Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport

Should the Doncaster DART be a train, a bus or a tram?

First a short review of the long wait for the Doncaster Train.

History of the Doncaster Train

Manningham citizens have been waiting a long time for this ghost train to arrive. Yarra citizens would also prefer to see more commuters catch public transport instead of driving polluting cars through congested streets. Truckies, Cabbies, tram and bus passengers, cyclists and pedestrians would all like to see less Driver Only Driver Owned DoDos clogging up the roads and polluting the air.

“The people of Doncaster are plaguing the life out of me to get a survey of the proposed line from Canterbury to Doncaster” - Local MP John Kews to the Premier Duncan Gillies 1888, Quoted by Graeme Davison [The Age, April 20 2008].

A train line from Kew station to Doncaster was surveyed in the 1929 plan for Melbourne along with the Glen Waverly line. However depression and war intervened and the Doncaster Line was never built.

When the F19 (Now Eastern) Freeway was designed in the 1970’s, A train line to Doncaster was included in the wide median strip down the middle of the freeway. when it opened the freeway only went as far as Thompson Road. The line was proposed in response to community outrage at the prospect of hundred of thousands of cars being dumped of the end of the freeway onto Alexandra Parade and Hoddle Street.

Not only was the median reserved for a rail line, but a tunnel was blasted to Victoria Park station, where the train was to join the existing tracks to Jollimont. Blasting caused cracks in houses around Abbostford, Collingwood and Clifton Hill. The rail line was published in the 1982 Melway Edition 14.

This line could not be afforded by Cain/Kirner Government during a period of declining patronage of public transport and the Kennett Governement sold the reservations in East Doncaster where the stations were to be located, and the line disappeared from later Melway editions.

The rail line proposal resurfaced during the Northern Corridor Study. Its 2003 report found that mass transit to Doncaster, together with other initiatives consistent with the still new Melbourne 2030 plan, would make the road tunnel unnecessary.

The study reported:

“An east-west tunnel is the only real way to remove traffic from Royal Park, but it is difficult to justify the expense, even of a shorter tunnel, based on relief to this area alone. Relief to the rest of Alexandra Parade and Princes Street route is less assured (these are significant traffic reductions, but remaining traffic levels are still substantial). Induced traffic may refill the additional road capacity unless it is utilised for other purposes (eg. improving north-south priority, public transport, cycling and walking facilities) …“

- Northern Central City Corridor (NCCC) Strategy, Draft (and Final) report August 2003, Department of Infrastructure. The NCCCS concluded that “no further investigation should take place on road tunnel options in the inner north.”

A light rail or busway solution would run from a new underground bus/tram interchange at Doncaster Hill, in a dedicated right of way along Doncaster Road, then in the median of the Eastern Freeway from Doncaster Road to Alexandra Parade, requiring widening of the Freeway from Bulleen Road to Doncaster Road. From there, it would run along Alexandra Parade (in a dedicated right of way, and probably taking a traffic lane in each direction) to Nicholson Street, where it would join tram route 96 into the City … another option would be to turn into Elgin Street and Swanston Street to serve Melbourne University more directly, then into the city along Swanston Street. High-speed vehicles would be used to provide competitive overall journey times compared with car travel (and also to travel along the freeway at noticeably higher speeds than cars).

A heavy rail solution would run underground from Doncaster Hill to the Eastern Freeway at Bulleen Road, following the freeway median from there to the Clifton Hill railway overpass. At this point it would turn south, leaving the median to join the Clifton Hill line north of Victoria Park station. Doncaster train services would then enter the city using the city loop (service patterns would need to be worked up in detail).
A hybrid solution would combine features of the heavy and light rail options, running from Doncaster Hill along Doncaster Road and into the Freeway reserve (as per the bus and light rail options), then joining the Clifton Hill line at Victoria Park to run into the CBD using the city loop. The hybrid solution would require specially-designed vehicles capable of running in an on-road situation
With all options, the primary objective would be to provide a competitive edge, with shorter overall journey times than car travel, and much-improved reliability, capacity and passenger amenity than the present bus services. This means that DART will need to be fully segregated from road traffic throughout its length. An integral part of DART would be the redesign of bus services in the Doncaster corridor to improve their coverage and provide effective feeder services to and from the rapid transit system, including an effective bus/DART passenger interchange at Doncaster Hill. Before any commitment is made to DART, a full feasibility study is needed into the options available, the potential benefits and costs. In the meantime, any land needed for future options should be protected.

View Larger Map

Should the DART be a train, tram or bus?

This is an important question with significant implications for potential service users and providers. Factors include the route, destinations, interchanges, initial investment, running costs and revenue, speed and capacity. The different modes have significantly different strengths a weaknesses.

Advantages of trains (Heavy Rail) include its ability to go faster, and carry many more passengers into central locations with fewer drivers than bus or trams (light-rail). They are also independent of the road network assuming no level crossings. The train’s disadvantage is the higher initial cost as trains are not suited to go up hills, so extensive tunnelling is required under Doncaster Hill, if that is the chosen route.

Alternate Heavy rail routes include continuing along the Eastern Freeway to avoid tunneling, then following Eastlink with major park-and-ride stations along the route. An example is the new, cost-effective and popular railway along the Mitchell Freeway in Perth. The new Perth train lines have stations in the middle of the freeway, with elevated cross-overs for busses, pedestrians and large adjacent car parks. It is a land-use and transport model appropriate for the East-Link. The train would depend on a significant feeder-bus network.

Capacity

The Clifton Hill Group is one line that does have capacity for more trains to join the system, especially with the new Merri Creek bridge and controversial city loop reversal in the mornings proposed for later this year. The Clifton Hill line may reach capacity some time in future. Then it would be difficult to add additional tracks between Victoria Park and Jollimont. An alternative option may be for some trains to continue west, possibly in a tunnel, to the University of Melbourne. The Clifton Hill to Melbourne Uni route would also suit buses and trams, and reduce traffic demand and congestion on Alexandra Parade and Princes Street.

Light rail and bus is cheaper to build than heavy rail, but shares road space with other modes. Without priority over cars (often proposed but rarely delivered) it suffers from the same congestion related efects (unreliable, slow, polluting). Tram priority is often proposed but rarely delivered. The Former Premier, Sir Rupert Hamer said “Trams must have priority at Smith, Brunswick, Nicholson, and Lygon street intersections and that storage of traffic must be on the freeway itself, not Alexandra Parade” [The Melbourne Times, December 14 1977]

Yarra Trams submitted to Eddington a feasibility study for a light rail along the Doncaster corridor, joining the 86 tram route at Smith St and Alexandra Pde. The study’ findings were not released. Alternatives would have the new tram join the 96 route at Nicholson St, or continue to Swanston Street or Royal Parade.

Buses are flexible. This is why they are least trusted by commuters. There have been buses along the freeway since it opened. It must be horrible being a driver on one of those buses. Eddington Recommendation #6 for a new, state-of-the-art bus service for doncaster proposes a significant bus upgrade. The costs of building and running it are not compared with other options. When asked if he was convinced buses, not trains were the solution, Sir Rod said there were more urgent rail projects in the west but don’t let anyone remove rail reservation down the Eastern freeway [Monash Transport Lecture, SLV 28 august 2008]. Buses suffer from road congestion at both the city and mznningham ends of the route. It may be hard to employ and train enough bus drivers to make a long-term dint on demand.

Carbon Impacts

Public Transport is the most efficient way of moving large numbers of people to work in the city, or attend a major event.

With brown coal used to generate electricity, trains and trams are not nearly as clean as they will be when the power grid converts to renewable generation. But even today, a peak-hour train still has less emissions per passenger than trams or diesel buses. Off-peak, all forms loose efficiency. Buses powered by Methane captured from landfill would in theory have negative emissions, but this would not scale up to a metropolis. LPG (Natural Gas) has slightly lower carbon emissions. Biofuels are even worse than petrol given their role in deforrestation in the region.

Large scale decarbonising of the stationary electricity grid is likely the occur before transport is decarbonised. [Flannery, The Weather Makers]. So electric trains look the most suitable solution.

Royce Millar  writes “Psst, Sir Rod: Have you heard about something called greenhouse?” [the Age April 3 2008].

Carbon monoxide has nasty effects on the brain including markedly lengthening driver response times, a bit like having alcohol.

What can I do?

Write to politicians and the papers.

Get involved with YCAT.

Contact Pt4me2.org.au - an initiative of the Metropolitan Transport Forum and tell them to promote the Doncaster Rail project.

If you live in the catchment area, write to your local Council and ask them to lobby for a train. Better still, ask them to do a feasibility study.

Join the Public Transport Users Association.