Rowville-Rail-Study-Final-Stage-1-Report-FINAL
Rowville-Rail-Study-Final-Stage-1-Report-FINAL Rowville-Rail-Study-Final-Stage-1-Report-FINAL
Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Travel demand effects We have used the transport model with capacity-constraint on roads, but not on public transport. This arguably means that it could forecast more patronage than the modelled public transport services can physically carry; the response would be to ensure that adequate services are provided to meet the predicted demand. Overall we consider that VITM appears to produce plausible levels of patronage on the Rowville rail line in our tests. However it appears that most of the patronage comes from diversion of trips from other rail lines, rather than mode shift from car which we believe could be underestimated, especially if future changes in fuel prices, public attitudes and the like are much larger than currently assumed in the model. Sensitivity testing could shed more light on this, but it is questionable whether VITM (or any other model of its type) would produce reliable results if key parameters were changed dramatically. 7.2 Rail line patronage In the rest of this Chapter we describe the patronage and demand effects of the Rowville rail line, with full services to and from the city, in 2046 (thus assuming that the Dandenong line upgrade and the the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel would have been completed, amongst other things). According to our patronage modelling, if the Rowville rail line was in place, in 2046 about 68,000 passengers could use the four stations on the line on an average weekday. Table 11 compares this with modelled patronage on other rail lines in eastern Melbourne. Table 11 – Modelled patronage on Rowville and other eastern Melbourne rail line sections Rail line Number of stations Modelled 2046 weekday station usage Total Per station Lilydale to Ringwood 4 83,000 20,800 Rowville to Huntingdale 4 68,000 17,000 Ringwood to Camberwell 12 193,000 16,100 Dandenong to Caulfield 12 171,000 14,300 Caulfield to South Yarra 5 50,000 10,000 Sandringham to South Yarra 11 98,000 8,900 Frankston to Caulfield 19 151,000 7,900 Pakenham to Dandenong 7 54,000 7,700 Epping to Clifton Hill 14 100,000 7,100 Glen Waverley to Burnley 12 85,000 7,100 Belgrave to Ringwood 8 52,000 6,500 Cranbourne to Dandenong 4 25,000 6,300 Hurstbridge to Clifton Hill 17 94,000 5,500 Source: VITM modelling of Rowville rail line The modelling results suggest that the Rowville rail line would have high usage levels compared to other sections of the rail network in Melbourne’s east on a per-station basis. Other rail line sections with similar predicted usage levels in 2046 are Lilydale to Ringwood, Page 53
Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Travel demand effects Ringwood to Camberwell and Dandenong to Caulfield. It would appear to attract much higher usage levels than the Glen Waverley, Cranbourne or Pakenham lines. 7.3 Station usage Estimated daily station usage in 2046 is summarised in Figure 28 for Rowville rail line stations and others in the vicinity (on the Dandenong, Glen Waverley and Belgrave lines). Figure 28 – Estimated daily station usage in 2046 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Source: VITM modelling of Rowville rail line in 2046 In summary: Rowville Line Dandenong Line Glen Waverley Line Belgrave Line Without Rowville line With Rowville line Monash University would be the busiest station on the Rowville rail line, with around 23,000 train users a day, comparable with Caulfield or Oakleigh stations; Mulgrave Park and Rowville would attract around 17,000 train users, similar to Glen Waverley or Springvale stations; and Waverley Park would be the least busy station with about 10,000 users a day, similar to Noble Park or Mount Waverley stations. Some stations on adjacent rail lines would see reduced usage due to the Rowville rail line. In particular: usage of Huntingdale and Clayton stations would drop as people travelling to and from Monash University would no longer need to use buses from these stations; and Page 54
- Page 5 and 6: Executive summary Introduction Fina
- Page 7 and 8: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Ex
- Page 9 and 10: area in the interim period leading
- Page 11 and 12: 2. History of Rowville rail line A
- Page 13 and 14: cost implications for the Huntingda
- Page 15 and 16: 3. Existing and future conditions F
- Page 17 and 18: Figure 6 - Land uses in the Rowvill
- Page 19 and 20: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Ex
- Page 21 and 22: 3.5.1 Journeys to work Table 3 - Jo
- Page 23 and 24: Source: VicRoads Figure 9 - SmartRo
- Page 25 and 26: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Ex
- Page 27 and 28: influence on the design and operati
- Page 29 and 30: Activity Description Participation/
- Page 31 and 32: “Rowville and residents in surrou
- Page 33 and 34: Subject area Summary of submissions
- Page 35 and 36: Figure 14 - Summary of suggestions
- Page 37 and 38: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report A
- Page 39 and 40: 6.1.4 Implications for the rail net
- Page 41 and 42: passenger capacity may also be requ
- Page 43 and 44: Figure 17 - Illustrative cross sect
- Page 45 and 46: 6.2.2 Station locations and layouts
- Page 47 and 48: Figure 21 - Mulgrave station cross
- Page 49 and 50: Figure 25 - Rowville station cross
- Page 51 and 52: Table 10 - Summary comparison of Ro
- Page 53 and 54: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report A
- Page 55: 7. Travel demand effects Final Stag
- Page 59 and 60: Source: VITM modelling of Rowville
- Page 61 and 62: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Tr
- Page 63 and 64: 8. Costs, benefits and impacts 8.1
- Page 65 and 66: 8.5 Environmental and social effect
- Page 67 and 68: 8.1 Conclusions Final Stage 1 Feasi
- Page 69 and 70: 9.2 Recommended actions Our recomme
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>Stage</strong> 1 Feasibility <strong>Report</strong><br />
Travel demand effects<br />
We have used the transport model with capacity-constraint on roads, but not on public<br />
transport. This arguably means that it could forecast more patronage than the modelled<br />
public transport services can physically carry; the response would be to ensure that<br />
adequate services are provided to meet the predicted demand.<br />
Overall we consider that VITM appears to produce plausible levels of patronage on the<br />
<strong>Rowville</strong> rail line in our tests. However it appears that most of the patronage comes from<br />
diversion of trips from other rail lines, rather than mode shift from car which we believe could<br />
be underestimated, especially if future changes in fuel prices, public attitudes and the like are<br />
much larger than currently assumed in the model. Sensitivity testing could shed more light on<br />
this, but it is questionable whether VITM (or any other model of its type) would produce<br />
reliable results if key parameters were changed dramatically.<br />
7.2 <strong>Rail</strong> line patronage<br />
In the rest of this Chapter we describe the patronage and demand effects of the <strong>Rowville</strong> rail<br />
line, with full services to and from the city, in 2046 (thus assuming that the Dandenong line<br />
upgrade and the the Melbourne Metro <strong>Rail</strong> Tunnel would have been completed, amongst<br />
other things).<br />
According to our patronage modelling, if the <strong>Rowville</strong> rail line was in place, in 2046 about<br />
68,000 passengers could use the four stations on the line on an average weekday. Table 11<br />
compares this with modelled patronage on other rail lines in eastern Melbourne.<br />
Table 11 – Modelled patronage on <strong>Rowville</strong> and other eastern Melbourne rail line sections<br />
<strong>Rail</strong> line Number of stations<br />
Modelled 2046 weekday station usage<br />
Total Per station<br />
Lilydale to Ringwood 4 83,000 20,800<br />
<strong>Rowville</strong> to Huntingdale 4 68,000 17,000<br />
Ringwood to Camberwell 12 193,000 16,100<br />
Dandenong to Caulfield 12 171,000 14,300<br />
Caulfield to South Yarra 5 50,000 10,000<br />
Sandringham to South Yarra 11 98,000 8,900<br />
Frankston to Caulfield 19 151,000 7,900<br />
Pakenham to Dandenong 7 54,000 7,700<br />
Epping to Clifton Hill 14 100,000 7,100<br />
Glen Waverley to Burnley 12 85,000 7,100<br />
Belgrave to Ringwood 8 52,000 6,500<br />
Cranbourne to Dandenong 4 25,000 6,300<br />
Hurstbridge to Clifton Hill 17 94,000 5,500<br />
Source: VITM modelling of <strong>Rowville</strong> rail line<br />
The modelling results suggest that the <strong>Rowville</strong> rail line would have high usage levels<br />
compared to other sections of the rail network in Melbourne’s east on a per-station basis.<br />
Other rail line sections with similar predicted usage levels in 2046 are Lilydale to Ringwood,<br />
Page 53
Change language