Has Daniel Andrews gone loopy on rail?

The government stresses how the line connects 15 suburban centres. I can confirm the proposed alignment includes three of the largest suburban employment concentrations in Melbourne i.e. Clayton/Monash, Tullamarine and Box Hill. All up, the line connects half of all jobs in suburban centres. But most suburban jobs aren't in centres; only one fifth is, with the great majority relatively dispersed.

The case hasn't been made that there are existing or potential flows between the 15 centres that are so compelling they justify upgrading any sort of transport connection, much less a mass transit rail connection that costs $50 billion. Why, for example, is underground rail necessary between Doncaster and adjacent Heidelberg? Or between three minnows like Reservoir, Fawkner, and Broadmeadows?

Another key issue is that that most of the large suburban "centres" are low density compared to the CBD and cover an extended area; for example, the largest suburban employment concentration, Clayton/Monash, covers an area of 18 sq. km. While it makes sense in the small and ultra-dense CBD, a single high capacity rail line isn't the appropriate way to approach public transport in Melbourne's mostly sprawling suburban centres.

There are many other projects that should have higher priority for funding than this one. In terms of rail, they include more rolling stock, Metro 2, airport rail, electrifications and extensions, line duplications, signalling upgrades, level crossing removals, and more. There's an even more pressing need to expand bus and tram services and build related road works to increase priority.

***

Suburban public transport is crying out for improvement, but the suburbs are not the CBD or the inner city. They're low density and even the largest job centres are tiny in terms of job numbers and sprawling in terms of geography in comparison with the city centre. Driving within and across the suburbs is a lot more competitive with public transport than driving to the CBD. While ever governments refuse to countenance policies (like road pricing) that make driving less attractive, the demand for public transport for cross-suburban trips will continue, at best, to be modest.

A glamorous solution like a single high-capacity rail line would consume a generation's worth of public infrastructure spending for essentially no gain. And it's not necessary. Irrespective of cost, a much better solution would be to provide a multiplicity of parallel orbital bus or tram services that put all suburban residents within reasonable walking distance of high frequency public transport (e.g. see How can public transport work better in cities?).

Once the monumental cost is considered, the government's proposal is lunacy. This is not a "visionary" project as the gullible would have us believe; it's cynical, self-serving and massively wasteful.