Draft 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy

City of Greater Dandenong response to

Draft 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy

This submission reflects the views of executive officers of Council. The reference to Greater Dandenong throughout this document therefore means the executive officers of Council.

We appreciate the timelines that Infrastructure Victoria has been working to and that this has naturally prevented the direct involvement – and more importantly ‘ownership’ – by Council.

Infrastructure Victoria will appreciate that this officer submission will be shared with Council, once elected, and that this may modify any position and comments made below. While we trust that this submission will largely reflect the views of elected representatives it is important that any position is ‘owned’ by the elected Council.

Greater Dandenong is generally supportive of the recommendations contained in the draft strategy and congratulates Infrastructure Victoria on the work undertaken to date.

General comments

Plan Melbourne Refresh and other policy documents

While it is recognised that Plan Melbourne Refresh and other documents have been used to guide the recommendations it is also noted that “The final strategy will be updated to reflect any significant changes to these important strategic land use plans, subject to timing.”

It is now over a year since comments were sought on Plan Melbourne Refresh. Desirably the final recommendations onPlan Melbourne can be made before Infrastructure Victoria submits its infrastructure strategy to government to ensure consistency. Given the importance of Plan Melbourne and its influence on development directions within the metropolitan area it is strongly recommended that there is a demonstrable link between both strategies. It would be most unfortunate should this infrastructure strategy be submitted to government and a short time later Plan Melbourne Refresh were to make inconsistent recommendations.

Plan Melbourne – A polycentric city

Greater Dandenong is concerned that this strategy does not fully embrace the concept of a polycentric city

The Plan Melbourne Refresh discussion paper states that “While the CBD will continue as Melbourne’s largest employment centre, a polycentric city will provide more jobs in the suburbs at designated locations, such as in employment clusters. This will reduce the need for long trips and use existing infrastructure more efficiently by encouraging outbound or against- peak commuting to clusters and activity centres. It will also improve access to jobs and services for people living beyond inner Melbourne”.

We accept that a number of recommendations in this infrastructure strategy support this intent but it is Greater Dandenong’s viewthat they do not go far enough to underpin a change from a dominant central Melbourne. For example the title of Need 10 suggests a bias towards supporting access to economic activity in central Melbourne rather than building up services, jobs and economic activity in suburban or regional locations. However, we accept that some of the recommendations under Need 10 and Need 11 lend support to a polycentric city. The additional concept of 20 minute neighbourhoods appears to have received little demonstrated support through infrastructure investment.

Further comment is made later in this document.

Maintenance of infrastructure

Greater Dandenong is pleased to see reference to maintenance of existing infrastructure assets referred to throughout the strategy. It is strongly agreed that there is “no point providing new infrastructure if asset management and maintenance are not done properly”.

LGAs are closer to their infrastructure and despite many challenges (including rate capping) potentially have a more immediate and direct understanding of infrastructure needs.

By both design and circumstance, the State can be removed from its infrastructure and Greater Dandenong, along with others, would observe that for a range of reasons, a lot of State infrastructure is often maintained less frequently than local government infrastructure.

Greater Dandenong appreciates that State infrastructure can have a more direct relationship to broader economic initiatives hence a ‘specific’ priority on maintaining State infrastructure to the most appropriate standards should be pursued.

Notwithstanding, State and local governments spend considerable resources in maintaining and upgrading existing infrastructure assets. For instance Greater Dandenong's last annual budget allocated more than 50% of its capital investment to asset renewal and refurbishment. Many of the assets in the municipality were built in the 1960s or 1970s and are now reaching the ends of their useful lives. This resource allocation is also balanced with the need build new assets to satisfy changing needs in the community.

Local councils’ have Asset Management Strategies which determine the nature and direction of asset management. Objectives provide for a structured set of actions aimed at enabling improved asset management.

Greater Dandenong’s view is that the 30 year Infrastructure strategy should more clearly recognise the importance of maintenance and asset renewal of existing infrastructure. This might be in the form of a new section/chapter that highlights this issue with links to the Victorian Government’s existing Asset Management Accountability Framework.

‘Our top three’

Greater Dandenong generally supports the top three important actions recommended by Infrastructure Victoria.

In particular, Greater Dandenong supports the notion of “densification” or consolidation and has taken strong action itself in this regard to underpin the development of the Dandenong Major Activity Centre. Greater Dandenong also supports higher levels of activity near rail stations and other major public transport routes. Clearly, there needs to be protection of areas where accessibility is poor, important character needs to be preserved and where community outcomes would be better served by retaining low levels of redevelopment.

Making it work

Greater Dandenong has noted Recommendation 1.5.1 (Government Service/Infrastructure Planning). A similar recommendation emerged from Plan Melbourne and resulted in the establishment of regionally based consultative committees. While endorsed as a way of supporting collaboration between various levels of government and preparing detailed implementation plans, these have not been very successful and have little to show over the last year or so.

While there are already a range of other regional groupings and consultation mechanisms occurring across local governments there is limited cross border collaboration. Parochial and competitive business strategies still dominate municipal service and business planning.

Greater Dandenong endorses the concept of groupings to better plan infrastructure and land use on a regional basis. However, Greater Dandenong considers that there needs to be greater clarity on how this should be undertaken including the resources that should be applied to ensure that actions match the words and intent.

A related issue is the potential for confusion and overlap between the priorities set by other agencies such as the implementation work that will emerge from Plan Melbourne Refresh and the work program set by the Victorian Planning Authority with those recommended by Infrastructure Victoria. It is recommended that Infrastructure Victoria make recommendations to the government on how this might be avoided.

Making the strategy a standalone document

A comment that has emerged from some who have not been exposed to previous backgrounding papers is an explanation of what this final draft is, where it has come from and what its role is. It assumes the reader is aware of the foundations for thestrategy.

It is suggested that the strategy include an explanation of origins and purpose of the strategy and the role of Infrastructure Victoria. This would assist a first time reader who may not be familiar with what has preceded the final recommended strategy.

The following outlines a range of comments and where appropriate,further recommendations or changes to strengthen the Need:

Need 1 – Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth

General

The recommendations in this section are mostly supported.

Greater Dandenong supports the notion of “densification” or consolidation and has taken strong action in this regard to underpin the development of the Dandenong Major Activity Centre. Greater Dandenong also supports higher levels of activity near to rail stations and other major public transport routes. Clearly, there needs to be protection of areas where accessibility is poor, important character needs to be preserved and where community outcomes would be better served by retaining low levels of redevelopment.

Further support

Recommendation 1.3.5- Outer metropolitan arterial roads. Greater Dandenong in conjunction with VicRoads has assessed the need and priority for arterial road missing links as well as improvements to facilitate access to employment opportunities within the National Employment Cluster of Dandenong South. These arterial links play a critical role in offering efficient alternative routes for road-based freight.

Proposed changes

Recommendation 1.3.3 - SmartBus network. In addition to the expressed priority in the western suburbs, it appears to be an oversight to not include the introduction of “SmartBus” services along trunk access networks within the Casey/Cardinia growth area. In the eastern growth areas the population significantly exceeds that of the west and will do so for many decades. The eastern growth areas are poorly served by bus public transport and require feeder and trunk services to access the future high-capacity rail corridor as well as employment opportunities in Dandenong, Monash and beyond.

Recommendation 1.5.1 – Government Service Planning etc. This recommendation should be expanded to reference all parts of metropolitan Melbourne (and probably regional Victoria) and not just areas subject to high population growth. While rates of growth will vary, all parts of metropolitan Melbourne will experience extensive change through new growth or through consolidation.

Additionally, there is a need to continually assess and revise infrastructure needs. Therefore any infrastructure planning mechanisms need to be ongoing to reflect changing circumstances.

Any process developed within the next 5 years needs to reflect this ongoing need.

As mentioned in our previous submission and above a sub-regional approach can help better plan for, prioritise and help direct the implementation of agreed infrastructure options.

Need 2 - Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative population growth

The recommendations under this need are generally supported.

Need 3 - Respond to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, particularly due to ageing

The recommendations under this need are generally supported.

Need 4 - Enable physical activity and participation

General

The recommendations under this need are generally supported.

Proposed changes

Recommendation 4.1.2 Cycling/walking data. This recommendation should suggest that a common approach be undertaken to collecting cycling/walking data that enables easy comparison across LGAs.

Recommendation 4.1.3 Cycling corridors/walking improvements. In support of this need the roll out of Cycling Corridors and walking networks should be delivered within the next 10 years rather than 15 years. Besides, the physical and social connectivity that these relatively low-cost facilities enable and their role in encouraging a healthier lifestyle and associated benefits are vital.

Recommendation 4.2.1 Cycling/walking in established areas. The City of Greater Dandenong has very high car dependency and would welcome the opportunity to participate in one of the three recommended pilots to retrofit walking and cycling facilities in established suburbs.

Need 5 - Provide spaces where communities can come together

General

The recommendations under this need are generally supported.

Proposed changes

While Plan Melbourne is referred to in a number of places there should also be some recognition of the draft Metropolitan Open Space Strategy and whether this has been taken into account.

Need 6 - Improve accessibility for people with mobility challenges

General

The recommendations under this need are generally supported.

Support

Greater Dandenong supports those initiatives that relate specifically to Dandenong i.e. Recommendation 6.1.2.

Need 7 - Provide better access to housing for the most vulnerable Victorians

The recommendations under this need are generally supported.

Need 8 - Address increasing demand on the justice system

The recommendations under this need are generally supported.

Need 9 - Provide access to high-quality education infrastructure to support lifelong learning

The recommendations under this need are generally supported.

Need 10 - Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne

General

While the recommendations in this section are supported the need, as expressed, gives the wrong impression for what follows from many of the recommendations. The need infers that central Melbourne needs further support. However, many of the recommendations push in the opposite direction with the purpose of increasing economic activity and infrastructure support to non-central Melbourne locations.

As mentioned in the introduction above if the concept of a polycentric city is to be embraced, infrastructure planning must play a major part in achieving this objective in addition to underpinning the ongoing and important role that central Melbourne plays.

The role that a polycentric city plays should be highlighted in this need.

There are still far too many white collar jobs going to the CBD and too few to activity/employment centres such as Dandenong. If there is, at this stage, little to attract or encourage the private sector to do so, the State Government should lead the way by example and demonstration. Infrastructure support can only go so far.

Rather than the current title, it is suggested that the Need might be better expressed as “Meet the growing need for economic activity in central Melbourne and other major centres to support a polycentric city”.

Support

Greater Dandenong supports those initiatives that relate specifically to Dandenong i.e. Recommendation 10.4.4 and 10.4.5.

Proposed changes

Recommendation 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 – Development in established areas and Development in/around employment centres.These recommendations should be modified to reflect the need for a strong centralised policy direction to encourage growth in and around activity centres through instruments such as the long awaited Plan Melbourne Refresh.

Changes to planning schemes will not by themselves be sufficient to encourage development. There needs to be recognition that a more holistic approach is required that includes good urban design, a clear strategic framework, investment by Governments in infrastructure, land assembly in some cases and the necessary administrative mechanisms to achieve this.

Recommendation 10.4.6 – Metropolitan Train Stations. Dandenong is also a major and busy station with passenger boardings in the region of 2.4 million per annum (2013-14), only one third less than Caulfield which is at the junction of two metropolitan lines. Relatively minor changes at Dandenong would significantly improve passenger comfort and relieve congestion caused by the limited number of turnstiles, old and slow card readers and poor access to entry and exit points (particularly Platform 1).

This recommendation should reflect the need to make changes earlier than the recommended 5-30 year time horizon. Identifying the need should be undertaken within 5 years with infrastructure works being undertaken with the suggested 5-30 year time horizon.

Recommendation 10.9.1 and 10.9.2 – Melbourne Airport Bus and Melbourne Airport Rail link.While improvements to rail and bus access to Melbourne airport are welcomed, the south east of Melbourne will continue to be disadvantaged in terms of access to the airport for many years to come.

The delivery time for the Airport Rail Link should be shortened. At present, travel times to and from the airport are unpredictable and very often excessive. For south east residents these problems are exaggerated because of the greater travel distances involved. For a world-class city this is unacceptable. In the face of growing congestion and frequent freeway incidents we need this service in the short term.

It is recommended that alternative funding pathways be explored to hasten the delivery of this project. Cheaper international and domestic flights have made travel accessible to many more Melbournians and air travel to our city as a multi-faceted centre of attraction is increasing. For example other international airports levy airport taxes to fund infrastructure improvements. It is suggested that further rigorous and peer-reviewed assessment be commissioned to predict congestion delays getting to Tullamarine. Travel times for residents in the east and south east of Melbourne where a significantly higher proportion of regular domestic and international travellers reside, are unacceptably variable and long. These delay penalties could be contrasted with an airport levy in a willingness to pay survey across our city.

It is Greater Dandenong’s view that planning and works needed for an airport rail link should be accelerated and timed to coincide with the completion of the Melbourne Metro project completion, rather than the timeframe suggested.

Need 11 - Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres

General

The recommendations under this need are strongly supported.

Support

Greater Dandenong supports those initiatives that relate specifically to Dandenong i.e. Recommendation 11.2.3 – Transport Interchanges.

Recommendation 11.4.6 -North East Link. Greater Dandenong strongly supports this recommendation. This proposal has been considered in the south east region’s recent Freight Strategy and is considered a high priority initiative. It will provide an important part of an outer metropolitan orbital road in the east of metropolitan Melbourne and relieve the need for freight and other traffic to use other parts of the congested and busy freeway network to access the northern parts Melbourne.

While this link will have immediate benefits when built it will also help support freight movement to and from a new container port should one be established at Hastings.

In addition, the current State Government has not provided an alternative option to the east west link, which is now off the planning table. An alternative route is vital for commuters and freight traffic that travels east–west across the city and that regularly uses the M1. Dependence on the M1 often brings the south east to a grinding halt (either through congestionor accidents) and this has a huge impact on economic productivity at every level, making it difficult to plan commuter journeys and freight delivery times. There is an ongoing need to facilitate the alternative distribution of road freight across the east–west corridor given that the M1 remains the major route linking the south east of Melbourne and Gippsland to the Port of Melbourne and the interstate road freight network.