Jacinta Allan - Leading a zombie government

[peetoo]

But the timing of it and the cost. There's still residential land in the west and the north which is 25-30km from the CBD. The equivalent of Boronia or Bonbeach in the east and south.

So there is plenty of greenfield still available and in demand. It would still be better to provide a minimum service to the million people already living in the west who only have access to V-Line, to upgrade them to Metro services than to provide a bespoke service to future apartment dwellers.

Half the SRL catching is served by trains, buses and Trams already, while the west has minimal buses and V-Line trains.

Labor MPs express disquiet over Melbourne rail loop

Victorian Labor MPs have privately expressed frustration and concern over Premier Jacinta Allan’s vow to “double down” on the $125 billion Suburban Rail Loop.

www.afr.com

Been known for years much of the west hs been badly planned….she’ll be right Jack they’ll have to spend to solve the issues we are ignoring.

So what’s the developers answer? Lower planning standards (someone later will clean up the mess)

Funny how such as Jeff say ‘those unborn will be paying the bill’ but the alternative in ‘those unborn will have nice vanilla ghettos to live in’

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

They would still stop there, just like the V-Lines from Gippsland stop at Pakenham, Dandenong, Clayton and Caulfield.

The V-Lines wouldn't add the new intermediate stops that the Metro would stop at. The demand for these Metro trains already exists, there's even a stadium at Sayers Road station, but no station or trains. But the Govt thinks it's not a priority. That's why western back-benchers, who are usually well-connected within the party to get those safe seats, will be getting more and more vocal as the next election nears.

You can't get on a Citybound Vline train at Dandenong, Clayton and Caulfield nor can you exit on a Gippsland train at those stations. It's the same on every v/Line service. That's why the timetables have a u and d on them

The set down and pick up restrictions exist on Vline to stop suburban passengers filling V/Line trains.

When they do eventually run electric suburban trains to the likes of Wyndham Vale and Melton they will add those same restrictions. More than likely Ardeer, Deer Park, Tarneit, Rockbank, Cobblebank and Caroline Springs will become suburban stations with no V/Line trains serving them.

Like how Diggers Rest now sees 0 V/Line trains stopping post Sunbury electrification.

Melton and Wyndham Vale will more than likely have V/Line trains stop with the set down and pick up restrictions.

 

[Saint]

Been known for years much of the west hs been badly planned….she’ll be right Jack they’ll have to spend to solve the issues we are ignoring.

So what’s the developers answer? Lower planning standards (someone later will clean up the mess)

Funny how such as Jeff say ‘those unborn will be paying the bill’ but the alternative in ‘those unborn will have nice vanilla ghettos to live in’

It's been planned. The reservation is there, the cuttings and platforms were even built. You can see on an aerial where it all goes.

But then the ALP threw the plans in the bin and decided on a luxury project in the east instead of a necessary project in the west. Got me beat why anyone in the west would vote for the ALP (or LNP, to be fair, they've never done anything for the west either), but the ALP have taken them for granted.

God what Victorians wouldn't give for a decent opposition party.

 

[faible]

It's been planned. The reservation is there, the cuttings and platforms were even built. You can see on an aerial where it all goes.

But then the ALP threw the plans in the bin and decided on a luxury project in the east instead of a necessary project in the west. Got me beat why anyone in the west would vote for the ALP (or LNP, to be fair, they've never done anything for the west either), but the ALP have taken them for granted.

God what Victorians wouldn't give for a decent opposition party.

This. All their focus is on marginal electorates they might be able to flip, or not, but if the west is going to vote for them anyway, why bother.

 

[Sttew]

Did anyone hear Jacinta Allan's interview on 3AW yesterday? A train wreck of an interview. It was like Jacinta had come into the studio with prepared answers to questions that were never asked.

She was asked five times whether she was confident of receiving sufficient federal funding for 1/3 the cost of SRL to proceed. Jacinta refused to answer the question and instead said things like, "The Federal government are already a partner in this project." "Projects like SRL are 50:50 funded in Sydney". "The PM has declared SRL to be the most important infrastructure project in Australia"

On the state debt, Jacinta claimed it was Covid related, "investments in hospitals to keep people alive." "We have a fiscal strategy". "We're attracting more businesses to this state than any other state".

On regional Victoria she claimed "as someone who lives in regional Victoria I can tell you it is thriving". "We are embarking on a $970m blitz on road maintenance" "We are also investing in businesses in regional Victoria"

 

[Saint]

You can't get on a Citybound Vline train at Dandenong, Clayton and Caulfield nor can you exit on a Gippsland train at those stations. It's the same on every v/Line service. That's why the timetables have a u and d on them

The set down and pick up restrictions exist on Vline to stop suburban passengers filling V/Line trains.

When they do eventually run electric suburban trains to the likes of Wyndham Vale and Melton they will add those same restrictions. More than likely Ardeer, Deer Park, Tarneit, Rockbank, Cobblebank and Caroline Springs will become suburban stations with no V/Line trains serving them.

Like how Diggers Rest now sees 0 V/Line trains stopping post Sunbury electrification.

Melton and Wyndham Vale will more than likely have V/Line trains stop with the set down and pick up restrictions.

Situations are different. In the West, they'll be transitioning from using only VLines to bringing in additional Metro services. At least at the start, they won't need restrictions until the V-Lines fill up again.

Most at Tarneit end up standing in peak, so they'll be trying to get a seat on the metros rather than standing on the VLines.

 

[Saint]

Did anyone hear Jacinta Allan's interview on 3AW yesterday? A train wreck of an interview. It was like Jacinta had come into the studio with prepared answers to questions that were never asked.

She was asked five times whether she was confident of receiving sufficient federal funding for 1/3 the cost of SRL to proceed. Jacinta refused to answer the question and instead said things like, "The Federal government are already a partner in this project." "Projects like SRL are 50:50 funded in Sydney". "The PM has declared SRL to be the most important infrastructure project in Australia"

On the state debt, Jacinta claimed it was Covid related, "investments in hospitals to keep people alive." "We have a fiscal strategy". "We're attracting more businesses to this state than any other state".

On regional Victoria she claimed "as someone who lives in regional Victoria I can tell you it is thriving". "We are embarking on a $970m blitz on road maintenance" "We are also investing in businesses in regional Victoria"

Well, she went on 3AW, so that's an improvement on Andrews. And she answered the way any politicians answers a question they don't like. THey pretend they never heard it.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Situations are different. In the West, they'll be transitioning from using only VLines to bringing in additional Metro services. At least at the start, they won't need restrictions until the V-Lines fill up again.

Most at Tarneit end up standing in peak, so they'll be trying to get a seat on the metros rather than standing on the VLines.

They will instantly I reckon which lines up with past extensions of the suburban network.

Geelong trains are not quiet by any stretch.

 

[peetoo]

It's been planned. The reservation is there, the cuttings and platforms were even built. You can see on an aerial where it all goes.

But then the ALP threw the plans in the bin and decided on a luxury project in the east instead of a necessary project in the west. Got me beat why anyone in the west would vote for the ALP (or LNP, to be fair, they've never done anything for the west either), but the ALP have taken them for granted.

God what Victorians wouldn't give for a decent opposition party.

Was more meaning the ever increasing sprawl out west

 

[Saint]

Was more meaning the ever increasing sprawl out west

The sprawl out west is reflective of demand. And it's nowhere near as far as the south-eastern sprawl which is 55km from the CBD. That's the same distance as Kilmore, Macedon or Lara.

There's no reason we can't sprawl for another 20 years out west and north, if that's what people want.

 

[Rob R]

Hmm, we're struggling to pay the bills, debt and interest rates are going up. What should we do?

The ALP decided to take out a massive loan to build a highly-speculative Public Transport Project through the middle suburbs which already have the best public transport in the city.

All to benefit the three groups which pay the least tax out of any group:
1) Students
2) Apartment dwellers
3) Property developers

But you are forgetting the two most important considerations for the corrupt and incompetent Victorian government, 1) those property developers and the foreign constructions companies are big donors and 2) there are no marginal electorate in the West

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[leon123]

The sprawl out west is reflective of demand. And it's nowhere near as far as the south-eastern sprawl which is 55km from the CBD. That's the same distance as Kilmore, Macedon or Lara.

There's no reason we can't sprawl for another 20 years out west and north, if that's what people want.

As mentioned there is around 20 to 25 years left of sprawl land left in the north and west combined (less so out west).

There is a thing called a permanent Urban Growth Boundary limiting sprawl. Its a perfect time to start actively facilitating infill, decreasing the reliance on greenfield, therefore extending the 'life' of the remaining greenfield.

Hence the SRL, there is more redevelopment potential in the East and SE compared to the west and north

Sprawl is reflective of demand, due to price not demand for location.

The cost of providing infrastructure/services in greenfield is significantly more expensive than infill

 

[Saint]

As mentioned there is around 20 to 25 years left of sprawl land left in the north and west combined (less so out west).

There is a thing called a permanent Urban Growth Boundary limiting sprawl. Its a perfect time to start actively facilitating infill, decreasing the reliance on greenfield, therefore extending the 'life' of the remaining greenfield.

Hence the SRL, there is more redevelopment potential in the East and SE compared to the west and north

Sprawl is reflective of demand, due to price not demand for location.

The cost of providing infrastructure/services in greenfield is significantly more expensive than infill

The Urban Growth Boundary expands all the time. I don't think it's due to price rather than location. I think people want to live in detached housing with backyards.

You can get a 3br townhouse in Tarneit for <$500k, a 3br house is $600k. When given the choice, people place a premium on the outdoor living and land. Infill can't replace that.

 

[leon123]

The Urban Growth Boundary expands all the time. I don't think it's due to price rather than location. I think people want to live in detached housing with backyards.

You can get a 3br townhouse in Tarneit for <$500k, a 3br house is $600k. When given the choice, people place a premium on the outdoor living and land. Infill can't replace that.

The UGB has changed three times since its introduction, it wont again, it is permanent, needing both houses of parliament to agree to any change (wont happen).

Yes, you were once correct re space versus place - think back to the good old days 700 sqm (2003), median lot size is now 300 sqm in the growth areas, future development will be minimum 25 dwellings per hectare - no longer place versus space... it is relative price

 

[peetoo]

The Urban Growth Boundary expands all the time. I don't think it's due to price rather than location. I think people want to live in detached housing with backyards.

You can get a 3br townhouse in Tarneit for <$500k, a 3br house is $600k. When given the choice, people place a premium on the outdoor living and land. Infill can't replace that.

Descendants of middle suburb parents, faced a choice of apartment close or a townhouse in tarneit? Neither is what they want, but it is what they can afford.
Which do you think they are likely to choose?

And if they move further out. Transport links particularly fast ones a major factor

 

[leon123]

Descendants of middle suburb parents, faced a choice of apartment close or a townhouse in tarneit? Neither is what they want, but it is what they can afford.
Which do you think they are likely to choose?

And if they move further out. Transport links particularly fast ones a major factor

Thats true and relates to geographic housing markets (this is a proven demographic fact illustrated by ABS census).

People tend to stay in their geographic housing market, those from the east will not go to outer west - kence, villa, unit/townhouse in wider local area. There is no more greenfield in the east and soon, no more in the SE - hence need to activate redevelopment in the east and SE

SE greenfield has very limited potential for expansion

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

The sprawl out west is reflective of demand. And it's nowhere near as far as the south-eastern sprawl which is 55km from the CBD. That's the same distance as Kilmore, Macedon or Lara.

There's no reason we can't sprawl for another 20 years out west and north, if that's what people want.

There is - it's horrifically expensive to create a suburb from nothing. It's much cheaper to increase the density of a bunch of existing suburbs by 20%. The reason why we aren't doing this already is because we allow inner and middle ring councils to prioritise "character" over efficiency.

 

[10571z]

10 years of labor goverment and the state has been run into the ground.

How do we blame this on the Libs?

 

[Saint]

Descendants of middle suburb parents, faced a choice of apartment close or a townhouse in tarneit? Neither is what they want, but it is what they can afford.
Which do you think they are likely to choose?

Yeah, so developers will build more of the houses. The point of housing policy is not to give people what you will allow them, it's to give them what they want (as much as possible).

Why is the UGB 55km in the south east, but only 20km in the west?

The UGB has changed three times since its introduction, it wont again, it is permanent, needing both houses of parliament to agree to any change (wont happen).

Yes, you were once correct re space versus place - think back to the good old days 700 sqm (2003), median lot size is now 300 sqm in the growth areas, future development will be minimum 25 dwellings per hectare - no longer place versus space... it is relative price

Developers have already bought up land outside the UGB, they know it will change. And guess who funds State Govt political parties? Of course it will happen, just like it happened the last two times.

There is - it's horrifically expensive to create a suburb from nothing. It's much cheaper to increase the density of a bunch of existing suburbs by 20%. The reason why we aren't doing this already is because we allow inner and middle ring councils to prioritise "character" over efficiency.

It's not "horrifically expensive". In some cases, upgrading and adding to old suburban sewers and water pipes is a lot harder than building more in greenfield locations.

The developers pay the costs of development. If that's where people want to build, why are we preventing them?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

It's not "horrifically expensive". In some cases, upgrading and adding to old suburban sewers and water pipes is a lot harder than building more in greenfield locations.

The developers pay the costs of development. If that's where people want to build, why are we preventing them?

It is horrifically expensive in ways that are rarely ever attributed to urban growth on the fringes even though it's clearly the driving force. $900 million dollars was allocated last FY to build 16 new schools in Victoria. $150 million was tipped into ambulances mostly to improve coverage in new suburbs that used to be paddocks. No idea what the police, fire and SES funding is but I'm sure it would be at least $100m combined in new stations and assets. Then you have the roads take just the SE corridor where you've had $1bn worth of upgrades on the Monash Freeway since 2016, plus the $400m Mordialloc bypass plus the $1.5bn SERU.

And no, developers pay for none of the above. They cover specifically the infrastructure that sits within their boundary and make a token donation to a portion of the "wider" infrastructure upgrades (wider being limited almost to the road or pipe that connects to their property, never the whole network). The donation they make rarely even covers this infrastructure because the works don't start for sometimes years after the money is paid leaving the state to cover the shortfall due to inflation.

There's a smarter way to do things. Pipes and roads don't last for ever and need to be replaced every 10, 20, 50 years. When those assets are due to be replaced, replace them with the higher capacity to account for future suburb growth. When soliciting DA plans for higher density dwellings, approve them in the areas that the infrastructure has already been renewed. Prioritise the areas where public transport connections are sound and areas that are well serviced with arterial roads. There are parts of Melbourne where this is already happening - Preston & Coburg at Bell St, Northcote on High St, Moonee Ponds at the junction etc.

And that last point - it's not demand that drives people to the outer suburbs, it's supply. People who want a 3+ bedroom house with less than a million dollars to spend have literally no other option than to buy there. And as I've said earlier on this topic, if people were charged the true cost of what it takes to build a house in Pakenham and connect it to society then they couldn't afford that either.

 

[leon123]

Yeah, so developers will build more of the houses. The point of housing policy is not to give people what you will allow them, it's to give them what they want (as much as possible).

Why is the UGB 55km in the south east, but only 20km in the west?


Developers have already bought up land outside the UGB, they know it will change. And guess who funds State Govt political parties? Of course it will happen, just like it happened the last two times.

It's not "horrifically expensive". In some cases, upgrading and adding to old suburban sewers and water pipes is a lot harder than building more in greenfield locations.

The developers pay the costs of development. If that's where people want to build, why are we preventing them?

Oh saint, i was giving good statements,do you debate with a surgeon?

Hydraulics, are generally ok for infill, way cheaper than greenfield, there is capacity within the network.... some bottlenecks.

But you dont appear to be a listening type of person.... you know everything......

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

God what Victorians wouldn't give for a decent opposition party

They're too worried coming up with a fake crisis to make Labor look bad.

ham 🪴 (@hamhammer27.bsky.social)

I cannot believe they’re going defcon 1 this. The confected outrage over this is simply ridiculous, and is just fuelling complete misinformation over this. When in government their own transport plan literally recommended exactly this - organise the fleet into different lines.

bsky.app

For what it's worth the only trains that will use the metro tunnel are the HCMT fleet.
It was NEVER intended for the Comeng, Siemens, X'Trapolis 100 and X'Trapolis 2.0 fleet to ever run in the tunnel in a passenger carrying capacity.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

There's enough in the UGB until 2060 if we really want to keep going with the sea of suburbia bullshit.

 

[peetoo]

Not to mention the metro tunnel trains are already in the tunnel and being tested right now.

There’s literally a picture of a new train in the new tunnel under the crap headline

The new trains coming off the assembly line in Ballarat would not be ready for next year.

Now that would be a f up

 

[Saint]

It is horrifically expensive in ways that are rarely ever attributed to urban growth on the fringes even though it's clearly the driving force. $900 million dollars was allocated last FY to build 16 new schools in Victoria. $150 million was tipped into ambulances mostly to improve coverage in new suburbs that used to be paddocks. No idea what the police, fire and SES funding is but I'm sure it would be at least $100m combined in new stations and assets. Then you have the roads take just the SE corridor where you've had $1bn worth of upgrades on the Monash Freeway since 2016, plus the $400m Mordialloc bypass plus the $1.5bn SERU.

And no, developers pay for none of the above. They cover specifically the infrastructure that sits within their boundary and make a token donation to a portion of the "wider" infrastructure upgrades (wider being limited almost to the road or pipe that connects to their property, never the whole network). The donation they make rarely even covers this infrastructure because the works don't start for sometimes years after the money is paid leaving the state to cover the shortfall due to inflation.

There's a smarter way to do things. Pipes and roads don't last for ever and need to be replaced every 10, 20, 50 years. When those assets are due to be replaced, replace them with the higher capacity to account for future suburb growth. When soliciting DA plans for higher density dwellings, approve them in the areas that the infrastructure has already been renewed. Prioritise the areas where public transport connections are sound and areas that are well serviced with arterial roads. There are parts of Melbourne where this is already happening - Preston & Coburg at Bell St, Northcote on High St, Moonee Ponds at the junction etc.

And that last point - it's not demand that drives people to the outer suburbs, it's supply. People who want a 3+ bedroom house with less than a million dollars to spend have literally no other option than to buy there. And as I've said earlier on this topic, if people were charged the true cost of what it takes to build a house in Pakenham and connect it to society then they couldn't afford that either.

Schools is a bad example. Docklands Primary School cost $58 million for a multi-storey school with no grass. Casey Fields cost $20million and has multiple fields.

It costs slightly more, maybe 10-20% to accommodate greenfield development rather than infill. But there's simply no supply (very very little) of houses with yards in infill development. People want houses with yards and schools with fields.

There's hundreds or thousands of 3br apartments and nobody wants them and they're not getting cheaper, they're based almost entirely of build cost.

I love that suburbia was fine and good for the last 6 generations of Melbourne, but now those same people who grew up in them have decided it's too expensive to them for others to live in detached houses with yards 25km from the CBD. The same people living in detached homes in Burwood saying Urban Sprawl is bad mmkay.

At some point it should stop, but we're a long way from that. If the choice is between urban sprawl with a detached house and small yard, or an apartment or townhouse, people are choosing the detached house and yard. Partly price, partly preference.