Westlink nightmare

The freedom of the open road

So the government has announced its route options for Westlink - its "number one priority project".

Whatever option is chosen, the outlet ("hell mouth" as one resident calls it) will come out south west of JJ Holland Park at Dock Link Road, with further links to Dynon Road and Footscray Road. The government has admitted there will be 60,000 vehicles a day using Westlink. A three lane freeway at peak hour would be expected to deliver about 5,000 vehicles an hour.

The result will be gridlock in Footscray Road and Dynon Road. That means much of the traffic will move up Kensington Road and along Macaulay Road - causing massive traffic jams in Kensington. Each evening the process will be reversed, with cars using Kensington to get back on to Westlink.

When planners were asked about this, they answered that trucks would not be able to get under the railway bridge on Kensington Road. This may be true of some trucks, but not all. It will have no effect on the thousands 0f cars which will constitute the majority of the traffic from Westlink.

The heavy traffic load will also mean gridlock in West Melbourne as cars and trucks try to get to and from the city on every available route.

Westlink is the first stage of the controversial Eddington east-west tunnel. The government said so in its documents sent to Infrastructure Australia, obtained by the Greens under the Freedom of Information Act. The RACV is already calling for completion of the whole tunnel.

The build up in traffic will be used to advocate further tunneling, and the result will be ventilation stacks and outlets across the parkland between Kensington and Fitzroy. We don't want to struggle to win something we thought we'd already won.

There is something decidedly dodgy about the government's figures. The say that Westlink will cost only $3 billion. They told Infrastructure Australia that the shorter version of the tunnel would cost $5.8 billion.

There is no federal funding for this project, because Victoria could show no net economic benefit for the project: we would be spending $3 for every $1 gained. Just what is the economic justification for this white elephant?

We don't want the pollution, the noise, and the traffic of Westlink. The entire route follows an underutilized train line. For a fraction of the cost we could have a proper commuter service.

In an era when climate change is a pressing reality, and when peak oil is rendering the combustion engine too expensive, we should be well past thinking of building more roads for gas-guzzling vehicles.

External links

• Westlink: three options, three nightmares
• Westlink route options
• Westlink, Schmestlink
• The People Plan

Westlink, Schmestlink

Is there somewhere else we can squeeze a freeway?

Amongst the many freeway proposals the Brumby government keeps spruiking, the "number one priority project" is Westlink.

Westlink is a proposed six lane tunnel and freeway joining the Western Ring Road to Docklands. It is currently estimated to cost $5 billion, although that figure is climbing fast - it was just $3.5 billion two years ago.

Documents just obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Greens MLC Greg Barber show that Federal funding was rejected from this project because Victoria could show no net economic benefit for the project.

There is in fact no overall transport or environmental benefit either. Westlink will in peak hour deliver another 5,000 vehicles an hour - including trucks - into the Docklands area. This is hardly a way of removing congestion.

The proposal will also take money away from public transport - a far more efficient people-mover than any road. A normal road lane carries 700 cars an hour - tops - and in Melbourne each car carries an average of 1.1 people. But a peak our train whisks by in seconds with just as many people, and you can have several of them in an hour. A freeway lane in good conditions can carry 1500 - 2000 cars an hour. That's two trains. The proposed route of Westlink substantially follows rail lines all the way. For a fraction of the cost of Westlink, we could actually deliver an efficient rail service along that line.

And it's not as though there are not good proposals for removing the trucks from inner Melbourne. When the containers are unloaded from ships, they are stacked on the wharf and then loaded onto trucks which wait in queues before moving off. Every truck that has to carry a container must converge on the Port of Melbourne, and that is what causes the congestion.

Move the containers by rail from the Port of Melbourne to freight terminals on the outskirts of Melbourne at Laverton, Melton, Kalkallo and Dandenong, and let the trucks use these hubs to pick up the containers. That would bring considerable relief to inner Melbourne, and overall greater efficiency - at present many trucks queue for hours in the one big terminal.

Westlink is also the first stage in the Eddington East/West Tunnel proposal. We thought we'd won that struggle, but the documents obtained under FOI show that the government is quietly pressing ahead with it. In their submission to Infrastructure Australia in October 2008, the Victorian government said:

"following further expansion of the project [Westlink] there will be an east west link north of the CBD between the eastern freeway and the western ring road"

Compare this with the public statements of Minister Pallas at a joint press conference with the Premier John Brumby on 9 September 2008:

REPORTER: Is an east-west tunnel now more likely to be west-east tunnel that will start west and work its way back?

PALLAS: Oh, look, once again, that’s an issue of the priorities that government needs to set and we’re going to continue to work through those issues in a considered way.

REPORTER: But that’s a possibility?

PALLAS: Oh, it’s a possibility that it could be built west to east, but certainly the issues that are on the table need to be considered in a substantial way and a considered way. We’re not going to rule anything in or out.

The RACV openly states that Westlink only makes sense if it is part of the East West tunnel.

The East West Tunnel threatens several parks - the proposal had the freeway coming up in Royal Park and Holland Park for example. But it will also be part of the same old 1950s road-building mindset that has got us into this gridlock in the first place.

John Brumby's response to the furore over the stupidity of Westlink was telling. He just doesn't get it. He thought the only alternative to Westlink would be another road - whether on a bridge or bulldozed through suburbs. He is pressing ahead with Westlink despite the lack of any credible economic case. What he doesn't appreciate is that the real, rational alternative to his expensive white elephant is viable public transport.

With peak oil approaching, and with dangerous climate change now looming as a serious worldwide threat, we can no longer afford this kind of dull, old thinking. Smarter transport solutions are needed - and they are not roads.

As Albert Einstein said:

The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation.

External Links

• Freeway not worth cost (The Age)
• Projects Built at the Expense of the Community - Kenneth Davidson
• About Westlink - Linking Melbourne Authority

Bulldozing Freeways through Community Rights

When a freeway is proposed, the community defends the places we stand to lose.

Not many people have seen the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act, which has just become law in Victoria. Under this Act, the government can declare any project a “major transport project”. There is no definition of what “major” is. It could be a boat ramp. It could be a bus stop. It’s whatever the planning minister, along with the premier, think it is.

But once the government calls it a major project, the proponents can drive freeways through the rights of the community.

The Act gives decision-making power on any declared project to the Planning Minister. Community input is in some cases removed altogether. In other cases the time lines are incredibly short (often only days - to give input on projects whose documentation will run to thousands of pages) so the "right" to comment is in practice an illusion.

Many of the decisions made under this scheme will not be subject to any right of review in the Supreme Court, removing judicial oversight from important government decisions.

The most serious change, however, is in section 77 of the Act. This section requires the Minister to "have regard to" certain laws - but not to comply with them. The Minister will not have to obey these laws, just note their existence. The laws overthrown by this stroke of the pen have been built up over decades, and provide key protections to our environment.

The list of laws now cast aside in such decisions is long, but includes:

• Coastal Management Act 1995
• Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987
• Environment Protection Act 1970
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
• Heritage Act 1995
• National Parks Act 1995
• Planning and Environment Act 1987
• Water Act 1989
• Wildlife Act 1975

So now, when a freeway is in question, the government of the day can ignore these protections and thumb its nose at the community.

Jeff Kennett, at the height of his hubris, would not have dared to propose this legislation. But now Labor has made it law.

The real damage under this Act will not occur until after this year's election. Labor won't want to upset people before they vote - but watch out afterwards.


External Links

• Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act
• Video of Rally on the Steps of Parliament
• Frankston Bypass, Greenlivingpedia