Investing in Transport
An analysis of submissions sent to Sir Rod Eddington’s the East West Link Needs Assessment
Kate Wilson
University of Melbourne
October 2008
Investing in Transport: an analysis of submissions sent to Sir Rod Eddington’s the East West Link Needs Assessment
Kate Wilson
University of Melbourne
Victorian Parliamentary Internship Report
Prepared for Colleen Hartland MLC
Member for Western Metropolitan Region
October 2008
DISCLAIMER
This report is not an official report of the Parliament of Victoria. Parliamentary Intern Reports are prepared by political science students as part of the requirements for the Victorian Parliamentary Internships program. The program is jointly coordinated by the Parliamentary Library, the University of Melbourne, MonashUniversity and VictoriaUniversity. The views expressed in the report are those of the author.
© Kate Wilson 2008
Contents page
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….
Executive summary……………………………………………………………….
List of figures......
Abbreviations......
1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………
1.1 Methodology………………………………………………………..
1.2 Limitations of this report…………………………………………
2.0 Results of submissions......
3.0 Analysis of support for the road tunnel…………………………………..
3.1 Infrastructure needs……………………………………………….
3.2 Reducing congestion……………………………………..……….
3.3 Reducing travel time………………………………………………
3.4 The economy……………………………………………………….
3.5 Population growth…………………………………………………..
3.6 A benefit to climate change and peak oil………………………..
3.7 Other…………………………………………………………………
3.8 Support for public transport infrastructure………………………..
4.0. Analysis of opposition to the road tunnel………………………………..
4.1 Increased congestion…………………………………………….
4.2 Public transport infrastructure……………………………………
4.3 Climate change…………………………………………………….
4.4 Peak oil………………………………………………………………
4.5 Lack of trust in Eddington and EWLNA………………………….
4.6 Housing acquisition……………………………………………….
4.7 Cost excessive……………………………………………………..
4.8 Population growth…………………………………………………
4.9 Specific Issues……………………………………………………..
4.1.0 Other……………………………………………………………….
5.0 A note on locality of submissions……………………………………….
6.0Conclusion…………………………………………………………………
7.0Recommendations………………………………………………………..
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….
Acknowledgements
I am especially grateful to Colleen Hartland for her assistance and support preparing this report. I also gratefully acknowledge the brilliant electoral staff Liz, Mae, Freja and particularly Sam Gaylard, for their support, input and advice.
Many thanks go out to fellow interns Phil, Hannah and Madeline and friends Aurelia, Jo and Justyna for their encouragement during the internship process.
I would also like to thank Professor Brian Costar, Dr. Paul Straggio, Dr. Julie Stevens and Dr. Greg Gardiner.
Executive Summary
In 2006, the Victorian Government commissioned infrastructure expert Sir Rod Eddington to undertake a comprehensive study into improving east-west transport connections across Melbourne. 31 March 2008 Eddington completed the East West Link Needs Assessment (EWLNA) and delivered his Investing in Transport report to government. It was followed by a 15 week submissions process that ended on 15 July 2008 with 2149 submissions received. According to the Department of Transport, all public comments will be considered as part of a comprehensive Victorian transport plan, which the Government will release by the end of the year.
The most contentious recommendation of Eddington’s report was recommendation four:
- A new 18 kilometre cross city road tunnel extending from the Western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway
The overwhelming majority of submissions were either in fervent support or opposition to this proposal. 8 percent of submissions supported the tunnel, 78 percent of them opposed it and the remaining 14 percent of submissions were either undecided about the tunnel or were responding to other recommendations.
This report provides results and analysis of the analysis of the submissions to EWLNA specifically in regards to the east-west tunnel. The information they provided will be quantitatively and qualitatively displayed.
Submissions were in favour of the east-west tunnel on the following basis:
●infrastructure needs
●reduce congestion and travel time
●economic benefits
●climate change and peak oil benefits
●other
Reasons given in opposition to the tunnel were:
●favouring public transport solutions
●environmental reasons and climate change
●an increase in congestion
●compulsory housing acquisition
●the price of petrol and peak oil
●excessive cost of the tunnel
●specific issues, for example the destruction of parkland
●other
The Brumby government has announced that every one of these views will be considered in the decision making process. At the time of writing the government is still developing its transport response so it remains to be seen exactly how the submissions will be taken into account. This report is a comprehensive analysis of the submissions on the road tunnel – of what people are saying – and thus in hindsight will be used to determine if and how the submissions have been considered. Due to the controversial nature of recommendation four, there has been much community debate on whether the road tunnel proposals are a forgone conclusion and will be adopted by the Brumby government.
It is for this reason that this report will recommend the government release its own analysis of the submissions to EWLNA and justifies how they were used in formulating its transport policy.
List of figures
Figure 1: Results of submissions on the east-west tunnel…………………...
Figure 2: Percentages of submissions on the east-west tunnel……………..
Figure 3: Reasons submissions were in favour of the east-west tunnel……
Figure 4: Reasons submissions were against the east-west tunnel………...
Figure 5: Proportion of support for the east-west tunnel……………………..
Figure 6: Proportion of opposition to the east-west tunnel…………………...
Figure 7: Breakdown of figures supporting and opposing the tunnel…………
List of abbreviations
DoI - Department of Infrastructure
DoT - Department of Transport
EWLNA - East West Link Needs Assessment
MOTC - Meeting Our Transport Challenges
NGO - Non Government Organisation
VECCI - Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry
1.0 Introduction
In 2006 the Victorian Government commissioned infrastructure expert Sir Rod Eddington to investigate transport solutions for connecting Melbourne’s eastern and western suburbs. Known as the East West Link Needs Assessment (EWLNA), Eddington was supported by an expert Study Team and a number of specialist consultants who carried out extensive research, modelling and analysis. The study also considered 138 submissions provided by individuals, local councils, community organisations and business groups.
EWLNA was commissioned in the context of Melbourne’s changing and growing population resulting in increased congestion on roads and the public transport system. The basic premise behind the report is that for Melbourne to remain an attractive, liveable and successful city, it needs a transport system that can keep up with its growth. As required by Eddington’s terms of reference, the Study Team thoroughly explored the existing and potential demand for east-west travel across Melbourne. According to Eddington: “I have taken into account the characteristics valued by Melburnians as they move around the city: reduced travel times, reliability in travel times, reasonable costs, comfort, safety and security.”[1]
EWLNA delivered the final report Investing in Transport, to the Premier of Victoria, the Honourable John Brumby, on 31 March 2008. The report contained 20 recommendations for improving east-west connections in Melbourne. Briefly, these included a series of new rail lines to outer western suburbs and electrification of the Sunbury line, alternative truck routes, improving freight movement by rail, improving cross-city cycle links, reducing carbon emissions with more efficient standards for vehicles and developing a statutory authority to implement the EWLNA recommendations. The Eddington report also made two major infrastructure recommendations:
- A new 17 kilometre rail tunnel linking Melbourne’s fast-growing western and south-eastern suburbs
- A new 18 kilometre cross city road tunnel extending from the Western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway
The Brumby Government is currently developing its transport plan for Victoria to be released by November this year. The plan will respond to proposals for Melbourne's east-west corridor in Sir Rod Eddington's report and other transport priorities across the state.Before releasing its response to Eddington’s report, the government called for submissions from the public. A total of 2149 submissions were received by the Department of Transport, with an average of one submission every ninety seconds on 15 July, the closing day for submissions. The submissions were again from individuals, business groups, community organisations, and local councils. There were also comments from children, their parents, unions, social services, architect and urban planning groups, transport industry representatives, and more. The submissions came in the form of hand written letters, emails, pro-formas, petitions, bound documents and even videos from interested groups.
The overwhelming majority of submissions were from individuals in response to recommendation four – that a road tunnel is built linking the western and eastern suburbs. The tunnel was by far the most controversial recommendation of Investing in Transport. Of over 2000 submissions received, more than eighty five per cent of them referred directly to the road tunnel in either fervent opposition or support of the proposition. The scope of this report is thus focused solely on analysing the submissions regarding recommendation four. Having examined all the submissions in their entirety and extensively documenting the reasons for opposition or support for the tunnel, this report will present the quantitative and qualitative information they provided.
In a media release at the close of submissions, Roads and Ports Minister Tim Pallas said: “The job at hand now is to listen to each and every one of those views and make the decisions needed to build the best transport system for Victoria.” With reference to the transport plan the Brumby Government will deliver by the end of the year Pallas states: “All of the 2100 public comments received will help us make those big decisions.”[2] It is for this reason that this report will recommend the government release its own analysis of the submissions and how they were used in formulating its transport response.
The release of the government’s own analysis is particularly pertinent given there has been much debate in the media that the Eddington proposals are a forgone conclusion and will be adopted by the Brumby government. Pat Love, the secretary of the Victorian Labor Party's transport policy committee, foreshadowed this view by resigning from the committee. Love resigned in protest at the decision of the committee to endorse all 20 recommendations in Eddington’s report to the State Government, citing his opposition to the multibillion-dollar road tunnel linking the city's east and west and the ineffective consultation process.[3] This report aims to be a comprehensive analysis of the submissions on the road tunnel and what people are saying. At the time of writing the government is still developing its transport response; it remains to be seen exactly how the views of the submissions are taken into account.
1.1 Methodology
Preparing this report entailed reading over 2100 submissions, all of which are available to the public on the Department of Transport website.[4] The results were recorded on an excel spreadsheet, including who made the submission (individual, business, community organisation, local government or other), the suburb they were from, whether they were “for” or “against” the tunnel, and up to four reasons why. Submissions that were undecided about the tunnel or referred only to other recommendations of EWLNA were marked as “other” and not counted in the totals for support and opposition.
Specifically, the dominant justifications in support of the tunnel were:
●infrastructure needs
●reduced congestion and travel time
●economic benefits
●climate change and peak oil benefits
●other
Reasons given in opposition to the tunnel were:
●increase congestion
●favouring public transport solutions
●environmental reasons and climate change
●compulsory housing acquisition
●the price of petrol and peak oil
●excessive cost of the tunnel
●specific issues, for example the destruction of parkland
●other
Each of these arguments supporting and opposing the tunnel will be analysed in detail and there will also be an investigation into who made submissions. This is necessary because generally speaking there were more businesses supportive of the tunnel while individuals and community organisations were predominantly against it. Local councils weighed in on both sides of the debate.
1.2 Limitations of the reportGiven the sheer number of submissions it was not possible to record every reason that a submission may have been either supportive or opposing the road tunnel. Thus due to time constraints it was decided that a maximum of four reasons were recorded. Often submissions listed more than ten reasons they were supporting or opposing the tunnel; occasionally they listed no reason at all. Given this, the results and graphs should be considered to be a snapshot of priority issues people were concerned about.
It is also important to note that of the 2149 submissions, many were signed by the whole family, friends or acquaintances as well. There were also a number of petitions submitted or groups of letters on the same issue. As the government has counted these as only one submission, this report will do the same. But it is important to acknowledge that the number of people interested in this issue is substantially more than the 2149 submissions tallied.
2.0 Results of submissions
From 2149 submissions, 171 of them were explicitly in favour of the road tunnel while 1669 were against it. These results are displayed in the graphs below. Figure 1 shows the results of submissions in numeral terms.
Figure 1: Results of submissions on the east-west tunnel
Figure 2 represents the proportion of submissions that were in favour, in opposition and ambivalent to the proposed east-west tunnel.
Figure 2: Percentages of submissions on the east-west tunnel
Figure 3 charts the justifications given in support of the road tunnel. The two biggest issues were the need for infrastructure and reducing congestion. There is also a column displaying support for public transport initiatives.
Figure 3: Reasons submissions were in favour of the east-west tunnel
Figure 4 represents the issues behind opposition for the tunnel. The most documented issues were the need for more public transport infrastructure instead of roads, concern for climate change and then specific issues, such as the destruction of JJ Holland Park in Kensington or RoyalPark in Parkville.
Figure 4: Reasons submissions were against the east-west tunnel
Figure 5 displays the percentages of those who support the road tunnel in the submissions – individuals are largest proportion making 68% of the submissions in favour of the tunnel, followed by business at 19%.
Figure 5: Proportion of support for the east-west tunnel
Figure 6 displays the percentages of those opposing the tunnel, individuals are again the biggest category with 95%. NGOs are the next category at 2% while business opposing the tunnel is only 1% of submissions.
Figure 6: Proportion of opposition to the east-west tunnel
Figure 7: Breakdown of figures supporting and opposing the tunnel
Individual/ Business / Local Government / NGO / Other / TOTALS
Submissions
For Tunnel / 115 / 33 / 14 / 0 / 8 / 170
Submissions Against / 1590 / 19 / 16 / 36 / 9 / 1670
TOTALS / 1705 / 52 / 30 / 36 / 17 / 1840
The above table shows the number of submissions in each category for and against the east west tunnel. As a percentage:
● Individual submissions were 7% in favour and 93% against
● Business submissions were 63% in favour and 37% against
● Local Governments were 47% in favour and 53% against
● NGOs were 100% against
● Other categories were 47% in favour and 53% against
3.0 Analysis of support for the road tunnel
Support for the east-west tunnel was varied and diverse. The explanations listed below are by no means exclusive and should not be viewed as such. The list provided represents an analysis of the most common rationales behind supporting the tunnel by individuals, business and local council. In many instances the issues are interlinked or overlap; often they agree with the justifications Eddington provides though not in all cases.
Individuals are the biggest category supporting the tunnel (see Figure 5) but as a percentage the tunnel only has the support of 7 percent of individuals who made a submission. Business is the biggest supporter, with 63 percent of submissions from business being in favour of the tunnel. Local governments were split in their submissions but it was generally a locality issue – inner suburban councils were more often opposed to the proposed tunnel and outer suburban councils were predominantly supportive of it.
3.1Infrastructure needs
The need to update road infrastructure is the single biggest justification given for the east-west tunnel. According to Master Builders, a major Australian building and construction industry association, “Victoria has a massive infrastructure backlog which requires urgent attention”[5] and the east-west tunnel is a start to re-dress a lack of infrastructure. Alternative infrastructure to the WestgateBridge for moving freight is also a priority. The Victorian Freight and Logistics Council, an independent industry advisory body that provides advice to government on freight, typify this view: “It cannot be stressed sufficiently that the east-west road corridor which provided an alternative to the WestgateBridge is necessary for freight movement” and it is an “urgent priority.”[6] LeadWest, an umbrella group representatives from five participating Local Councils in the West, cite the tunnel is needed because of the growing demand for cross city travel and the lack of direct cross-city connection.[7] The group forecasts that growing population, heightened economic activity and associated growth “presents an associated infrastructure challenge” that unless tackled will place further stress on Melbourne’s only major east-west link, the Westgate-Monash corridor.[8] Businesses were particularly vocal on the need for infrastructure but there were also submissions from a number of individuals supporting this notion.