represent the interests of ordinary residents.

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)

Comments

  1. Arthur Schopenhauer

    Water, water, water?

    Over the last 20 years, Melbourne’s yearly rainfall has Dropped from 650mm/yr to around 450mm/yr. There are a few outlying years, but the trend is there.

    • Display NameMEMBER

      The plan is to build more dams to collect the rain that is no longer falling. Its an effort to look busy and proactive when ignoring the obvious. I think all east coast inhabitants in Sydney and Melb should have to travel west of the divide and a few hundred km’s onto the western plains. Across the desert that is the Hay Plains or through Forbes. There is very little water west of the divide. And we manage what little we have abysmally. Last Christmas I drove from Mildura north across the Hay plains to Wagga. Irrigation was the only mechanism to get any green shoots. It was a grey moonscape. And so much of the irrigation running through open earth channels in the ground. I am guessing water loss of 30 % before it gets to its final destination. Some of these channels seemed to go for kilometres. And this does not talk to the blatant corruption that surrounds the water allocation process. We are just not serious about water governance or management.

      • Ailart SuaMEMBER

        !00% not serious about water issues. Over the years there’s been several proposals to bring excess water from northern Australia to southern regions. With todays better technology and the dire need to address this impending disaster, it’s difficult to fathom why, in this current ‘money printing’ and zero interest rate environment, governments aren’t getting off their backsides and at least commissioning the experts to review the proposals. Hopefully it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact water is a tradable commodity…

  2. If all those minor ‘inconveniences’ are a prerequisite for ensuring a single story, asbestos and mould ridden, storageless and draughty spider cave that’s ‘worth’ $1 x10 EE (infinity), then the peeps will continue to chase the dream

    Strayans are like life forms and DNA; only needed to advance the prosperity of the lenders who matter most of all.

  3. It’s not even up for discussion, least of all with voters. It is a given that Straya is heading back to 1.2-1.5% population growth, and the sheer vibrancy of fake congestion-busting. Morrison has carte blanche.

    • I do try and bring this up but am labelled a racist. I then point out their kids are being crowded out housing because of this and then silence. I need better people to hang out with.

  4. Mining BoganMEMBER

    Too late, it’s already gone.

    Although I must admit it was a much nicer place during lockdown.

  5. They are in Melbourne for a high paid time not a long time, so have no interest in long term livability, it would seem, their new jobs or retirement will take them to some new better place. Our cities are just tools to help their careers