Balance Research

Maribyrnong City Council
Transport Strategy Section

Attn: Ian Butterworth

Dear Ian,

         PUBLIC SUBMISSION ON REGIONAL TRANSPORT STRATEGY

        Thank you for bringing me up-to-date on Council's 
interest in transportation strategies. The materials you provided 
show that Maribyrnong and other councils are keen to see a 
reduction in the growth rate of road transport.

I have already provided you with a copy of my recent paper "Can 
Rail be the Solution to Road Traffic Growth?". I invite you to 
share this with any interested parties, and I would be glad to 
receive any feedback as to its relevance and the viability of the 
ideas expressed. The key conclusion, you will recall, was that 
rail will have to grow much more than now expected.

I am preparing a further brief paper which summarises the main 
themes of my work. At this stage I have not been able to tie this 
in to the specific issues concerning the Western Region. But 
there are a couple of points which come to mind.

Councils would need to contribute to the all-government pool of 
resources needed to bring about a reduction in road growth rates. 
It is councils which are the most seriously impacted by that 
growth, with many councils reporting that they are unable to 
cover the cost of maintaining the local road system and that this 
has been made worse by reduction or closure of railway services.

In the western region there used to be many industries with their 
own rail loading facilities. All but a few of these sidings have 
been closed in the past 20 years, since the government railway 
indicated that it would no longer serve them.

Reinstatement of private siding operations may be possible with 
the new operator (Freight Victoria) reportedly being interested 
in smaller loadings. The economics of private sidings with only 
modest railings are such that one isolated siding is of limited 
interest, but once you have a few sidings along a ten-Km stretch 
it becomes quite viable.

Of course the full benefit in reduction of transportation 
resource usage will be realised only then there comes to be a 
nation-wide restoration of private sidings. Until shippers can 
send "siding-to-siding", they will still have to use containers 
with inter-modal operations at one end.
 
As a result of the probable inability of councils to make 
substantial contributions of money towards correcting the 
marketplace, I suggest that their contribution may be in 
performing the crucial role of being in touch with industries and 
leading them to consider how their needs could be met without 
total reliance on the road system.

Another thing for councils to do is to keep alert for 
opportunities to reserve land for railway purposes. Looking for 
new corridors, protecting the flanks of existing tracks (for 
expansion), and seeking land parcels which could accommodate a 
freight facility. This would of course be in conjuction with 
track owners and relevant State Departments.

The need to make peace with those residents whose lifestyle may 
be impacted by the growing railway activity is another essential 
task. Councils are well-placed to lead in this activity. The 
growing transport task will unavoidably affect many in society. 
Maximising the rail component will minimise the community-wide 
costs: but those affected may have difficulty seeing this.

It is my belief that users of transport facilities should 
compensate affected parties, thereby eliminating one of the 
present "invisible subsidies". If this happens, road users would 
pay more per tonne-Km than rail users, but affected parties near 
railways may well receive higher compensation.

The question of eliminating subsidies is of course part of the 
debate around demand reduction for transport, and there is no 
certainty that governments will be willing to go that way unless
resource usage becomes a hot issue.

When a new railway facility is proposed, councils could have 
input to ensure that it is consistent with the long-term need for 
rail to cater for more and more of the total task. This of course 
includes the passenger task. As I see it, most railways will need 
to carry both passenger and freight traffic in the long run.

In this regard it may be timely to suggest a close look at 
proposals for a railway to Melbourne Airport. The scheme to be 
adopted should allow for integration of the possible high-speed 
rail link from Canberra and Sydney, for which a Melbourne entry 
via the airport is clearly an option.

The route via Albion is likely to be the most suitable for the 
Airport-to-City part of that link. The interaction between the 
Sydney HST standard-gauge link and the Melbourne Airport broad-
gauge link needs to be studied. The possibility is that the new 
bridge over the Maribyrnong would need to provide for two tracks 
- a total of four. Or perhaps the airport link should also be 
standard gauge and terminate at the "new" Spencer Street?

The station at the airport would thus become a through station 
and need to have room for extra platforms with facilities to 
interchange from one service to the other. The long-distance 
trains would need longer platforms - between Sydney and Canberra 
they will be about 220 metres. Our present 6-car trains need 150 
metres, but of course it is possible that we will one day need 
eight-car trains like Sydney.

The airport rail layout should also provide for addition of a
freight facility. Airport freight services will probably be 
provided by a mixture of "freight EMU" and standard intermodal 
trains. A Freight EMU is an electric multiple unit train, like 
our current suburban units, but fitted out to carry containers of 
various kinds, presumably including airfreight-style. Their 
operating characteristics enable them to integrate with the 
passenger service.

The potential for significant urban developments in the wedge 
between the Broadmeadows or Seymour line and the St. Albans or 
Bendigo Line should also be remembered when considering the 
layout of the airport railway.

If you have any questions about this submission, please call the 
undersigned on 03-9689 7555.


Yours sincerely,




Michael Isaachsen