Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Progressives and public transport advocates should be calling the Andrews government out on its nakedly political suburban rail 'loop' ploy

By Alan Davies - posted Thursday, 6 September 2018

Melbourne needs better cross-city public transport, but the Andrews government's promise to build a single suburban orbital rail "loop" isn't the way to provide a real solution. Despite the eye watering cost, it doesn't even come close.

The promise is proving popular politically but the real benefits look very modest in absolute terms and positively miniscule relative to the massive cost. The claim that there'll be 146 million trips on the line in the year it's fully completed is implausible; it would do Trump proud.

That's more than three times as many departures/arrivals as currently pass through Sydney's domestic and international airports combined, and 15 times as many trips as airport users make on Sydney's airport train. It's more than the number of trips on 14 of the Paris Metro's 15 lines (a city where driving is far less competitive relative to public transport than it is in suburban Melbourne).


That's not to say the governments loop is without any merit; its key advantage is providing a suburban link between most of Melbourne's existing radial train lines. But the benefits from a building a single rail link at a substantial distance from the city centre aren't even remotely commensurate with the generational-scale of funding required.

This promise only provides one rail line. Better than nothing you might say, but it still leaves substantial dead zones without high quality public transport. For example, there are no works in this promise to provide better cross-town transit in the 14 – 19 km gap between the CBD and the first stage (Cheltenham to Box Hill). It still leaves a similar gap in the outer suburbs that stretch out even further beyond the proposed alignment.

Nor does it do much for those who don't live close to a rail line. Most rail users live within a kilometre of a station, but even most of those lucky enough to live on the planned route won't be able to walk to a station – there's a 6 km gap between Cheltenham and Clayton stations, 9 km between Box Hill and Heidelberg stations, 10 km between Reservoir and Fawkner stations; and 13 km between the (new) Airport and Sunshine stations.

Of course no government can feasibly construct a dense grid of cross-city services if they all have to be heavy rail, much less underground rail. Even with a paltry 15 stations in 90 kilometres, this one will cost at least $50 billion.

That's a massive expenditure. It's three times the size of Rudd's GFC-avoiding BER program. It's close to seven times what it would cost to double the number of trams in Melbourne. It's enough to build 500 public hospitals or 2,500 suburban public high schools. As I noted last time, it's the same as the estimated cost of building a 750 km High Speed Rail line between Sydney and Melbourne (see Has Daniel Andrews gone loopy on rail?).

Melbourne simply can't hope to replicate something like central Paris, with its network of 15 criss-crossing underground rail lines and 303 stations. The Paris Metro only covers the central 5 – 6 km radius, about 100 sq. km. Melbourne's built-up area is orders of magnitude larger; about 2,500 sq. km. Melbourne is also notable for its sprawling footprint whereas Paris is one of the densest cities in the developed world (see Can we build a Metro just like the one Paris's got?).


Progressives shouldn't be blinded by the glamour of the Andrews proposal. There's a much better way that would cost considerably less and provide much greater benefits.

Progressives should demand a 'grid' of high-quality light rail and bus services providing frequent "turn up and go services" so public transport travellers can go from "anywhere to anywhere" in the metropolitan area. They should call on the Andrews government to blanket the metropolitan area with high-quality services every 2 kilometres or so in both directions and provide a stop every 1 – 1.5 km in every direction on all routes.

A 'grid' like this would put every household in Melbourne, no matter how far they live from a rail line, within walking distance of a frequent service at both the origin and the destination of their journey. It would provide a cross-town connection every two kilometres with all the existing radial train, tram and BRT lines right through from the inner city to the outer suburbs. Crucially, it would also provide additional high-quality radial services in the extensive gaps between rail lines.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published on Crikey.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Alan Davies is a principal of Melbourne-based economic and planning consultancy, Pollard Davies Pty Ltd ( and is the editor of the The Urbanist blog.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Alan Davies

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy