Peninsula Link

A few days ago wildlife biologist, Hans Brunner, came to see me to ask me to publish the following report on the continuing failure of Victorian government to responsibly protect bandicoots. He also reported his personal experience on a recent visit to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (accompanied by Gillian Collins, Michelle Thomas, and David Nichols).

He described what I have experienced myself in two past visits to the Department several years ago. What seems to happen is that citizens concerned about wildlife ask for a meeting with those responsible in the Department. A meeting is granted but in the manner of an audience with a dignitary. For years now the people in the department have worked in a high building in the city where the entrances to actual offices are guarded by security guards. This gives the impression that they know that they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing (actively protecting fauna under the Fauna Guarantee act) and fear public anger. Visitors must sign a book and wait under the eye of the guards until more staff come to escort them. Meetings are brief and conducted in barren, isolated offices that do not look as if they have any permanent occupants. There are no cosy couches, no friendly and understanding ears, citizen to citizen, just a distant official taking notes. Criticism is fielded with statements implying that the matter is in more qualified hands than yours. Maybe they will put you on some marginal email list for a while. Numbly, you walk back out through a large foyer where glossy posters give the impression that all is well with our fauna, and public servants sell and distribute glossy pamphlets on the same note. You leave feeling that you have had a conversation with a disapproving brick wall and drive back through the city and back into the areas of bushland you are trying to defend with a deep sensation of wasted energy and disempowerment.

#HansBrunner" id="HansBrunner">The awful and unnecessary plight of the Southern Brown Bandicoot

After such a visit, Hans Brunner writes:

The Southern Brown Bandicoot scenario is so extremely frustrating and full of contradictions!

1. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) argues that because there are possibly no more bandicoots in the Pines, where there were hundreds before, that they will not re-introduce them into the Pines anymore. Yet, they introduced the Eastern Barred Bandicoot on at least four occasions into areas where there were none in existence before. What is the difference?

2. Department of Environment and Primary Industries and Parks Victoria accepted the conditions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Donservation Act’s (EPBC) request to install a predator proof fence around the Pines at the completion of the freeway. Yet, they suddenly decided not to do so. Is this honourable ?

3. Department of Environment and Primary Industries and Parks Victoria stated that the Eastern Barred Bandicoots could not be protected by fox control alone and that they had to be enclosed within predator proof fencing. Yet, in one of their recent strategies they recommended that the Southern Brown Bandicoots’ protection will depend on fox control alone and even scrap connective corridors. What has changed?

4. Parks Victoria elaborately explained why dog-walking at the Devilbend Reserve is totally unacceptable form many reasons but they recommend dog walking in the Nature Conservation Reserve in the Pines with prime habitat for the nationally endangered SBB. Hypocritical!

5. Parks Victoria used a 17 page report, with lots of irrelevant and ridiculous arguments to explain why a predator proof fence does not work to keep out foxes. Yet, predator proof fences have recently been constructed for the protection for the EBB’S. So, what is behind this?

6. The number of recent strategies recommended by DEPI for the so-called protection of the Southern Brown Bandicoots are constantly changing, each contradicting the previous one. This is total incompetence.

In contrast, our own people, concerned with the ultimate protection of the Southern Brown Bandicoots have, right from beginning, lobbied without changes to our plan to put the Southern Brown Bandicoots back into the Pines where they belong, within a predator proof fence and to make use of the $ 20.000.000 of underpasses already spent and provided for them. When do Department of Environment and Primary Industry and Parks Victoria finally come to their senses and accept their responsibilities?

[1] The reference to Kafka and to DEPI's castle relates to Franz Kafka's novel of this name. Here is a description, from Wikipedia: "The Castle (German: Das Schloss, later also Das Schloß) is a novel by Franz Kafka. In it a protagonist, known only as K., struggles to gain access to the mysterious authorities of a castle who govern the village for unknown reasons. Kafka died before finishing the work, but suggested it would end with K. dying in the village; the castle notifying him on his death bed that his "legal claim to live in the village was not valid, yet, taking certain auxiliary circumstances into account, he was permitted to live and work there". Dark and at times surreal, The Castle is often understood to be about alienation, bureaucracy, the seemingly endless frustrations of man's attempts to stand against the system, and the futile and hopeless pursuit of an unobtainable goal."

Today at the Australian Wildlife Protection Council AGM I interviewed Craig Thomson, Animalia wildlife carer, about the events that may have led to Sean the Koala travelling down a busy highway in Langwarrin. Turns out he was probably following a traditional migratory route of male koalas in search of romance, which takes them from islands of habitat like the Cranbourne Botanical Gardens, down four-lane highways towards The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve in Frankston, or further south, across the massive Peninsula Link tollway that cuts the Peninsula in half. Why are koalas being forced onto highways? It is another terrible cost of the unwanted human population expansion that is being forced on Victorians by the State Government, in its bid to grow Melbourne faster and faster. Animalia has $10,000 outstanding power bills; you can help by donating to WESTPAC BANK BSB 033138 Account 434072

The President of Animalia, Michelle Thomas, actually rescued Sean the Koala, but has received little credit. Instead, Wildlife Victoria is often erroneously named as the rescuing agency. In the mean time Animalia owes $10,000 in utility bills alone and the wildife carers wonder how they are going to keep going without donations. So please consider donating to WESTPAC BANK BSB 033138 Account 434072.

The photograph of a koala being carried away from a multi-lane highway by a resourceful and kind truck driver comes from South Australia, but the situation of koalas crossing dangerous roads is all too frequent.

Video added inside. Headings in this highly informative paper include: How people get to Frankston Station, Social needs and mobility, The household transport cost burden, Peninsula Link, East West Link, The VicRoads Point Nepean Road Study, The Container Port at Hastings, The Cranbourne/Pakenham rail corridor project, and remarks on Road Spending. Only about 0.6% of Frankston residents who travel to work, work in locations that would be accessed by the Napthine government's proposed East West link, if they chose to drive. Poor frequency of service is a major issue in Frankston and on the Peninsula for bus services. The Stony Point train service is in danger of death through neglect and indifference if its service frequency is not improved and locals do not mobilise to support it. Local government can and should play a major advocacy role in this space.

Original title of this paper by Ian Hundley was, "The Transport Crisis in the Frankston Area: Issues of Economy, Ecology and Social Connectedness." It was presented to a meeting of Victoria First about overpopulation in Victoria, and Frankston's specific burden, at the Frankston Lifesaving Club on Saturday 2 August 2014. A video of the speech plus comments and questions will be uploaded to youtube soon.

Introduction

I am here to discuss some of the things that are going on and what needs to be done to improve the public transport outlook for residents in the Frankston area. What we will find, I think, is that there are both local and larger issues that are having major consequences for the residents of Frankston. And they do raise issues about economy, ecology and social connectedness. The influences that local people are able to bring to bear will be very important in how things pan out.

So, firstly, how do people use public transport in Frankston and in the rest of Melbourne?

Travel to work

In Frankston and on the Mornington Peninsula about 80% of trips to work each day by residents are taken by motor car alone and relatively few by public transport. [1] For Frankston residents, only about 5.6% of trips to work involve public transport and on the Peninsula only about 2.3% of all such trips.

Where public transport is of higher quality, such as in the City of Yarra, for example, nearly 30% of trips to work by local residents are made by public transport.

Where do Frankston residents work?

Both of the major political parties say their transport policies will make it easier for people to travel to and from work, thus providing them with more time with their families. Unfortunately, in outer Melbourne these projects are predominately roads projects, not improvements to public transport.

However, it is typical for most people who live in the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area to work in the local government area in which they live or in relatively close proximity to where they live. About 60,000 Frankston residents travel to work every day. About 63.5% of all these residents work in Frankston itself or in an adjoining local government area (i.e. Greater Dandenong, Kingston, Mornington Peninsula, or Casey). About 5.5% of Frankston residents work in Melbourne. A large proportion of those taking the daily commute to Melbourne each weekday would do so by train.

Based upon the most recent Census data, only about 340 of these 60,000 Frankston residents who travel to work, or about 0.6% of the total, work in locations that would be accessed by the Napthine government's proposed East?West link, if they chose to drive.

These are Frankston people who travel to work to such far flung locations as Brimbank, Hume, Hobsons Bay and Moonee Valley.

Interestingly, in other eastern suburbs of Melbourne, including Boroondara and Whitehorse, the pattern is the same. Relatively few of their residents too would benefit from the East? West link because they work in the CBD or closer to home. From an economic planning perspective it should also be a primary objective of planning and transport policy to generate jobs close to home.

Public transport within Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula

So, what are the public transport options for residents travelling within Frankston and the
Peninsula each day? By and large it is the local bus network.

One measure of the quality of the bus network is the numbers of train patrons that rely on connecting buses to take the train from Frankston. As shown in Table 1 a mere one in five of train passengers connected by bus at Frankston station, whilst about 45% connected by motor car. At Box Hill station, which has higher daily patronage than Frankston station, about 28% of train travellers connected by bus and 43% walked to the station. Only about one in six travelled by car.

It is the network capacity of public transport systems that is so important. The local bus network around Box Hill is much more effective than it is in Frankston. Connecting services have to be frequent and they have to be timetabled to provide good intermodal connections. There is nothing worse than seeing the train disappear around the corner as your bus arrives at the station.

Poor frequency of service is a major issue in Frankston and on the Peninsula. The 788 bus service between Frankston station and Portsea/ Point Nepean National Park, for example, runs about every 45 minutes on weekdays and about every 75 minutes on weekends. Who is going to use this as a commuter service in the morning and the evening? And who is going to use it on weekends and public holidays?

We would almost be forgiven for thinking that the government is trying to put the service out of business. However, despite the government inertia that has left the 788 service about as unattractive a proposition for patrons as it could possibly be, you might be surprised to know it is one of the most heavily patronised route bus routes in Melbourne. This clearly demonstrates the latent demand for effective bus services on the Peninsula and in
Frankston which remain unmet. And it also demonstrates the capacity for a good public transport service to get cars off roads and out of car parks.

Another horror story is that of the 787 route bus service between Sorrento and Safety Beach. This service runs disjointedly on week days and just twice on Saturdays. If you travel from Rye, for instance, to Rosebud Plaza to do some shopping you could easily find yourself waiting up to an hour and a half for the next service to return home.

Frankston gained very little from the timetable and network changes that were introduced last Sunday 27 July. Late night changes were made to scheduling for the 770, 771, 775, 782 and 785 services to improve co?ordination with late night train services. However, when I checked on Wednesday morning, the updated timetables for the 775, 782 and 785 services were still not available on the PTV website. They did bob up a bit later.

These services at least have the virtue of running seven days a week. But they are far too infrequent, typically with a 30 minute headway during week day peak times, hourly for the rest of the day and hourly on Saturdays and Sundays with severely reduced service span from first bus to last.

We all need to bring significant pressure to bear on the major parties to commit to upgrading local bus services in the lead up to the state election in a few weeks time.

We also have one train service that serves destinations south of central Frankston to Westernport Bay, the Stony Point line. It operates seven days a week but only every two hours in the middle of weekdays and on Saturdays and Sundays. A previous state government attempted to close it. Service frequencies must be increased and this could be done relatively easily with the introduction of passing loops and a couple of extra vehicles. In my view, the Stony Point service is in danger of death through neglect and indifference if its service frequency is not improved and locals do not mobilise to support it. Local government can and should play a major advocacy role in this space.

Social needs and mobility

A report by Dr Belinda Robson for Crossroads Youth and Family Services in the Salvation Army,[2] and based on interviews with 100 residents of the new suburbs of Craigieburn and Roxburgh Park on Melbourne’s northern fringe, highlighted the importance of public transport for social connectedness.

Summary findings of the report showed that costs of travel as well as practical issues with transport mean that many young people were not able to participate in different activities and that many new households are at risk of mortgage stress and many face problems juggling financial demands.

However, a very high value was placed by respondents on the new stations incorporated into the metropolitan rail network in 2007, Roxburgh Park and Craigieburn, and the direct rail connection they provided to the city. Service providers also felt it had made a very big difference to residents’ ability to get around, and for their community pride.

The findings and observations in this report could be very readily translated to the transport issues now faced by Frankston residents.

The household transport cost burden

Now, to look at car dependency in outer suburbs and what the lack of public transport means for household budgets.

In the City of Melbourne only 30.7% of households have 2 or more cars. In the Shire of Mornington Peninsula a whopping 74.9% of households have two or more motor cars. A large part of this difference must be attributed to the relative ease with which inner urban residents can travel by public transport, cycling or walking, rather than having to drive a car.

Cars are expensive things to run in absolute terms and relative to the cost of public transport. Annualised operating cost for a small car may be in the order of $8?10,000. For a Frankston resident who works in the Melbourne CBD clearly the cheapest option is to pay $2210 annually for a Zone 1 + 2 MYKI. But this does not work as well for local travel because the bus system is so poor.

The welfare impact of lack of access to reasonable public transport is shown in sharper relief when one examines family household income. In the City of Melbourne (2010) only 26.8% of family households have weekly incomes of less than $1,000. In Rosebud 42.7% of family households have weekly incomes of less than $1,000.

Thus lower income households on the periphery of Melbourne are basically compelled to incur substantial additional transport costs and own more cars because they do not have reasonable access to public transport.

Peninsula Link

A number of you here today may have been involved in the campaign against Peninsula Link, which was originally characterised as a traffic bypass for Frankston. The project precipitated environmental losses, most conspicuously at locations such as The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve in North Frankston and Westerfield in Langwarrin. Peninsula Link connected EastLink from Carrum to Dromana, at a cost of about $750 million. No serious attempt was made to assess any alternative approach which would see an increased focus on sustainable transport, especially public transport. It was simply a case of "predict and provide" based upon forecasts in motor vehicle traffic without regard to potential alternatives, including public transport.

The project was later criticised by the Auditor?General,[3] particularly in relation to the procuring of the project through a Public Private Partnership, the likely overstatement of economic benefits, and the dismissal of longer term negative effects, including induced traffic.

The only positive employment effect of the project I've seen in official propaganda has been the trumpeting of the opening of a new road house on the Peninsula Link reservation.

The VicRoads Point Nepean Road Study

You may know that in June 2013 VicRoads concluded this study to further increase road capacity on the Peninsula. It can be seen as the natural consequence of the induced traffic on Peninsula Link identified by the Auditor?General.

The study report recommends even further increases in road capacity in the southern Peninsula.

We know that one certain outcome from this project, if it goes ahead, is that it will generate more traffic in the area. The terms of reference for the study were deficient because they did not take account of the potential for modal shift to public transport rather than simply catering for more cars. I rang VicRoads and asked them if it was in their terms of reference. They said no, but what a good idea! I understand that some people who made formal submissions to the study also put the view that modals shift should have been reflected in the study. But it wasn't. It is always difficult to teach old dogs new tricks.[4]

I see that the Southern Peninsula Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association has concluded that if the proposed Mornington Peninsula freeway proceeds, as contemplated in the report, it would damage the biodiversity values of the Tootgarook Swamp as well as having hydrological impacts through bisecting the swamp with a major embankment.

East West Link

According to Denis Napthine, the East West Link is supposed to solve all our problems, with the possible exception of the common cold. The reality is, however, that there will be nothing left for the timely introduction of necessary transport projects in Frankston or elsewhere if the East?West Link goes ahead. The two sections have been estimated to cost in the order of $20 billion.

In September 2013 the Premier and the Treasurer, Michael O'Brien, announced three short? listed bidders for the project, the East West Connect, Inner Link Group and Momentum Infrastructure consortia. However, by June this year the Momentum group had evidently lost necessary momentum when the Treasurer reappeared, this time with the Roads minister, Terry Mulder, to announce that only the East West and Inner Link groups remained in the contest.

What was not made clear by these two ministers of the Crown, but which was subsequently reported in the press, is that the Momentum group gave up on the project. Leighton Contractors, a major partner in the Momentum consortium, reportedly found the project to be too risky for them due, they said, to unacceptable geotechnical risks associated with the tunnelling required for the project.[5]

This raises serious questions about the bona fides of the bid process. Robust tender processes rely on the presence of a substantial number of genuine and able bidders. What we have here is a classical case of monopolistic competition ? limited sellers of a product. What is worse, the final shape of the product remains unclear and it is backgrounded by a business case that remains undisclosed. This is extraordinarily fertile ground for plundering the public purse.

I had my own experience of government secrecy on this project when I wrote to the minister for roads in February 2014 to request traffic volume data for CityLink and for EastLink to assist in the preparation of submissions to the Assessment Committee that reported earlier this year to the planning minister. I was denied the information by the minister on the grounds that "..the terms of the contractual arrangements between the State and the toll road operators prohibit the State from disclosing confidential or unpublished information without the consent of the relevant road operator". The letter was signed on the final day of public hearings by the Assessment Committee.

Just prior to Leighton's declaration that the project was not for it, the Sunday Age reported that "The Napthine government will use the East West Link and other major projects to leverage donations from big business as it builds up a war chest before this year's state election".[6]

The Napthine government is determined to sign contracts for the project prior to the prorogation of the Victorian parliament in early November. It is in the best interests of the state that this not occur.

The Labor opposition has repeatedly declared the East?West Link to be a "dud" project. Notwithstanding this it says that, if elected to government, it will continue with contracts if they are signed. The Labor Party needs to have a hard look at itself and decide whether they are prepared to govern in the interests of the state or a select group of contractors.

One of the excuses that Labor is using to evade a commitment to drawing a line under the East?West Link project is that it would cause the price of public debt to increase. However, as Kenneth Davidson rightly pointed out in The Age on Monday [7] the potential for the ratings agencies to do damage to Victorian public finances in the event that government debt is downgraded from AAA to AA is relatively minor relative to the colossal costs that would be inflicted on the Victorian economy if this calamitous project is permitted to stumble on.

On the face of it it would be absurd if the credit rating were to decline in the event that the ALP in government or the current Napthine government had the gumption to pull stumps on a project which has negative rather than positive consequences for the economy at large.

To my mind it should strengthen the belief that the credit rating agencies don't know what they are doing. In fact, their abject performance in the lead?up to the Asian financial crisis in the late?1990's and their inability to assess the consequences of the accumulation of sub? prime debt which triggered the Global Financial Crisis in the last decade inspire little confidence in their credentials.

Container port at Hastings

As you know, the Victorian government has been trumpeting the virtues of Hastings as the location for Victoria's second container port. They say it is to retain Melbourne's status as the freight and logistics hub of Australia. The Victorian opposition was very keen on Hastings at one stage but has now gone cold on the idea. It is now directing attention to a location in Port Phillip Bay but west of Melbourne. I won't go into the debate about whether we need a second container port and, if so, where it should be but I do suggest that the following are important factors:

I understand that prior to the introduction of containerisation, the Port of Melbourne employed about 6,500 waterside workers in general freight. I understand it now employs about 200 in the container terminals.

Despite the fact that political parties implicitly assert the employment creating capacity of a new container port it is sobering to realise that new container facilities are likely to be highly automated, which would further reduce the demand for direct labour.

It is understandable that people should be seeking new sources of employment growth when traditional employment sources, such as Bluescope Steel, have been static or declining.

However, labour replacing automation is increasingly common in the transport and materials handling industry. For instance, Rio Tinto is in the process of removing drivers from its iron ore trains operating on 1,500 kilometres of track in the Pilbara region of Western Australia through its Autohaul driverless train program. The trains will be run from an operations centre in Perth.

Analysis recently completed at Victoria University suggests Hastings may not be a very bright idea for a container port, for a number of reasons.[8] There are significant environmental concerns including the future of the RAMSAR Convention ? protected wetlands. It may also jeopardise local tourism?based industries, and the location is sub? optimal having regard for the land?based distribution task once the containers are landed.

The Cranbourne/Pakenham rail corridor project

The Napthine government has accepted an "unsolicited bid" for the upgrade of the Pakenham/Cranbourne rail corridor which is to include moving block signalling, rail duplication and grade separations. The proponents are MTR (METRO), John Holland Construction and UGL Rail Services. The project is to cost $2?2.5 billion according to the government which also claims it will provide a 30% capacity boost on the corridor, the equivalent of two lanes of traffic on the Monash Freeway, and will facilitate increased freight from the proposed container port at Hastings.

New stations are to be built at Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Clayton. Significantly, the Cranbourne?Pakenham rail corridor project is described by the government as a supporting initiative for the container port at the Port of Hastings. When a committee chaired by former deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer, reviewed the Victorian rail freight network in 2008, he recommended that 90% of freight from Hastings be dedicated to rail.[9]

However, it appears that the concept plans released recently for each of these new stations show only the two existing tracks. There are no tracks shown to cater for the proposed Rowville rail link, nor for the government's proposed container port at Hastings.

This is starting to sound like the East?West link. Secret bids, secret processes, no costings, no business case worth the name. Another one of the Napthine government's "game changing" infrastructure projects.

A concluding remark on roads spending

The recent draft industry consultation document prepared in Infrastructure Australia noted that most of the economic infrastructure projects submitted in recent years for Commonwealth funding for assessment by the agency were road projects and that they lacked any cost?benefit rigour whatsoever. The report said in part "... road project proponents...spend next to no effort examining what problems their projects and plans are trying to solve, other than the perceived problem that they do not have enough road funding. In other words, the answer is almost always 'I just need more money,' regardless of the question."

The Victorian Auditor?General also concluded recently that our road system in Victoria is operated inefficiently, in part because "Trams and buses are not currently able to provide accurate and reliable reference data to VicRoads traffic signals systems, and thus more efficient public transport traffic signal prioritisation is not available to these high? productivity vehicles".[10]

This is certainly the case with the East?West Link where Tony Abbott has been happy to turn over $3 billion of our hard earned money. No business case. No comparative analysis. No questions asked. It was the mentality behind the Peninsula Link project, and now threatens in relation to the Point Nepean Road Study where VicRoads hopes to tack some more freeway onto Peninsula Link, effectively. And without any regard for more effective public and active transport solutions that don't contribute to the further environmental degradation of Frankston, the Peninsula and surrounding areas and keeping local residents poor through continuing car dependency.

FOOTNOTES

[1]. See Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census of Population and Housing

[2]. Building Lives, Building Community in Craigieburn and Roxburgh Park: Report to the
Community (University of Melbourne 2009)

[3]. Auditor?General of Victoria, Management of Major Road Projects, June 2011

[4]. VicRoads, Point Nepean Road Study Report, June 2013

[5]. Jenny Wiggins and Adam Carey, "Link project too risky for Leighton," The Age, 29 July
2014

[6]. Farrah Tomazin, "Libs use major projects as fund?raising bait, Sunday Age, July 27, 2014

[7]. Kenneth Davidson, "The case against East West Link gets ever stronger," The Age, July 28,
2014

[8]. Dr Hermione Parsons and Mr Peter Van Duyn, Build it ? but will they come? A pre?mortem analysis of the Port of Hastings Development Project to encourage alternative integrated planning (Institute for Supply Chain and Logistics, Victoria University, 9 July 2014).

[9]. Switchpoint: Victorian Rail Freight Network Review (Department of Infrastructure Victoria
2008), p. 58

[10]. Auditor General of Victoria, Using ICT to Improve Traffic Management (June 2014)

Jill Quirk of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), Victorian and Tasmanian Branch, writes about the many problems of Plan Melbourne. Indeed there are so many problems that it is crazy to go ahead. But most of us realize that the Planners and Ministers behind Plan Melbourne intend to just go on driving bulldozers until something bigger stops them or they run out of oil. There is no plan B and so no room to listen to comment. This is a real problem for the rest of us because we live here.

A 1950s plan for a 21st century problem that still could be avoided

Plan Melbourne is a strategic plan to accommodate very high population growth to the middle of the century, a mere 34 years away. A major flaw in this narrowly based document is that it is working on a projected population for Melbourne of 6.5 million, yet at current growth-rates, the population would actually be 8 million in 34 years time. By the end of this century these current trends would give a population for Melbourne in the order 20million plus – the size of Beijing now.

What is really needed is a vision for beyond 2050 and the sense to change direction before it is too late.

It should be the responsibility of the government through Plan Melbourne to paint the picture with graphic accuracy of what sort of future we face – and the lack of choices entailed - if population growth does in fact continue at the rate it has been in recent years.

The expected populations of the following Melbourne regions: central sub-region, western region and northern regions, are expected to rise by up to 100% by 2050; the Eastern region by 30% and the southern region by up to 50%.

These are drastic changes in population density and numbers. Melbourne will be very crowded. There will be very little choice in how most people live or survive. In fact these levels of population increase will make many parts of Melbourne quite unrecognizable. Virtually no link will remain to the past. It is known that rapid change in surroundings depresses and disorients people. This level of growth is so huge that it can’t fail to do this.

No good government should risk our lives like this

One elephant in the room that cannot be ignored is that growth does not stop in 2050. Unless measures are taken to reduce overseas immigration, the wheels are now set in motion for the ever-increasing population growth trajectory to intersect with ever decreasing fossil fuel resources, rising sea-levels and weather extremes. This is like bungee-jumping today’s and future generations on the end of the same frayed old rope over an increasingly shallow pond. No good government should risk our lives like this.

Population growth does not pay for itself and we are asked to foot the bill

The plan articulates a "pipeline of infrastructure projects". Funding measures or “value capture” are – predictably - paid for by the residents. It is misleading to list current residents as beneficiaries of infrastructure projects which are really for ongoing population growth, 60% of which already comes from overseas immigration.

I must point out that residents are not really beneficiaries of infrastructure which is built to service larger populations. Normally in the more stable populations experienced by residents of so many European cities, infrastructure planning is about maintenance of existing infrastructure – at a rate of about 2.0% per annum of infrastructure needs replacement. People to accept this as reasonable because we all understand “fair wear and tear.”

Our current rate of population growth however doubles this requirement.

Property value ‘uplifts’ a drain on productivity and real wealth

It is mentioned in the document that with new infrastructure residents get the benefit of “Property value uplift.” This is of absolutely no consequence unless the person is selling a house to live somewhere else lacking infrastructure and which has not had a “value uplift” from new infrastructure. “To make this clearer; If I only have one house and sell it for a high price, I still have to buy another house to live in and both prices will probably be inflated, with further costs in conveyancing.”

Furthermore such ‘value uplifts’ inflate costs of living and doing business for buyers and renters. Australia’s extreme rent, land and housing prices erode profit margins, raise cost of living, and cause upwards pressure on wages. Whilst workers may want higher wages, this is a drag on productivity if those wages simply go in paying rent and mortgages. The only people who benefit from high housing prices are those with more than one house, including professional developers. These people are not in the majority and, in another system, their activities would be construed – accurately - as a cost to the community.

Only certaintly constant upheaval

The document talks about providing “certainty” to businesses and residents about where development should be. In the context of never ending population growth, infrastructure expansion and layering, the concept of certainty is Orwellian for citizens. The only certainty for residents in a situation of explosive continuous population growth is uncertainty. This is a very poor substitute for local roots and empowerment in a stable and tranquil environment.

Certainty has more positive connotations for those who are professionally invested in the “pipeline of infrastructure projects”. Plan Melbourne will, it seems improve certainty for the companies who specialize in the industries that make, deploy and market infrastructure.

It seems like a never ending process of population growth and added infrastructure. It wouldn’t be so bad even with the costs to the population if “infrastructure” did not involve heavy losses of nature, livability, space, and peace whenever they go ahead.

Destructive consequences of growthist planning

Continuous development and growth is inherently extremely stressful, unpleasant, destabilizing and destructive of established communities.

Peninsula LinkTake for instance the Peninsular Link which decimated the pre-settlement property of Westerfield. This is a huge loss to the people of Victoria into future generations. It can never be restored.

East-West LinkThe other infrastructure project which is encountering substantial opposition from the community, especially those living in the area, is the East-West Link. This piece of road necessitates demolishing people’s houses, destroying the wetlands of Royal Park and bisecting the park especially during construction. All this pain, despite the fact that any planned relief of congestion will soon be overtaken by more population growth.

The East-West Link will remove a large proportion of a public asset from the public forever. Furthermore, this asset was a crucial part of the original forward thinking design of the Melbourne settlement, which sought to ensure open natural spaces for the general public. It was also a major corroboree site. Its historical significance seems to have been completely overlooked. Adding insult to injury, we who are to be deprived of it will be made to pay for our loss.

The avoidable problem of water shortage coyly called a‘challenge’

In the document the “challenge” of providing water (for an endlessly growing population) was mentioned. This is not a challenge but a depressing consequence. The Sugarloaf pipeline was a piece of infrastructure which also encountered huge opposition in the area from which water was to be taken. What would one expect? Such projects displace and dispossess stable communities which, in the line of right to self-government, ought to have more say, and the possibility of veto, in the matter of population engineering that results in this social and environmental disorganization and damage.

The construction of the Wonthaggi desal plant, removed part of Victoria’s natural heritage, causing huge destruction, protests, tears, and anguish.What more blights on our landscape are in the infrastructure pipeline?

Only economists could pretend that oil depletion is not a problem

Returning to the notion of “vision.” Australia’s economy in the living memory of all of us has been fueled by cheap oil. This has reached or is reaching the peak in its production, globally. The document cites oil reserves in Gippsland, but Australia is a net importer of oil. Whatever is found in Gippsland should be treated as rare and precious and something we should bequeath to future generations.

The Victorian short term government should lengthen its horizon. Thirty seven years is not a long time really. It should try to see at least to the end of the current century.

With falling availability of cheap oil, road networks will be outdated and redundant. The inevitable loss of arable land around Melbourne with continuing population growth and consequent infrastructure development, will put an unprepared and unsuspecting relatively newly arrived urbanized population in serious peril with respect to food.

Plan Melbourne’s dishonest presentation of population growth

Plan Melbourne treats high population growth as though it were inevitable. It is not. 60% of our population growth is from overseas migration. The Victorian government, rather than reassuring the Federal government that it can accommodate whatever level of growth is dictated by immigration levels, should tell it how it is, that people are suffering and will suffer more.

We need more effective local government representation

This is also where local government should play a role. Local government is closer to the locality and the local community (by definition) and is in a better position to respond directly and democratically to local feedback and capacity. It is unfortunate that the state has largely overshadowed the power and role of local government because people are maintained now at a distance and not listened to or taken seriously, with market principles (Coasian economic principles and Pareto superiority ideology) overtaking self-government, social responsibility and environmental connectedness.

It is quite telling that the document talks of protected areas within municipalities and those destined for more development and densification. It seems from reading the document that these latter are actually not protected. Don’t the people living in these areas deserve protection from loss of their amenity, from overcrowding, noise etc.? If fifty per cent of Melbourne will be “Neighbourhood residential” that means that fifty per cent will be unprotected!

Plan Melbourne’s Blinkered view of the future on course for Dystopia

The overall sense from Plan Melbourne is that it expects the future to be similar to the past, except bigger. It seems to be working on the assumption of a supply of new arrivals and a supply of infrastructure projects without reference to resource depletion and environmental entropy. This is the Archilles heel of modern economics; the externalizing of environmental and social costs – that is, pretending that they are not there. The document for submissions minimizes input on all political, social and environmental matters and on the most significant of all – the upwards social engineering of population growth.

Whether or not the government wants to hear about them, there are environmental and social costs and it is the duty of government to listen to the people on these matters.

The 2013 State of the Environment report states that greenhouse indicators are up, the condition of fresh water aquatic systems is deteriorating as is the fate of threatened species and native vegetations. Of 30 indicators covered by the report, 16 were poor, five were unknown and two were unassessed. The previous SOE report put down to population pressure most of its devastating findings. We are ruining our natural environment with population growth, but we could stabilise our population this century if we tried. If Plan Melbourne goes ahead, we will not stabilise our population this century, but instead will be like a contemporary third world overpopulated country. Plan Melbourne facilitates this dystopia.

Based on a submission by Jill Quirk, President Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian Branch

That the Baillieu government is to embark upon a study for a possible freeway extension on the Mornington Peninsula is not much of a surprise in the wake of the catastrophic decision of the predecessor Labor government to construct the $760 million Peninsula Link freeway between Carrum Downs and Dromana. Absent sensible policy intervention, freeways provide impetus for ever more freeways.
Written by Ian Hundley
30 July 2011

Baillieu government to embark upon a study for a possible freeway extension on the Mornington Peninsula

On 14 June The Mornington Peninsula Leader reported Nepean state Liberal MP Martin Dixon to say that the Baillieu government is now to undertake a study which would examine three road expansion options south of Dromana to further increase the capacity of the road system. These included extending the Mornington Peninsula Freeway on the current reserve to Blairgowrie, creating an arterial road on the freeway reserve or upgrading Browns Road.

When the successful construction bid for Peninsula Link was announced in January 2010 by the then roads minister, Tim Pallas, he asserted that it would allow people to make the 27 kilometre trip from Carrum Downs to Mount Martha in 17 minutes. This is an average speed of about 95 kilometres per hour and no doubt a source of immediate appeal for many local residents resigned to continuing car use in the absence of any alternatives. He even had the cheek to say that it would be of benefit to the environment.

Government agenda hidden from public view, but the proposed roads study under the Baillieu government raises serious questions about the future of the Peninsula and the ability of successive state governments to run agendas hidden from public view. It remains a puzzle why the Brumby government should have outlaid over three quarters of a billion dollars of taxpayer's money on a freeway heading towards the pointy end of a peninsula, much of which is designated as a "green wedge" whilst it continued to deny worthwhile funding for public transport and other measures to reduce car dependency in the area.

That Peninsula Link, now under construction, would inevitably induce substantial increases in road traffic on the Mornington Peninsula was a major concern for the many residents and transport policy experts who spoke out against the project in submissions to the Environmental Effects Statement inquiry process that ultimately rubber stamped the project in April 2009.

Auditor-General slams Peninsula Link decision Concerns about the questionable origins of Peninsula Link were further validated recently when the Victorian Auditor-General tabled a highly critical report in the Parliament(1)

The Auditor- General found that the estimated economic benefits of the project calculated by the Linking Melbourne Authority (known as the Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority until July 2009) were unreliable. The Auditor-General also criticised the analysis provided by the Linking Melbourne Authority for its analysis of whether Peninsula Link should have proceeded as a public sector project or (as ultimately decided) a public-private partnership (PPP). Specifically the Auditor-General found that there were flaws in the way the Linking Melbourne Authority estimated the cost of state delivery as represented by the public sector comparator (PSC) and because it did not test the sensitivity of the relative costs of the PSC and PPP bids to small changes in the PPP discount rate.

In forecasting traffic for Peninsula Link by assuming that drivers responded to the improvement by changing their travel routes the Auditor-General found that the Linking Melbourne Authority ignored the potential traffic growth from journey destination, mode and time of travel, and the additional journeys generated where Peninsula Link stimulated new development.

According to the Auditor-General, ignoring these factors underestimated traffic and overestimated the economic benefits of the project.

The audit also unearthed the fact that the wider traffic impacts of the project had been included in the Linking Melbourne Authority's traffic estimates which meant that the traffic forecasts for the "with" and "without" Peninsula Link scenarios both included the higher demand expected once the project was in place. The Auditor-General concluded that applying the demand generated by Peninsula Link to a network without the project exaggerated existing congestion, thus overstating the scale of the problem and consequently inflating the congestion relief, travel time savings and economic benefits of the project.

Importantly, The Auditor-General also found that the Linking Melbourne Authority did not consider as part of its analysis the amount of induced traffic that would be generated, as required by the Department of Transport's guidance material. Nor, by averaging road performance across a 24-hour period had it properly measured benefits to be gained from the relief of peak period road congestion. All in all a very sloppy effort by the Linking Melbourne Authority.

A shovel ready project: is that what Peninsula Link was about?

The revelation by a senior transport authority source (2) that the Brumby government was looking for a "shovel-ready" project as an economic stimulus measure in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis was also damning. Whilst the Auditor-General found that the Linking Melbourne Authority's estimate of the economic benefits of the project were unreliable and did not adequately communicate this uncertainty to government decision-makers it is questionable that this would have stopped a state government seemingly hell bent on proceeding with the project. It gives some credence to the cynical adage that it is often more difficult in government to misspend $50 in petty cash than hundreds of millions of tax payers' dollars on a misconceived capital project with its attendant imposts on the community for decades to come. 2

The fact that Peninsula Link also proceeded despite the fact that the Commonwealth government declined to provide the matching funding requested by the Brumby government should have also called into serious question the effectiveness of the project.

In any event, if economic stimulus was the primary motive for the project, it also started far too late to be useful as a local counter-cyclical employment generator in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. It has also been speculated more recently that much of the workforce on the project had been recruited from interstate.

What is to be studied and by whom?

In the wake of this mess the Baillieu government is seemingly preparing to spend additional taxpayer dollars to attract more motor traffic onto the Peninsula, and especially south of Dromana.

Not much is known about the proposed $200,000 study. When, in response to the recent article in the Mornington Peninsula Leader I asked VicRoads, who are apparently to be in charge of the project, they were pretty tight lipped. There are no media releases, I was told, and its scope had not yet been determined, nor had timelines been considered for the report.

Road safety was an issue, but it was not known whether particular routes would be targeted.

And it was not known if the study would be conducted "in-house" by VicRoads or by consultants.

I asked whether the existing poor capability of public transport for residents and visitors would be addressed in the inquiry, and I also noted that the public transport service that does exist is particularly unsuited to meeting seasonal patterns in demand on the Peninsula. The idea that public transport capability should be addressed as part of the study might be
considered a novelty , I deduced, which is well outside traditional patterns of thinking. This is despite the fact that dealing with seasonal congestion on the road system during summer is reportedly to be a significant part of the project.
All that is known with certainty is that the study has funding in 2011-12 and, I was assured, there would be "community consultation."

A job for community activists

There is clearly a major job of work required to be undertaken by community activists and others concerned to see that this study does not gain traction as a vehicle to validate the further unnecessary asphalting of the Peninsula at the expense of a model of human habitation and mobility that heeds the environmental constraints with which we are now faced. This includes gingering up the Shire of Mornington Peninsula to improve upon its customary half-hearted attempts to advocate and facilitate improved public transport offerings.

In this regard, it is especially important to acknowledge that approximately 60% of the Peninsula is dedicated to green wedge areas (according to an estimate I received on request 3 from the Shire of Mornington Peninsula). A review of Melbourne's green wedges also recently announced by the Victorian government which might lead to additional environmentally burdensome uses in green wedges is potentially troubling. There now appears to be some prospect that the green wedges will take upon a sickly yellow or brown hue as Melbourne's undisciplined expansion towards the horizon is permitted to continue.

This process has already been given major succor on the Mornington Peninsula with the construction of Peninsula Link.

We should also be mindful that property industry lobbyists and freeway advocates are both in the same cart. And as recent newspaper reports show their political affections and cash are effortlessly transferable. (3)

Recent Peninsula transport inquiries biased towards road transport and against sustainable transport and planning
Apart from the Frankston Bypass EES Inquiry there have been other inquiries undertaken in recent years concerning transport policy issues on the Mornington Peninsula and in Frankston. Like the EES Inquiry none of the other inquiries considered the desirability or measures required for any significant increase in public and active transport and a reduction in car dependency on the Peninsula.

For the most part, the implicit official agenda has always been thealleviation of road congestion by the simple expedient of increasing road space. These other reports include:

• the Mornington Peninsula Access and Mobility Study Final Transport Plan (MAPMS)(November 2007) undertaken for the Frankston City Council and the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council by Booz Allen Hamilton. The report was supported by the Department of Infrastructure, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Vic Roads. The Frankston Bypass EES report (April 2009) quoted the MAPM report with approval to validate its own finding in support of Peninsula Link;

• the South Eastern Transport Strategy (March 2010) completed for the South Eastern Integrated Transport Group, which includes the Shire of Mornington Peninsula as a member. This report flagged the construction of a road by-pass to Rye as a means to
manage peak tourism demand in the area. Funding support for the project was received from VicRoads and technical assistance was provided by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd; and

• the Frankston/ Mornington Peninsula Bus Service Review report completed in November 2009 for the Department of Transport by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd. The review recommendations do not meet the public transport needs of people who live or visit the areas of the Peninsula covered by the forthcoming study to be conducted by VicRoads. There have been no worthwhile mprovements to bus services on the Peninsula in the wake of the review. 4

Putting things in perspective

As noted above when Roads Minister Tim Pallas announced in January 2010 that the Labor government was to commence construction of Peninsula Link he effectively claimed it would permit road users to travel 95 kilometres per hour between Carrum Downs and Dromana, which would shave up to 40 minutes off travel time on the route. To put this into perspective
this compares with an average travel speed in the morning peak in 2009-10 of 35.4 kilometres per hour on the whole of Melbourne's monitored road network. (4)

Recently, traffic speeds during peak periods have been measured to be as low as 7 kilometres per hour on Warrigal Road near the Chadstone Shopping Centre. This is often the case on major arterial roads such as Warrigal Road which also has about 400 route bus services using it every week day. In 2008 average weekday traffic volumes on this segment of Warrigal Road near Chadstone was about 57,000. According to data tabled by the then Southern and Eastern Integrated Transit Authority (now Linking Melbourne Authority) in support of the application to construct Peninsula Link average weekday traffic volumes on Moorooduc Highway between Mornington-Tyabb Road and Bungower Road was in the order of 37,000 vehicles. (5)

It takes little imagination to conclude where the greater public benefit lies: getting travel times off the floor in inner Melbourne or spending three quarters of a billion dollars on a project for the ostensible purpose of "bypassing" Frankston which permits speeds over ten times greater.

Seen in this context the $760 million dollars expenditure on Peninsula Link by the Brumby government is outlandish. Any government that provides just one route bus service (the 788 from Frankston Station to Portsea) on Point Nepean Road with a headway of 45 minutes on weekdays (including peak times) and 75 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays cannot be taken seriously. It is not a public transport service in any meaningful sense. It's a bad joke. It is useless for commuters, school kids, university students and for doing the shopping or visiting friends. But that is what is happening at the moment. Issues of social exclusion have been effortlessly dismissed.

Notwithstanding this mediocre service, in 2008-09 1962 passengers took the 788 route bus service each weekday, and 1454 on Saturdays and 1040 on Sundays. Therefore the average occupancy rate per service is probably between 40 and 55 passengers and it could be expected that a large proportion of the passengers travel between locations south of Safety Beach and Frankston.

Meaningful increases in service frequency would result in more than proportionate increases in patronage and relieve pressure on road space on Point Nepean Highway and other roads on the Peninsula.

However, to compensate the new government is evidently willing to develop plans to spend millions of dollars on more road space! It should wrap some simple arithmetic around the 5 problem before it repeats the mistakes of its predecessor. And it is simple: one road lane is capable of moving about 1,000 people per hour if they are sitting in cars whilst it can accommodate 8,000 people per hour if they are on buses. Of course trams and trains are even more space efficient. In fact, according to VicRoads in 2008-09 only 687 persons per lane were carried on average each hour on the Melbourne arterial and freeway network (6)

This state government is at the point where it needs to decide whether it is in the same business as its predecessor of building more expensive road space for pieces of metal to fly around on the Peninsula or whether it will construct a transport system that focuses on the travel needs of the local and visiting populace that also respects enduring principles reflected in the establishment of Melbourne's green wedges four decades ago.

written by Ian Hundley
30 July 2011
Footnotes
(1) Victorian Auditor-General's Report, Management of Major Road Projects, June 2011
(2) Clay Lucas and Royce Miller, 'Auditor hits $2 b road project,' The Age, June 25, 2011
(3)
See for example Royce Millar, 'Driving a wedge between the locals,' The Saturday Age, July 30, 2011 (4)
Traffic Monitor 2009-2010 (VicRoads May 2011), p. 27 (5)
Maunsell/ AECOM, Frankston Bypass Strategic Transport Modelling Technical Report
(SEITA 3 March 2008, p. 21 (6)
Traffic Monitor 2009/2010, p. 30.
6

Click to go to New article 1 October 2010.
Photos by Jill Quirk added on 21 July. Latest Update 20 July: More Picket News! This will make you angry. In the first project to come under the notorious "Major Transport Facilitation Act," bulldozers move in to nationally significant heritage Westerfield before the Heritage Council Decision comes out. Picket line ongoing, since 5 July. Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764. Original notice was from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197, Parkville 3052, Mobile: 0408022408

Update 16 September 2010: Urgent - Reinforcements required now!

THE SITUATION AT WESTERFIELD HAS BECOME DESPERATE. After the picket line holding them at bay all winter, the Heritage Exective Director has signed off the plan for destruction. So this Heritage property will be destroyed when they could take the road another route. Help now needed - an hour or two, to front up to the bulldozers which could arrive at any time.

"After the terrible meeting yesterday, LMA asked for another with the Welsh's today and broke the news that the Heritage Executive Director has signed off on the revised plan leaving a little more of the dam.

The plan they discussed was : 1) the dam would begin to be lowered so the aquatic animals can be rescued, then it would be drained completley.; 2) at the same time, the fence alignment will be cleared; 3) the construction fence constructed in its new location, and 4) the fauna sweep conducted. Carol Bartley of Southern Way said the nesting boxes will be set up 24 hours ahead of the tree removal so the animals can escape - we were speechless.

We believe LMA and Southern Way are in violation of their Incorporation Document, since they are not minimising the damage to Westerfield's. If the Heritage Appeal had not gone through, they would have made no changes at all - they are determined to destroy this magnificent piece of grassy woodland for the sake of the road. We are about to take an action against them.

The good news is that the Trades Hall Council and the CFMEU are supporting us, and they believe with us that no work should proceed until such time as all legal avenues have been exhausted.

To that end, we need every available supporter to join us on the picket starting tomorrow morning. If you were ever going to help us out - now is the time to do it. Give us an hour or give us a day - we do not know what day they are starting, but we have been notified, and "soon" is any moment from now on. Please distribute this call to action to all your networks.

Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors

0414 309 960"

Update 15 September 2010: Organising the picket up to Victorian Election time

Gillian Collins has led a picket on Westerfield for the last 10 weeks. This has been a deliberate and sustained effort to achieve a better outcome from the Government’s merciless push for Peninsula Link. Peninsula and Western Port need a vastly better, sustainable and greener future than the Brumby government plans for them. Many people have made enormous efforts put their considerable resources into different aspects of the same issue, and the efforts to draw the line at Westerfield are among the most remarkable and admirable.

Gillian, the Welsh family, and a couragous and reliable group have picketed seven days a week from early morning until the end of the work day. They have been visited by over 300 individuals and supported by nearly 30 environmental groups across the Peninsula and across Melbourne.

Their efforts have not been in vain: It looks like the road easement across Westerfield is still being negotiated, as there has been no clearing of Westerfield. Minister Pallas may be listening.

The amazing picketers are giving their utmost, but as in any concerted and long-term action in the face of vested interests in government and corporate enterprise, their numbers need constant supplement. The picket line needs a continuing supply of regular, reliable, individuals. They need tangible support and encouragement - both bodies and funding.

The Pines Protectors, a sub-committee of the Frankston North Community Group, Inc., and which Gillian chairs, have organised CMFEU support for the picket and have received help from The Greens Party. Supporters of the picket have established that the Abigroup construction was started before the legalities were complete and that the Native Vegetation Framework offsets are required before works start (despite information by government). DSE, LMA, LGA Councils and DEWHA must implement the full requirements our environmental laws. Gillian has made a major contribution to the community consultation process supporting the significant efforts of the Frankston community and the two local councils.

At a strategy meeting on Friday, the meeting recognised that a picket up to the elections is required. But that needs on-ground support.

Conservationists the Peninsula recognise that the 40 year-plan to industrialise greater Melbourne and Western Port poses serious threats, through incremental losses - large and small - on our remaining natural environment.

This infrastructure growth is deceptively portrayed by the media and government as a "part of our community’s vision." There needs to be a bolder plan for an environmental and sustainable future.

Tangible support to the picket could help this.

Help is needed to man the Westerfield Picket with more than 60 person days from now till Election day. Offers of help can be made to Gillian Collins and donations up to $1000 to The Pines Protectors are being sought to support further action on their behalf. (Contact Gillian or Pines Protectors)

More Picket News 20 July 2010

"A really cold start to the day was warmed by the presence of four beautiful children brought by David W. and Ted H. With Kate's lovely hairy Dachshunds, they brightened up the day no end. Then the team from the Friends of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve came and did some weed pulling at Westerfields and joined us for lunch on the picket line. What a great
group they are!

In case you missed it, Bill Russell from the Centre for Urban Studies recommended on ABCs Stateline on Friday that:

"...we will probably see the metro rail tunnel funded in the next two or three rounds of federal funding. But as I say, the trucks action plan is quite small; it's only $380 million and the state could fund that from its own resources, really. And then, I think that both the WestLink and the Peninsula Link really ought to be postponed five or10 years into the future."

It is still on the web if you want to see it - Google "Stateline" and then click on Friday's program.

With a State and Federal election looming, we remain hopeful that this project will be stopped, the land repaired, and more public transport and an upgrade to Moorooduc Highway will be considered. It's not too late.

We're looking at a week of cold and cloudy weather - the Melbourne winters I remember from my youth - but we will still be on the picket line. Please come and give us what time you can."

Signed: Gillian Collins

UPDATE 16 JULY: PICKET-LINE ONGOING!

"Our picket day started with Michelle C. delivering the attached brochure to the Bayside Christian School. Michelle did a brilliant job of capturing the essential environmental values that, we assume, the school teaches. The school had a working bee today, and she delivered the brochure to parents, the Principal, and the "Light FM" radio station that was broadcasting from the school.

Later in the day, we had 4 visits from Grade 10 students asking about our picket. This evening I find that David M. from WPPC has sent an e-mail to the school asking that students be allowed to join us - an unplanned but great coincidence.

Greg Hunt, our Federal Shadow Environment Minister, paid a visit, and we are hoping for his support for an immediate halt to the destruction and a better solution for all of us, including the school.

Peter K. showed us the photo of the skink that he carried home unknowingly yesterday in his tea cup in his backpack. He only found it when he went to clean the cup last night. He called Mel, who told him how to keep the skink comfortable overnight, and he returned it, unharmed, this morning.

Such tender care in the face of such a brutal future for this tiny member of our ecosystem.

E.O. Wilson, famous ant biologist and author, wrote a book called "Consilience," in which he predicts that there will come a time soon when our individual scientific fields of knowledge will consiliate (jump together) and we will understand the nature of the universe. It feels as though we have a consilience of effort at the picket site, and that we are beginning to really have an effect.

We will continue. Hope to see you there some time this week-end."

Signed Gillian Collins

BACKGROUND AND EARLIER REPORTS

In the first project to come under the notorious "Major Transport Facilitation Act," bulldozers move in to nationally significant heritage Westerfield before the Heritage Council Decision comes out. Picket line ongoing, with effect. Work will probably start tomorrow (6 July) or Wednesday (7 July).

UPDATE: REPORT ON TODAY'S ACTION RESULTS BELOW. Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764. Original notice was from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

(See contact information at end of article.)

Why is this picket-line so important?

Expression of public protest on this destructive and undemocratic process is of great importance because this project is the first to come under the "Major Transport Facilitation Act." For this reason it will attract a lot of interest.

UPDATE 3: REPORT FOR 7 JULY

Another amazing day today, and still no bulldozers. It would seem that Abigroup is now held up until a satisfactory resolution can be found to the outstanding issues about Westerfields. We feel strongly, however. that the picket should be maintained until that happens.

An exciting innovation will occur, we hope, tomorrow, when we go live with a computer camera from the Robinson's Road side. Craig Allen will be streaming the resulting images from our web site, www.savethepines.net

We had more [mainstream] media interest today, and some of the picketers stopped by to help because they drove by and saw our signs. Melanie Attard has done a brilliant job of making them, and the coverage in The Independent , we
think, caused lots of folk to hoot and wave encouragement all day long.

Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands drove from the City on Sunday to bring her "Community Picket" sign for us to use, and her brilliant strategic abilities have inspired a lot of what we are doing so successfully now.

Please join us whenever you can. We will be there every day until we get a more positive outcome than is now planned. There are so many interesting people stopping by, that we promise you won't be bored! And there will be
more singing tomorrow.

Gillian Collins, Pines Protectors

UPDATE 2: REPORT FOR 6 JULY

Another amazing day today. The situation is still incredibly fluid, and picketers hear that tomorrow (7 July) may be the day they try to bring the bulldozers in.

A "Community Picket" has been established on both sides of the site, and drivers of the equipment have been asked not cross the line until the unresolved issues with Heritage Victoria and wildlife rescue are resolved.

Today representatives from the CFMEU were on the site, thanks to Colin Long, Greens Candidate for South Eastern Metropolitan area. These union reps have been very encouraging about supporting the picket.

As many people as possible are needed to man the picket.

The picket is situated at Robinsons Road (MEL 103 C11) from 7:00am. Easy parking is at Bayside Christian College, just before the traffic signals that are closing one lane of Robinsons Road for gas line relocation. Walk on up to where the picket is and you will be assisted to get to the rear picket.

Today there were twice as many people as yesterday, and more tomorrow would be good. Some groups that have been
represented are:

Frankston City Council, Mornington Council, Protectors of Public Lands, The Greens, Green Wedges Coalition, Animalia Wildlife Shelter, Environment Victoria,The Connies, Western Port Protection Council, Friends of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, Pines Protectors group of the Frankston North Community Group, Inc., Australian Wildlife Protection Council, Inc., Blue Wedges, Friends of Banyule, and the Public Transport Users Group.

Mainstream media who have been present or are following are: Channel 7, 9, 10, ABC, The Independent and The Age.

Thanks to Peter for the chips, Ronnie for the coffee, Jenny for the tea and home made biscuits, and Joyce and Simon for the egg and bacon sandwiches and afternoon tea!

Source [edited]: Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors, 03-9782-5116, 0414 309 960

UPDATE 1: REPORT ON FIRST ACTIONS: Monday 5 July 18:24 p.m.

Gillian Collins of Pines Protectors reports that the community picket line was successful, and the bulldozers did not come on the site. They were parked across the street all day, and a lot of their folk stood around idle.

Volunteers showed up, brought signs and soup and chips, and generally kept the protestors feeling really positive all day.

Gillian writes that great thanks are due to the Mayor, Christine Richards, who stayed all morning and gave lots of interviews to the press. Similarly, she writes that thanks are also due to Neale Burgess, Member of Parliament for Hastings, David Morris, Member for Mornington, and Geoff Shaw, candidate for the seat of Frankston, who all stayed a long time and gave the picketers their support.

She adds that the picket starts again tomorrow starting at 7:00am sharp. There will be two locations, the one on Robinsons Road and on the west side of the property, where the bulldozers are now parked. (MEL 103 C11) If you can come, please come to the Robinson's road site and we'll send half of you to the other side. Bring a torch is you're really early, because it was very dark without street lights. Dress warmly, too!

There was strong mainstream media interest - Channel 7, 9, 10, and ABC were there, plus a reporter from the Independent.

Because this project is the first to come under the "Major Transport Facilitation Act" it is getting a lot of interest and is also very important. More people to support the picket line will be very welcome.

Source [edited]: Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors, 03-9782-5116, 0414 309 960

Background and earlier reporting

Today: 7 am Monday 5 July 2010 construction will start on the Westerfield bushland heritage property. It is being bulldozed for the peninsula Link freeway route. Local groups will be picketing the site.

Work is to start despite the fact that :

* The Westerfield appeal was heard in the Heritage Council on 25 June 2010 and no cldecision has been made. The Heritage Council was reported to have said that the members would not be hurried into making a decision.

* There still appears to be a dispute over the question of whether vegetation offsets has been finalised.

On Monday 28 2010 June a resolution was put to Frankston Council and carried unanimously that "That Council seeks the assurance of the Linking Melbourne Authority and the Department of Environment and Sustainability that Vegetation Offsets required of the Peninsula Link project and the location and detail of such offsets will be determined prior to further clearing occurring. That such offsets for Frankston native vegetation will be taken up within the municipality in consultation with Council to ensure that there will be a net gain of native vegetation within the municipality."

The Frankston Council is again considering the matter at a Council meeting tomorrow night.

* The owners were given less than 24 hours notice of the start of land clearing/construction and have not been given a time table for works .

If anyone in the area can help attend the picket the details are:

Time: 7 am start but it may well continue during the morning.

Date: Monday 5 July 2010

Place: Robinson's Road, Frankston South. See Melways Map Page 103 C 11. The site of the picket is next to Bayside Christian College and near the intersection of Mc Clelland Drive and Robinson's Road. As the road might be
blocked it is suggested that you approach via Robinsons Road and drive into the Westerfield property to park.

The driveway is opposite Robinsons Park and is just past a white water tower. It will be signposted. Then you will have to walk down to the end of the road. Note that the proposed route of the freeway is marked on the Melways map.

From the Victorian Heritage Database

Westerfield
Location

86 - 96 Robinson's Road,FRANKSTON, Frankston City
For further details, contact the local council or go to Planning Schemes Online.

Level of Significance: National

Statement of Significance

Designed in 1924 for Russell and Mabel Grimwade by Harold Desbrowe Annear, Westerfield is the most intact example of the series of houses Annear remodelled, or designed on the Mornington Peninsula in the 1920s which demonstrate the vitality of early twentieth century eclecticism. Moving away from the more formal urban Georgian style, Annear responds to the "playground" ambience of the peninsula with a range of formal attitudes. Westerfield itself is a Y plan half timbered house built on a granite base somewhat reminiscent of French country architecture.

However, the significance of Westerfield lies not only with its architecture but also its owners and its place in a particular Melbourne culture of the 20th century.

Conceived as a working farm as well as a retreat, Westerfield's grounds are planted with the euclypt species Grimwade cultivated and recorded in a photographic study. With his friend Charles Lane-Poole, first Principal of the School of Forestry at Canberra, Grimwade was ahead of his time in matters of conservation and land use, seeking a workable alliance with industry. During the war, the property was given over to growing crops for medicinal drugs; poppies, lavender, foxglove and belladonna. The house, garden and grounds are included in the classification of Westerfield which is considered to be of national significance.

First Classified 12/12/90
Revised: Classified National 3/8/98

CONTACT DETAILS

Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian
Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South
East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764

The above article was based on a notice from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197, Parkville 3052, Mobile: 0408022408