Minister Terry Mulder announces medium list corridor themes

The Doncaster Rail Study has reached an important milestone with the identification of three corridor themes. These themes will guide the final recommendation of a preferred route for a rail line to Doncaster.

More information about these three medium list corridor themes can be found on our publications page.

The Doncaster Rail Study team is now commencing a community engagement process and will be holding community workshops in local community centres in Doncaster, North Balwyn and Richmond. More details for these workshops can be found here.

The media release from the Hon Terry Mulder MP is available here.

17 Responses to Minister Terry Mulder announces medium list corridor themes

  1. David Hardy says:

    It would be nice if this “do nothing”Government stopped wasting money on more Studies to fill already creaking DOT Bookshelves and actually built something transportwise.
    Continuing to say transport projects will not proceed unless the Feds pay will not wash . In the first instance get on with building the Metro tunnel before wasting more money on more studies .

    • Bogong says:

      Aw come on, rather than being objective you’re just trying to score cheap political points. There has to be a comprehensive study to determine the best route (for both servicing the public and being cost effective). Would you prefer that some clueless bureaucrats and/or politicians just drew a line on a Melways and said “build it regardless of cost or whether it serves the people best”?

  2. Jamie says:

    Build the 5 km tunnel from Doncaster to Box Hill. It’s the cheapest option and it will take the least amount of time to build rather than 20 kms of tunnels/tracks. But to ensure that this is competitive with car transport, express services need to run from Doncaster to the city stopping at just a couple of stations to counter the longer route via Box Hill and all the stations from Box Hill to the city.

      • Daniel says:

        This option should only be considered as a complete link between Heidelberg and Box Hill station with multiple stations in between. At least it would then server most of Doncaster, Bulleen and Lower Templestowe.

        • John says:

          I think the Box Hill/Heidelberg route is well served by buses, and isnt a priority for a full rail link.
          What does need doing however, as well as the proper rail link to the city, is the connection of the ringroad from Greensborough to Ringwood, anlong the Mullum Mullum Creek.
          Using the existing Eastern Freeway as part of the ringroad extension through Bulleen as has been considered, is a very big mistake, as it would only add to congestion on that freeway, just as it does now, with traffic using it as a link from Eastlink to Heidelberg, causing congestion already, which didnt exist before the opening of Eastlink.
          Heavy transport needs to be removed from the roads of Manningham, and put onto a ringroad as soon as possible.

          • Peter says:

            I am not sure if you understand what you are saying here. The aim of having the boxhill to Heidelberg as an option is to relief the traffic from the Doncaster(east) to city. Not for the traffic between theses two places!

  3. Ken Morrison says:

    Looking at these proposed routes, the cheapest is from Doncaster to Box Hill. It is only about 4km of mostly tunnel and only has a single point of catchment. I’ve commented elsewhere here that elevated monorails are said to cost less than one tenth that of subways. So for probably less cost than this minimal proposal one could build a monorail with stops at Doncaster, The Pines and Templestowe, several places on the freeway, Footscray, the university/hospital precinct and on to the city.

    Which would be better value for money?

    That cost comparison ignores the “Potentially significant enabling works required on existing rail lines” and that the monorail could be at grade (i.e. cheaper) along the freeway. That might cover the cost of the additional stations (which need not be major monuments).

    While I’m all for an orbital route, the beginning is already in place with the Alamein line. Extending this to Fairfield at one end and Oakleigh via East Malvern and Chadstone at the other end would make much more sense, as well as being vastly cheaper than tunnels from Box Hill. Make this a monorail and you could extend it to Rowville much cheaper (i.e. sooner) than the announcement also suggested. It could also be extended across the northern suburbs and eventually even be an additional non-car link to the airport.

    • robert says:

      Monorail is 10 times cheaper? Is there a point of reference? Monorail represents high development cost because equipment must be developed from scratch. Traditional rail can also run over elevated structures, so let’s not experiment too much or we’ll end up with another Myki style debacle.

      Elevated railways are cheaper but stand in the way of urban development, plus they add to visual and noise pollution. Tunneling allows commercial and residential development at ground level and above. With good legislation private developers will bear part of the cost.

      Cities with the best public transport typically rely on underground railways. The concept is well proven. Attempts to use monorail failed in various cities. The concept has not proved itself, unlike tunneling.

    • Peter says:

      The cheapest option is to do nothing and just talk about it. And we will continue to wonder why heavy congestion is a norm on eastern freeway to CBD.
      Many years later, I hope we don’t look back and say “we could have built it many years ago and it was the cheapet option!”

    • Michael Josiah says:

      Ken Morrison

      Why do you only see monorails in theme parks or very should commuter lines such as the Sydney Monorail, because they are totally in appropriate for daily commuting. In other words they are rubbish. No to monorail. When major networks like London”s or Paris”s start building them then I might change my mind else, monorails are just plain stupid.

      If you want to do things on the cheap, why not just build an express tram, which would not need to be grade separated and could just use the median strip. Existing Trams such as the Citadis or Combinos or even re-engineering all those W Class trams to modern standards.

  4. john says:

    Please do not build the cheapest option from Box Hill to Doncaster, as that would be a total cop out, and would not serve the popualation its supposed to. The only real option is from Victoria Park, along the eastern freeway, and then off from Bulleen Rd., across the centre of Manningham. If you’re going to do a job, do it the right way first time.

  5. Tony says:

    Ken Morrison wants to re-invent the Outer Circle Railway. It closed in about 1927. It should never have been closed and would be a major transport asset if it existed now. Unfortunately short sighted state governments pressed for funds keep making the same mistakes. Think, Epping to Whittlesea railway. South Morang section now being re-instated at huge cost. Wouldn’t we love to have a railway to Whittlesea now. Think Cranbourne where the line east was closed and is now set to be re-opened, again at huge cost. But they just keep on doing it. FYI Ken the Outer Circle Railway indeed ran from Fairfield to Oakleigh.

  6. john says:

    None of the propsed routes actuall serve all Manningham residents.
    Instead, the two main routes are just an extra line to Ringwood.
    = FAIL.

  7. Ed says:

    A monorail is more intrusive than a bus service and less flexible.
    Anyhow, the study brief was for heavy rail.
    It would be better to spend $6 million dollars on a study to determine how we can keep Melbourne at 4.3 million people.
    A visit to Berlin would provide some answers.

  8. robert says:

    Ringwood connection like in Map 2 allows partial reuse of Lilydale or Belgrave trains reducing the need for new rolling stock acquisition. This also provides additional capacity for the Ringwood to City corridor along existing tracks.
    All proposals lterminate in the CBD. In order to improve connectivity across Melbourne and improve rolling stock use it is better to continue the Doncaster line by connecting it to Upfield or Cragieburn lines.
    Map 2 offers the best population catchment and allows for replacement of trams with trains. Removal of tram tracks improves traffic flow on the roads above, while additional trams become available to other areas of the city. Every opportunity should be taken to replace trams with trains. We have the largest tram network but also the slowest. Many cities have replaced tram lines with subways for a reason. Like Ed said a visit to Berlin would be a good benchmark to follow. Their public transport is vastly superior.