Competing visions: The battle for Bay Road

Anyone in transport needs to read (now Dr) John Stone's PhD thesis Political factors in the rebuilding of mass transit: an investigation of failure in Melbourne since 1970 through comparisons with Perth and Vancouver written in 2008. 

It's long but there has been no more detailed account of the oscillation of transport policy in Victoria for the 40 or so years to 2008. And I do think that 'oscillation' rather than 'progression' or 'development' is a fairer description.  

One thesis theme is that there has been a constant battle between (i) dispersed car-based and (ii) more clustered multimodal public and active transport planning visions in policy and bureaucratic circles. Different sections of state/provincial and local governments can emerge to champion one or the other at different times. 

Varying influences

The thesis describes toing and froing between competing institutions like the Country Roads Board/Vicroads, Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works, Victorian Railways as well as certain transport ministers in detail. For example it describes the modal narrowness of the tramways and railways leadership of the 1970s and early 80s and their replacement with roads-background leaders heading The Met.

Ideas, and where they sit, are important. Mass automobility found a comfortable (and increasingly influential) home in the Country Roads Board/Vicroads/Linking Melbourne Authority. Other concepts, including those supportive of clustered land uses, walkable centres and public transport, also found homes in other organisations over the years. Indeed you could argue that ideas are enduring with history being an account of where they sat in various places and the influence they carried.     

2012's creation of Public Transport Victoria put those with operational experience of public transport at the top of public transport for the first time in years, with leaders Ian Dobbs, Mark Wild and Jeroen Weimar (all British). PTV's notable achievements included improved rail reliability, greenfield train timetables and accelerated bus network reform. Its main failure was weak contract supervision leading to Transdev's bus fleet management crisis in 2017.  

PTV's life as its own entity was short-lived. Restructuring a few years later put the roads people back in charge. Firstly the folding of PTV into a larger Department of Transport and then, in 2023 the folding of planning into the even larger Department of Transport and Planning (DTP). The latter is headed by roads engineer Paul Younis with public transport network planning overseen by another roads engineer in Will Tieppo. I count this a failure; public transport in Victoria has been unable to breed its own leaders for at least 40 years, and those it had before then were found wanting with a single mode focus (possibly for the good in the case of Sir Robert Risson). 

Paradoxically, as DTP got bigger it has also got weaker; matters it gained oversight of were not current  political priorities. DTP couldn't even convince the government that even a little of its bus plan was worth funding in either the 2023 or 2024 state budgets. Possibly not helped by history with Treasury and DTP's predecessor bodies having poor reputations for policy advice in top Labor circles.  

Hence, while it can claim more influence than Infrastructure Victoria, DTP has sometimes looked like a sidelined 'B-team', waiting for the government to throw crumbs their way. On this it had a recent win, gaining some limited-term GAIC funding for growth area buses. But otherwise the government is more invested in its massive 'Big Build' program for which it has set up various well-resourced project bodies as its 'A-teams' in the transport space. 

One of these is the Suburban Rail Loop Authority. For a while we have been told that the Suburban Rail Loop is more than just a transport project. Rather than providing additional car parking (which is a low-value land use for a middle suburban station) the SRLA has a vision of dense housing and jobs around its stations. In theory this is the sort of 'integrated transport and land use planning' that planning academics and others have wanted for years. To strengthen this the state government has declared SRLA as a planning authority, with power taken from local councils. 

Councils

Councils have not been happy. The City of Bayside has been encouraging residents to comment on the Suburban Rail Loop with signs near the project, such as this one at Highett. Statements like "This includes increased housing density, traffic congestion, and a squeeze on open space and infrastructure" would stoke such concerns. 

Highett (and the precinct around SRL's proposed 'Cheltenham' terminus) straddles two local government areas. A few metres from the above sign is that below from the City of Kingston. Its wording is milder. Kingston don't mention the SRL by name but it is clearly meant by 'other state government projects in the area'. 

Let's get back to competing visions for Melbourne.

SRLA is taking the clustered, denser, transit-oriented view that challenges the open road, free parking  and socially expensive model of unconstrained automobility. Its station precincts are arguably the inheritor of the district centres in the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works' Metropolitan Strategy of 1981.  

To generate the patronage needed for SRL to be worthwhile access to stations must be via the most space efficient means possible from multiple directions. While some will always wish to drive, their expectation of a car park (preferably free all day) crowds out higher value land uses, including housing, shopping and community facilities around stations.

Also, before they crowd themselves out to a position where no transport mode is any good, more cars in a precinct reduces safe direct active transport connections and slows buses. Both can deliver thousands of passengers per day to SRL stations in a more space efficient manner than if everyone drove.

It's worth noting that even if SRL stations lack non-disabled parking, there will remain substantial parking available at  the several dozen other stations on lines that feeds the SRL. It is for the benefit of those who need to park and ride (as well as thousands of other passengers) that bus/tram/Metro/SRL connectivity must be short, direct, safe and sheltered at all stations. Attention to connectivity also means frequent all week/all day feeder services and excellent active transport links. If these are not done then SRL and its suburban centres will fail.  

Bay Road

One major connection for SRL's 'Cheltenham' Station is Bay Road from the west. Not least because it is the most direct corridor to Sandringham, which some people have suggested that the Suburban Rail Loop should have extended to. I have also suggested the use of Bay Rd as a Route 733 'SRL SmartBus' from Box Hill to Sandringham via most of the SRL stations. 

SRL's vision for Bay Road is contained in Attachment B - Urban Design Strategy in its EES. Page 61 of this says:

Complementing improved crossings of Nepean Highway and the existing Frankston rail line, Bay Road will be transformed to better service pedestrians and cyclists travelling east west, and new and improved crossing points will be provided for people travelling north south. 

That's a big change from current conditions which you can see below.  

Where SRLA is arguably lacking is detail for buses. Eg their vision could have included a map of a notional feeder bus network including reformed, more direct and frequent routes. Bay Rd stands out as being a candidate corridor. Which has implications for the design choices here, including its width. 

What about Bayside Council? In their published agenda for the 23 July 2024 council meeting they have advanced a different vision for Bay Rd, including a resumption of private land to expand the two lane section. This widening induces traffic and lessens permeability for walking, including across uncatered for desire lines such as near Aldi. However it is consistent with Council's SRL precinct vision submission. 

Bayside council seems to be retaining a 'car traffic first, everything else last' arterial road vision for Bay Rd, with cyclists pushed off to less direct and legible paths for their east-west travel. That could induce more driving, especially given that most people who own bikes also own cars and thus have transport choices. It also has consequences for access to the SRL station and connectivity to local destinations like Southland. The item before the council meeting doesn't mention a strong role for buses, or the possibility of a lane being for buses only. However the council has said other things about buses, for instance advocating for higher bus frequencies in its 2016 advocacy statement and 2018-2028 Integrated Transport Strategy. 

A 'no net loss of car parking' preference, which has contributed to significant vegetation clearing and impaired active transport connections at some level crossing removal sites, also apparently applies in the City of Bayside. They say that mode shift to active transport (as required by their own 'Climate Emergency Action Plan') 'cannot occur overnight nor by consequence of removing car parking'. When greater flexibility on parking is essential to many active transport improvements being implemented. Which are proven successes in encouraging mode shift in a surprisingly short amount of time. The expansion of shared paths in some LXRP projects has increased local cycling, for example. 

Given the apparent desire to expand roads and defend existing car parking, the City of Bayside appears to lean towards the 'more cars/more roads' camp. It is perhaps fortunate for them that some key attractions for their residents (eg Southland Shopping Centre and the 'Cheltenham' SRL station) are over the border in Kingston where the parking consequences of their Bay Rd widening stance become someone else's problem.  

Time will tell as to which vision for Bay Rd will prevail.