Should replacing level crossings be given higher priority?
The Committee for Melbourne has called for a $17.2 billion program to remove all Melbourneâ€™s level crossings over the next 20 years.
The Committee says just two separations of road and rail were constructed by the Kennett government and two by the Bracks/Brumby government. While Melbourne has 172 level crossings, Sydney tackled the issue years ago and now has only eight.
However the Baillieu government has given an undertaking to grade-separate ten crossings at an estimated cost, on average, of around $100 million each. The Committee reckons the private sector could pay a big chunk of the $17.2 billion cost in return for the commercial rights to each site, although the Herald-Sun warns such a move would very likely â€śbe fiercely opposed by anti-development groupsâ€ť.
Thereâ€™s a lot to be said for giving a higher priority in the transport capital works program to eliminating level crossings, as they present a number of problems. One is they slow traffic, including buses and trucks. According to the RACVâ€™s public policy manager, Brian Negus, crossings along the Dandenong line are closed for 30-40 minutes an hour during the peak, exacerbating traffic congestion. This is likely to become a bigger problem as the share of public transport trips carried by buses increases. The interaction between crossings and nearby signalled junctions is a major barrier to the efficient performance of the transport network.
Level crossings also impose a limit on the frequency of train services. There are only so many trains that can realistically be sent down a line given each service entails stopping traffic in both directions for well in excess of one minute (in Newcastle, crossings are closed on average for passenger and freight trains for between three and seven minutes!). Some crossings are forecast to carry nearly 40 trains per hour in the peak by 2021. Â Another issue is traffic queuing across rail lines — as well as the occasional car/train incident — limits the efficiency of the network. Further, level crossings are a safety hazard for pedestrians and give parents a reason to discourage children from walking to school.
While Iâ€™ve not seen an analysis for Melbourne, there’s little doubt the benefit-cost ratio of level crossing elimination would be very high. I expect it would be well ahead of some other much larger transport projects, such as the Avalon, Doncaster or Rowville rail proposals.
There are nevertheless a number of issues raised by this proposal. One is the need to prioritise works â€“ some crossings are relatively minor and simply donâ€™t warrant expenditure in the forseeable future. Probably 80% of the benefits will come from grade separating 20% of crossings. Back in 2009, the Public Transport Users Association argued these ten crossing should be given the highest priority,Â given their impact on road-based public transport:
- Bell Street and Munro Street, Coburg (one project) (Smartbus 903)
- Springvale Road, Springvale (Smartbus 888/889)
- Bell Street, Cramer Street and Murray Road, Preston (one project) (Smartbus 903)
- Glen Huntly Road and Neerim Road, Glenhuntly (one project) (Tram 67, and trains subject to speed restrictions)
- Balcombe Road, Mentone (Smartbus 903)
- Buckley Street, Essendon (Smartbus 903)
- Clayton Road, Clayton (Smartbus 703)
- Burke Road, Gardiner (Tram 72, and trains subject to speed restrictions)
- Camp Road, Campbellfield (crossing elimination and new station) (proposed Smartbus 902)
- Glenferrie Road, Kooyong (Tram 16, and trains subject to speed restrictions)
Thatâ€™s a particular perspective, yet it matches some of the RACVâ€™s priorities. Last year the RACV said the four worst crossings in Melbourne are in High Street near Reservoir station, on Burke Road near Gardiner station in Glen Iris, on Clayton Road next to Clayton station, and Murrumbeena Road near the station. The Dandenong rail corridor also figures high in the RACV’s priorities.
Iâ€™m not sure there is as much value in development rights as the Committee for Melbourne imagines. Many level crossings, perhaps most, may not have enough suitable land available for development after meeting grade separation and operational needs. The most promising opportunities are probably where the rail line rather than the road has been lowered, but this can be expensive. Many of those that do have land available may be in locations considered unsuitable for development by planners. And letâ€™s be clear that development in air space over railway lines is a fantasy – it’s simply too expensive in all but an extremely small number of cases. For practical purposes, development in air space is not an option.
Effectively, the Committee is saying the Government could and should finance the program by selling â€śsurplusâ€ť railway land irrespective of how close it is to level crossings. Thatâ€™s an option but itâ€™s neither novel nor a silver bullet. Itâ€™s by no means clear how much railway land is (a) surplus to operational requirements, (b) is in the right locations for development, and (c) is attractive to investors. The potential to compromise strategic land use objectives is immense. The key issue is the net benefits from eliminating level crossings â€“ how itâ€™s financed is up to the Government to sort out.
Another important matter is the impact on surrounding land uses and the visual impact of road bridges/overpasses in a flat city like Melbourne. These problems might be addressed by tunnelling beneath roads or rail lines but thatâ€™s not going to be possible in all cases and is likely to be very costly. In some cases either overpasses will need to be constructed or, where a number of crossings are close, rail lines could be elevated â€śin structureâ€ť like the line from Clifton Hill to Jolimont, or placed underground.
Iâ€™ve seen quite a few attractive bridges but theyâ€™re mostly over water, meaning the banks are high enough to at least partly ameliorate the visual impact, or theyâ€™re mostly footbridges (like this, this, this, this and this), meaning their bulk is smaller than that of a four lane road. Designing a road overpass that doesnâ€™t look as looming and intrusive as Clifton Hill overpass will be a significant challenge.
P.S. Here’s another Metropolis 2 movie, this time with trains and buses!
Update: Vic road’s Caulfield to Dandenong rail crossing study.
BOOK GIVEAWAY:Â follow this linkÂ to be in the running for one of two copies of the new book by James Boyce,Â 1835: the founding of Melbourne and the conquest of Australia. Entries close midday on Thursday, 25 August.