Important Notice · third parties or other bodies for any other purpose than those intended by Infrastructure Victoria. 2. AECOM has used its reasonable endeavours to ensure that

Important Notice

The Report is qualified in its entirety by and should be considered in the light of AECOM’s Terms of Engagement

and the following:

1. The Report is provided solely for the purposes as outlined by Infrastructure Victoria for the purposes of high

level assessments of transport projects. Figures are produced for comparison purposes and should not be

relied upon for the purpose of budgeting or future project development. Nor should they be relied upon by

third parties or other bodies for any other purpose than those intended by Infrastructure Victoria.

2. AECOM has used its reasonable endeavours to ensure that the data contained in the Report reflects the

most accurate and timely information available to it in development of the project and is based on

information that was current as of the date of the Report.

3. The Report is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by AECOM from its

independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry and consultations with you, your employees

and your representatives. No warranty or representation is made by AECOM that any of the projected

values or results contained in the Report will actually be achieved. In addition, the Report is based upon

information that was obtained on or before the date in which the Report was prepared. Circumstances and

events may occur following the date on which such information was obtained that are beyond our control

and which may affect the findings or projections contained in the Report. We may not be held responsible

for such circumstances or events and specifically disclaim any responsibility therefore.

4. AECOM has relied on information provided by you and by third parties (Information Providers) to produce

the Report and arrive at its conclusions. AECOM has not verified information provided by Information

Providers (unless specifically noted otherwise) and we assume no responsibility and make no

representations with respect to the adequacy, accuracy or completeness of such information. No

responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by Information Providers including, without limitation,

by your employees or your representatives or for inaccuracies in any other data source whether provided in

writing or orally used in preparing or presenting the Report.

5. In no event, regardless of whether AECOM’s consent has been provided, shall AECOM assume any liability

or responsibility to any third party to whom the Report is disclosed or otherwise made available.

6. The conclusions in the Report must be viewed in the context of the entire Report including, without

limitation, any assumptions made and disclaimers provided. The conclusions in this Report must not be

excised from the body of the Report under any circumstances.

7. Without the prior written consent of AECOM, the Report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or

private offering of securities or other similar purpose where it might be relied upon to any degree by any

person other than you.

8. All intellectual property rights (including, but not limited to copyright, database rights and trade marks rights)

in the Report including any forecasts, drawings, spreadsheets, plans or other materials provided are the

property of AECOM. You may use and copy such materials for your own internal use only.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2 1.0 Further exploration of major transport projects 4

1.1 Costing methodology overview 4 1.2 Contingency methodology 5

2.0 City Loop reconfiguration (CLR) – Preliminary costing 2 2.1 Scope 2 2.2 Capital costs 4

2.2.1 City Loop reconfiguration 4 2.2.2 City Loop reconfiguration works 5 2.2.3 Wallan extension 7 2.2.4 Rolling stock 10

2.3 Operational costs 10 2.4 Scope risk 10 2.5 Cost risk 10

3.0 Doncaster heavy rail line (DHR) – Preliminary costing 12 3.1 Scope 12 3.2 Capital costs 14

3.2.1 Land acquisition 15 3.2.2 Rolling stock 16 3.2.3 Comparison to previous study 16

3.3 Operational costs 16 3.4 Scope risk 16 3.5 Scope alternatives 16 3.6 Cost risk 16

4.0 Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection (EWE) – Preliminary costing 19 4.1 Scope 20

4.1.1 Plans 22 4.2 Operational costs 23 4.3 Scope risk 23 4.4 Scope alternative 23 4.5 Cost risk 24

5.0 Melbourne Airport heavy rail line – Preliminary costing 26 5.1 Scope 26 5.2 Capital costs 26

5.2.1 Land acquisition 29 5.2.2 Rolling stock 29

5.3 Operational costs 29 5.4 Scope risk 29 5.5 Scope Alternative 29 5.6 Cost risk 30

6.0 Melbourne Metro 2 – Preliminary costing 32 6.1 Scope 32

6.1.1 Alignments 32 6.1.2 Stations 33

6.2 Capital costs 34 6.2.1 Capital cost 34 6.2.2 MMS – Option 1 (Whole Project) 34 6.2.3 MMS – Option 2 (Newport to Parkville only) 37 6.2.4 Rolling stock 38

6.3 Operational costs 38 6.4 Scope risk 39 6.5 Scope alternatives 39 6.6 Cost risk 39

6.6.1 Geotechnical 39 6.6.2 Station structures and land acquisition 40

6.7 Staging 40 6.8 Cost benchmark 40

7.0 North-East link (NEL) – Preliminary costing 42 7.1 Scope 42 7.2 Capital costs 44

7.2.1 Land acquisition 47 7.3 Operational Costs 47 7.4 Scope risk 47 7.5 Scope alternatives 47 7.6 Cost risk 48

7.6.1 Geotechnical 48 7.6.2 Planning and environmental 48

8.0 Outer Metropolitan Ring Road – Preliminary costing 50 8.1 Scope 50 8.2 Capital costs 52 8.3 Operational costs 55 8.4 Scope risk 55 8.5 Scope alternative 55 8.6 Cost risk 55

8.6.1 OMR Geotechnical 55 8.6.2 E6 Geotechnical 55 8.6.3 Flora and Fauna 56

8.7 Staging options 56 9.0 Rowville heavy rail line (RHR) – Preliminary costing 58

9.1 Scope 58 9.2 Capital costs 58

9.2.1 Land acquisition 60 9.2.2 Rolling stock 61 9.2.3 Comparison to previous study 61

9.3 Operational Costs 61 9.4 Scope alternatives 61 9.5 Scope risk 61 9.6 Cost risk 61 Appendix A 1 Appendix B 1 Appendix C 1 Appendix D 1 Appendix E 1

List of Tables

Table 1 Direct option costs 2 Table 2 CLR – Lower bound costs 6 Table 3 CLR – Upper bound costs 7 Table 4 Wallan Electrification – Lower bound cost 8 Table 5 Wallan Electrification – Upper bound cost 9 Table 6 DHR – Lower bound costs 14 Table 7 DHR – Upper bound costs 15 Table 8 EWE (excl. Eastern Freeway widening) – Lower bound costs 21 Table 9 EWE (excl. Eastern Freeway widening) – Upper bound costs 21 Table 10 EWE (including widening) – Lower Bound costs 22 Table 11 EWE (including widening) – Upper Bound costs 22 Table 12 MAH – Lower bound costs 27 Table 13 MAH – Upper bound costs 28 Table 14 MMS (Option 1 – Whole Project) – Lower bound costs 35 Table 15 MMS (Option 1 – Whole Project) – Upper bound costs 36 Table 16 MMS (Option 2 – Newport to Parkville only) – Lower bound costs 37 Table 17 MMS (Option 2 – Newport to Parkville only) – Upper bound costs 38 Table 18 Widening costs – Lower bound 44 Table 19 Widening costs – Upper bound 44 Table 20 NEL with widening – Lower bound costs 45 Table 21 NEL with widening – Upper bound costs 46 Table 22 NEL excluding widening – Lower bound costs 46 Table 23 NEL excluding widening – Upper bound costs 47 Table 24 OMR – Lower bound costs 52 Table 25 OMR – Upper bound costs 53 Table 26 OMR Extension – Lower bound costs 54 Table 27 OMR Extension – Upper bound costs 54 Table 28 RHR – Lower bound cost 59 Table 29 RHR – Upper bound costs 60

List of Figures

Figure 1 CLR operational diagram 2 Figure 2 Network Development Plan – Stage 4 3 Figure 3 DHR illustrative alignment (excluding Burke Road station) 13 Figure 4 Alternative East-West link alignments 19 Figure 5 Preferred Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection alignment 20 Figure 6 Tunnelling profile 22 Figure 7 East West Link (east) ramps and intersections 23 Figure 8 Melbourne Metro 2 south-west section showing station opportunities 32 Figure 9 Melbourne Metro 2 north east section 33 Figure 10 Melbourne Metro projected capital costs 40 Figure 11 Illustrative NEL alignment 43 Figure 12 Outer metropolitan ring road indicative alignment 51 Figure 13 RHR illustrative alignment 58 Figure 14 CLR – 1:250,000 Surface Geology Map a Figure 15 MMS – Near-surface geology North East of Spencer Street Station a Figure 16 MMS – Near-surface geology from Southern Cross Station to Webb Dock b Figure 17 MMS – Near-surface geology west of the Yarra River d Figure 18 North-East link alternatives 1 a Figure 19 North-East link alternatives 2 b Figure 20 Generic Alignment of proposed North-East Link Tunnel a

List of Boxes

Box 1 Wallan rail electrification (WRE1) 4

Executive Summary

AECOM has undertaken preliminary costings for eight major projects for Infrastructure Victoria. The purpose of

these costings is to provide consistent inputs in the development of Benefit-Cost Ratios for each project.

Infrastructure Victoria will then measure the costs against modelled benefits in their development of an overall

infrastructure strategy.

The method of costing has been done based on publicly available information, as well as a VITM model produced

by ARUP in 2016.

Methodology was largely kept consistent across the projects and exceptions are noted in the body of the report

where this differs. The projects direct costs are summarised in the table below, which includes the capital, rolling

stock and whole-of-life PV operational costs. While some projects had previous more detailed costings available

from previous studies, in order to maintain consistency, projects which had not progressed to business case

stage were all considered using the same methodology. A summary of the various direct option costs is

presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Direct option costs

Option name

Direct option cost

($ real 2016)

City Loop reconfiguration CLR $4.5 billion – $6.5 billion

City Loop reconfiguration (without Wallan electrification) CLR $2.1 billion – $3.1 billion

Doncaster heavy rail line (to Doncaster Hill) DHR $3.3 billion – $4.4 billion

Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection EWE $6.7 billion – $8.6 billion

Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection (excluding Eastern

Freeway widening)

EWE $6.4 billion – $8.2 billion

Melbourne Airport heavy rail line MAH $3.0 billion – $3.9 billion

Melbourne Metro 2 MMS $15.4 billion – $22.9 billion

Melbourne Metro 2 (Newport to Parkville only) MMS $9.5 billion – $13.0 billion

North-East link (Bulleen alignment) NEL $4.9 billion – $7.2 billion

North-East link (excluding Eastern Freeway widening) NEL $4.7 billion – $6.9 billion

Outer metropolitan ring road (including Melbourne Airport connection) OMR $8.8 billion – $13.2 billion

Rowville heavy rail line RHR $5.7 billion – $8.5 billion

Source: AECOM

The City Loop reconfiguration (CLR) involves modifying the existing Melbourne Underground Rail Loop (MURL),

the Northern loop line and the Caulfield loop lines. This will allow increased capacity, particularly on the Upfield,

Craigieburn and rail lines to the south east. This will involve constructing new links via tunnelling, upgrading

signalling, constructing a new rail flyover and upgrades of rolling stock. Due to the complexity and unique nature

of the project the CLR has been costed without using the same risk profiles as the other costings.

The project will also enable the Wallan electrification, which involves electrification of the existing track between

Wallan and Craigieburn and the upgrade and construction of stations.

The Doncaster heavy rail (DHR) involves the construction of a new heavy rail link that will extend from Doncaster

Hill, along the Eastern Freeway; before connecting with the Clifton Hill heavy rail loop near Collingwood station.

This project is dependent on the Melbourne Metro 2 project as more capacity is currently required for the Clifton

Hill loop line.

The Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection (EWE) is the construction of a road link that will provide increased

connectivity from the east to west. There are a number of different alignments that are possible but for the

purposes of this report the road will consist of a six lane link from the Eastern Freeway to CityLink via the

previous East-West Link alignment. This project also includes widening works on the Eastern Freeway.

The Melbourne Airport heavy rail line (MAH) is a proposed twin track rail link between the Melbourne

(Tullamarine) Airport and Melbourne’s central city. The alignment which is investigated in this report will be via

the existing Albion East reservation which services would then run via the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel and

through to the south-east. The purpose of this rail line would be to provide direct connectivity to the airport, with

passengers able to easily access airport services.

The Melbourne Metro 2 (MMS) is a proposed new heavy rail connection that will run between Clifton Hill and the

CBD through to Fisherman's Bend and Newport by two new rail tunnels. This rail connection will allow separation

of the high growth South Morang – Southern Cross line from the Clifton Hill group. By constructing this additional

tunnel there will be additional capacity between Clifton Hill and Southern Cross, allowing for more services on the

Hurstbridge, Mernda and proposed Doncaster Rail line. It will also give the Werribee line improved capacity and

the Clifton Hill group will be able to undergo future improvements.

The North-East link (NEL) will create a road link between the Eastern Freeway and the M80 in Greensborough.

The alignment that has been costed is the Bulleen alignment in which the road is assumed to tunnel under the

Yarra River and to Bulleen where it connects with the Eastern Freeway. The purpose of this road project is to

improve the outer north-south links for road freight movement and travel time and reliability for road users.

The proposed Outer Metropolitan Ring Road (OMR) project will be the construction of a new road to improve

orbital and cross-Melbourne freight vehicle access and connections to the north and east from key freight

precincts in the west. This option will also improve access to employment in north and western metropolitan

Melbourne.

The Rowville heavy rail line (RHR) will be new rail line which will improve the connection between Rowville, the

Monash Employment Centre and the central city area, as well as decreasing road congestion. The alignment will

begin at Huntingdale Station and run east along the central median of North Road and Wellington Road to Stud

Road, then turning north to terminate at Stud Park using a mixture of tunnelled, at-grade and elevated rail

structures.

1.0 Further exploration of major transport projects

Through the option development process (Assessment 1, Assessment 2 and consultation), eight significant

transport projects have been identified by Infrastructure Victoria for a greater level of evaluation (including cost

benefit analysis) due to their scale, cost, and complexity. Preliminary evaluation of such options is consistent with

the approach taken for other major Victorian transport projects. In the case of policy and technology options,

there is also an opportunity to build an evidence base for the effectiveness of demand management, and better

utilising existing assets.

The preliminary evaluation of options directly supports the development of the Strategy, while fulfilling

Infrastructure Victoria’s other roles of providing advice to the Victorian Government, and publishing research on

infrastructure matters.

AECOM has undertaken evaluations of cost for Infrastructure Victoria for the purpose of preparing Benefit-Cost

Ratios for each of the following major projects:

- City Loop reconfiguration (CLR)

- Doncaster heavy rail line (DHR)

- Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection (EWE)

- Melbourne Airport heavy rail line (MAH)

- Melbourne Metro 2 (MMS)

- North-East link (NEL)

- Outer metropolitan ring road (OMR)

- Rowville heavy rail line (RHR).

To establish option benefits, Infrastructure Victoria has commissioned transport modelling using the State

Government’s Victorian Integrated Transport Model (VITM). This work will be used to determine the impact of the

eight significant transport projects on travel demand and behaviour, and ultimately, accessibility and level of

service in the network. It is understood that benefits are to be quantified using accepted DEDJTR Transport

modelling approaches, including guidance for incorporation of wider economic impacts for Victorian projects.

Option benefit and cost estimates will then be combined to produce a range of benefit cost ratios for the different

options. Benefit cost ratios will enable comparison of the relative impacts of the options, a key input to the

Strategy.

Please note that, as AECOM did not undertake the calculation of benefits, we cannot guarantee that the

assumptions costed in this report align completely with the estimated benefits however all reasonable efforts

have been made to do so.

1.1 Costing methodology overview

In order to assess the eight transport options, AECOM has collected the best available public information with

regard to previous planning related to the options. Public data, and data provided by Infrastructure Victoria, has

formed the basis of assumptions about option factors such as alignment, construction approach, technologies,

and land acquisition for the purposes of costing.

In forming assumptions about the options, AECOM relied on a VITM model provided by Arup (2016) which

outlines general alignments, interchanges and station locations to inform costings but may not have considered

station depths, rail operating speeds of chosen alignments or other operational variations. The general

alignments, interchanges and station locations are simply modelling assumptions and may not have been

subjected to assessment against alternatives.

Cost rates have been developed using AECOM’s experience, effort, independent research and general

knowledge of the industry as well as several industry consultations.

Quantities for those projects for which they have been calculated have been based on best available alignments

with limited knowledge of geotechnical conditions or ground conditions and services. While AECOM has

endeavoured to provide accurate and viable cost estimates, some projects involved preparing general alignments

which AECOM cannot confirm are viable without further investigation.

AECOM has cross referenced the costings provided in this report with other publically available information and

believe they are broadly consistent, but note that previous studies may have been undertaken using a different

set of assumptions. These previous studies and available information were also undertaken in isolation. For the

purposes of providing a fair comparison the costings in this report have all been provided at a high level suitable

for strategic assessment.

The same methodology was applied to the costings of the projects and exceptions have been noted were

appropriate. The following approaches were applied to all preliminary option costings:

- Price escalation has not been included for net present values of capital or operational costs and therefore

the nominal cost incurred for projects would need be escalated from the 2016-based prices presented in

these costings. As none of the projects are expected to commence in 2016, cost escalation should be

applied when considering use in further years.

- The design life of most elements such as formations and road structures has been assumed to be

100 years, while the operational life has been assumed to be 50 years as a conservative assumption

implying the likely need for upgrades in the 50 – 100 year period.

- Projects were costed predominantly on a per kilometre basis with the exception of the option CLR. This

option is an exception in that it contains a number of discrete projects which may vary in overall cost, rather

than on a per kilometre basis. Other projects have more homogenous costs per kilometre, and so the

number of kilometres required is the key driver of cost.

- Implementation schedules estimated involve design lead times as well as construction and commissioning

time. Schedules are presented starting from the equivalent of the award of a Design and Construct contract

to undertake the works, through to the opening of the project for public use. The schedules therefore does

not include the required time for related elements such as planning approvals (though planning approvals

have been commented on in relation to timing under some options), environmental approvals or preparation

of business cases or reference designs.

The following approaches were applied to specific preliminary option costings:

- For rail tunnels, the cost of construction includes the cost of the tunnel formation with rail related

infrastructure included as a separate line item. This affects options CLR, DHR, MMS and RHR.

- For road tunnels, the cost used was based on best available information which includes the cost of

associated infrastructure such as fire systems, signalling and communications, pavement and lighting. This

affects options EWE and NEL.

- Indirect costs have been included on a consistent basis across road and rail projects, though it is noted

that the indirect costs of road projects are lower than the indirect costs of rail projects due to higher costs

related to rail occupations and approvals.

1.2 Contingency methodology

The inclusion of contingency has been made with a consistent approach. In costing projects at this strategic level

it is important to be consistent so that projects can be ranked on a like for like basis.

As each of the projects is at a different stage of development and knowledge base we have adopted a

conservative estimate of contingency to allow for risk. This contingency method is consistent with the AustRoads

Research Report Improving Practice in Cost Estimation of Road Projects, (2011) and ‘Best Practice’ cost

estimation in land transport infrastructure projects (2010) produced by ARRB.

The first stage involves including the ‘inherent’ risk involved in any project to allow for known likely cost increases

such as service relocations, cost escalation, realignments and other associate works which are likely to be

discovered at later stages of project development. The cost including the inherent risk is included as a flat rate

across cost items as the ‘lower bound cost’ for each project.

A ‘contingent’ risk element has then been included to allow for larger unknowns for projects estimated at this

strategic stage. This may include major realignments or large additional costs which may result from unknown

items which may include, but is not limited to, ground contamination, unexpected geotechnical challenges, major

scope additions etc. The cost including this contingency factor is included as the ‘upper bound cost’ for each

project.

While for some projects such as Melbourne Metro 2 (MMS) these risks are far greater due to the very preliminary

level of existing information and for others such as the Outer metropolitan ring road (OMR), the risks may be

more well known, we have adopted a consistent approach, and rate, across all projects for which scope and

expected cost is easily defined so they can be considered on a like for like basis at this strategic level. To provide

varying contingency rates based on levels of evidence at this early stage of most projects would disadvantage

undeveloped projects against the other projects which are at a later stage of development.

This cost method has been adopted for all projects for which we have confidence in cost rates and the likely

quantities on a like-for-like basis. For the City Loop reconfiguration (CLR) there is significant uncertainty around

both quantity and likely cost due to the constrained inner-city environment and impacts on and by surrounding rail

services and infrastructure. For this project we have selected upper bound and lower bound likely costs for each

cost item. A contingency for risk has then been added to both the lower and upper bound costs to account for

both inherent and contingent risk in the project. While this may be inconsistent with the other project costings, the

nature of the CLR project is such that the risk to the lower bound cost is as likely as the upper bound cost.

For the Eastern Freeway to City Link connection (EWE) project due to the late stage of development and without

line item costs, contingency has been added at a lower rate (30 percent) and only applied to the upper bound

cost with the lower bound cost not including a contingency.

At the strategic level of assessment, the contingency method applied is aimed at providing the most accurate

costings without compromising the ability to compare projects.

City Loop reconfiguration

CLR

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page 1

City Loop reconfiguration CLR

Infrastructure Victoria’s option description

Reconfigure the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop (MURL) Northern and Caulfield loop lines to increase

capacity particularly on the Upfield, Craigieburn and South East rail lines and to enable Wallan electrification. The

works will include new tunnelling links, signalling upgrades, a new rail flyover and rolling stock. This upgrade and

reconfiguration will enable additional services to be run through the core of the rail network, support extensions to

the network and allow for the creation of standalone end-to-end rail lines. Further operational details are outlined

in the PTV Network Development Plan – Metropolitan Rail, December 2012. This option will increase access to

the city centre and the overall resilience of the network.

Scope summary

Construction of additional rail tunnels between Parliament and Richmond and North Melbourne and Flagstaff

would allow trains for a through running operation and free up a track pair on the Flinders Street viaduct.

Sector

Transport

Certainty of evidence

Low

Evidence base

Network Development Plan – PTV 2012

Direct option cost (incl. rolling stock)

$2.1 billion – $3.1 billion

Including Wallan electrification:


Capital cost


Including Wallan electrification:


Annual recurrent costs

$2 million – $4 million

Whole-of-Life PV: $55 million

Including Wallan electrification



Construction period

4 years

Operational life (from opening)

50 years

Cost certainty

Certainty of evidence – Low

There is significant cost risk with unknown

geological and local ground conditions in particular

around the Dudley Street Bridge.

Actual cost will be higher as these figures do not include price escalation for future years.


CLR


2.0 City Loop reconfiguration (CLR) – Preliminary costing

2.1 Scope

The scope considered for construction under this project includes the enabling works to convert City Loop

services to through-running metro-style train corridors. Construction projects required to enable these works

include:

- New tunnel link between Flagstaff (Caulfield Loop) and North Melbourne platform 2. This will enable trains

from Craigieburn to run into the Caulfield Loop to Flagstaff, then exit via the existing portal at Richmond

platform 5 and continue to Frankston via Parliament.

- New tunnel link between Parliament (Northern Loop) and Richmond platform 3. This will enable trains from

Frankston to run into the Northern Loop to Parliament, and then exit via the existing western portal at North

Melbourne on to Craigieburn via Flagstaff.

- Enabling works for new tunnel link from City Loop to Burnley line to facilitate through running from Clifton

Hill Loop Line to Ringwood Loop Line for the purposes of stabling and maintenance.

- New fly-over from the Upfield line to the through suburban lines at North Melbourne (over other Northern

Group tracks).

- Bi-directional signalling at North Melbourne platform 1 to enable operation of city-bound and outbound

Seymour services to Southern Cross.

- Additional platform and associated track and signalling at North Melbourne.

A map of the Network Development Plan – Stage 4 (with option CLR implemented) is displayed below in Figure 1

and Figure 2.

Figure 1 CLR operational diagram

Source: PTV (2012)


CLR


Figure 2 Network Development Plan – Stage 4

Source: PTV (2012)


CLR


2.2 Capital costs

Capital costs have been calculated for this project in a slightly different method to other projects in this document.

This project has a number of key components which could vary largely in size, such as connections to existing

tunnels and integration with existing rail yards. Connecting to older tunnels could result in significant re-

construction of the existing tunnels. Other assets will also be affected which may vary largely in cost depending

on the existing conditions and ability to avoid services or other obstacles.

The unique geotechnical and structural challenges as well as the limited level of detail of existing conditions

means there is greater uncertainty in these costings.

The cost ranges for the upper and lower bounds have been estimated based on available information, but there

is still a substantial risk for all cost areas, therefore a 50 percent contingency has been added to both the lower

and upper bound cost to provide a similar level of confidence as other projects which have costs that can be

more easily estimated from previous projects.

Capital costs are based on cut and cover tunnelling for the North Melbourne – Flagstaff tunnel. For the section

between Parliament and Richmond, the geotechnical investigation favoured a road header or drill and blast

construction through rock between Jolimont and Parliament. Cut and cover while reconstructing rail on top would

be used through the Jolimont rail yards to Richmond. Costs for either method are approximately the same but

have different implications on surrounding infrastructure.

There are significant operational disruptions resulting from the cut and cover tunnelling proposed through the

Jolimont Yard. The works will require cascading closures of tracks as the works progress through yard. There is a

high level of cost uncertainty associated with these disruptions as the duration and number of track closures will

not be known until further investigations are completed.

The Wallan extension has also been included in the capital costs and is described in Box 1.

Box 1 Wallan rail electrification (WRE1)


Extend the electrified metropolitan rail network to Wallan. The scope includes the utilisation of the Upfield Line via

the reinstatement of tracks between Upfield to Somerton with duplication of the track between Gowrie and

Upfield, construction of a new track pair from Roxburgh Park to Craigieburn and electrification works between

Upfield and Wallan.

This extension to the electrified network will give greater access to the new growth areas in Melbourne’s north

through additional services to Seymour, Wallan, Upfield and Craigieburn. It will improve capacity and reliability

across all these lines and operations across the network.

Furthermore it will enable more efficient access to central Melbourne and support access to jobs and services.

Source: Infrastructure Victoria

The Wallan extension requires electrification of 20km of track from Craigieburn to Wallan as well as three grade

separations at Summerhill Road, Donnybrook Road, Beveridge Road and Wallan-Whittlesea Road. A new station

would also be constructed at Beveridge. A new connection between Roxburgh Park and Craigieburn involving

electrification of a new track pair is included in the costing.

2.2.1 City Loop reconfiguration

Costs involve two working areas:

- North Melbourne – Flagstaff

- Parliament – Richmond

The costs involved at the North Melbourne – Flagstaff section include re-aligning the existing portal area south of

North Melbourne station to create a new portal then continuing this tunnel under the Dudley Street Bridge, and

then passing over the existing Northern Loop tunnel before continuing under Latrobe Street where a connection

with the existing Caulfield Loop will need to be made.

As outlined in the geological assessment in Appendix A, a road header or cut and cover methods may be used to

construct the tunnel section.

The alignment in the vicinity of the Dudley Street Bridge runs generally along the interface between the

Tullamarine Basalt and Coode Island Silt. Underneath the Dudley Street Bridge, foundations are unknown;

therefore the costs of progressing through this section cannot be accurately estimated. We have assumed a cost

range from $20 million to $100 million. The low estimate would be if the tunnel could be constructed through


CLR


basalt without impacting on bridge foundations, the high estimate represents what the costs might be to adjust

existing foundations or reconstruct part of the Dudley Street Bridge as part of the project.

The Parliament station section has two distinctly separate tunnelling sections. From Richmond to Wellington

Parade requires a new tunnel portal and a cut and cover tunnel through the existing rail yards. To cut and cover

the tunnel across the rail yards would require reconstructing tracks on structure above the new tunnel.

At Wellington Parade, the tunnel is expected to be a driven tunnel although it is not known where the

colluvium/newer volcanic and Melbourne Formation geologies begin and end along the alignment without more

detailed investigation. It is likely that a driven tunnel using a road header could be used in conjunction with drill

and blast tunnelling techniques.

Due to the uncertainty around quantities as well as costs for the various line items which are heavily dependent

on existing conditions of infrastructure and possible scope increases, costing for the CLR has been undertaken

using a low-high range for each cost item and then adding a contingency of 50 percent to the overall total.

Additional scope could include large ticket items such as tunnel reconstructions existing rail infrastructure

replacement and other large scale items.

2.2.2 City Loop reconfiguration works

The lower and upper bound costs for option CLR can be found in Table 2 and Table 3.


CLR


Table 2 CLR – Lower bound costs

Item Quantity Unit cost

Cost per element

(millions)

North Melbourne – Flagstaff

Loop Tunnel modification - $25 million $25

Tunnel 1,000 metres $100,000 per m $100

Portal modifications 1 $30 million each $30

Dudley Street Bridge tunnelling - $20 million $20

North Melbourne flyover - $10 million $10

Parliament – Richmond

Northern Loop Tunnel modification - $20 million $20

Northern tunnel 350 metres $100,000 per m $35

Rail yard tunnel 950 metres $100,000 per m $95

Replacement rail on structure 2,700 metres $120,000 per m $324

Power and communications

Signalling and communications 5,002 metres $10,000 per m $50.02

Temporary works

Train disruption, re-routing and replacement - $50 million $50

Total direct $759.02

Indirect costs

Site works 25% of direct costs $189.75

Margin 8% of direct costs $60.72

Design work 15% of direct costs $133.85

Government costs 20% of direct costs $75.90

Total indirect $440.23

Lower bound sub-total $1,199.25

+ 50% contingency $1,798.88

Source: AECOM


CLR


Table 3 CLR – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

North Melbourne – Flagstaff

Loop Tunnel modification - $35 million $35

Tunnel 1,000 metres $150,000 per m $150

Portal Modifications 1 $75 million each $75

Dudley Street Bridge tunnelling - $100 million $100

North Melbourne flyover - $15 million $15

Parliament – Richmond

Northern Loop modification - $50 million $50

Northern tunnel 350 metres $150,000 per m $52

Rail yard tunnel 950 metres $150,000 per m $142.5

Replacement rail on structure 2,700 metres $150,000 per m $405


Signalling and communications 5,002 metres $14,000 per m $70.03

Temporary works

Train disruption, re-routing and replacement - $100 million $100

Total direct $1,195.03

Indirect costs






Upper bound sub-total $1,888.14

+ 50% contingency $2,832.22

Source: AECOM

Signalling costs are higher under this project as it is possible that signalling and communications would need to

be reconfigured through large sections of the tunnel beyond the sections of the tunnel being changed. The higher

cost reflects the likely possibility of replacement signalling extending further than the study area. The shorter

distance also means some economies of scale are not realised as with other projects.

2.2.3 Wallan extension

The Wallan extension which has been costed includes electrification of the existing track pair between Wallan

and Craigieburn and rebuilding Donnybrook and Wallan stations, with new stations at Beveridge and Lockerbie.

The construction of the Upfield to Somerton link has been assumed to be a new track pair replacing the existing

track. This section also requires duplication of track between Gowrie and Upfield with two new tracks. New


CLR


platforms pairs will need to be constructed at the Roxburgh Park, Craigieburn and Upfield (only a single platform)

and have been costed as new stations. A new flyover of ARTC tracks has also been included. The lower and

upper bound costs for the CLR (plus Wallan) project can be found below in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4 Wallan Electrification – Lower bound cost


Cost per element

(millions)

Electrification and corridor

OHLE 42 km $4,830 per km $202.86

Grade separations (road over) 3 $60 million each $180

Upfield – Somerton Link

Upfield – Somerton track pair 6.6 km $20 million per km $132

Gowrie – Upfield duplication 8 km $20 million per km $160

Rail flyover - $10 million $10


Substations 5 $7 million each $35

Signalling and communications 21 km $2.8 million per km $58.8

Stations

Donnybrook (reconstruction) - $10 million each $10

Beveridge (construction) - $15 million each $15

Wallan (reconstruction) - $10 million each $10

Lockerbie (construction) - $15 million each $15

Platforms at Roxburgh Park, Craigieburn,

Upfield 2.5 $10 million each $25


Indirect costs






Lower bound total $1,348.78

Source: AECOM


CLR


Table 5 Wallan Electrification – Upper bound cost


Cost per element

(millions)

Electrification and corridor

OHLE 42 km $7,245 per km $304.29

Grade separations (road over) 3 $100 million each $300

Upfield – Somerton link

Upfield – Somerton track pair 6.6 km $30 million per km $198

Gowrie – Upfield duplication 8 km $30 million per km $240

Rail flyover - $15 million $15


Substations 5 $10.5 million each $52.5


Stations

Donnybrook (reconstruction) - $15 million each $15

Beveridge (construction) - $25 million each $25

Wallan (reconstruction) - $15 million each $10

Lockerbie (construction) - $25 million each $25

Platforms at Roxburgh Park, Craigieburn,

Upfield

2.5 $15 million each $37.5


Indirect costs






Upper bound total $2,078.47

Source: AECOM

The CLR project without the Wallan extension is seen as above to cost a total of $1.8 billion – $2.8 billion

including a contingency for a large number of possible scope variations. The Wallan extension costing has been

done with the assumption that all existing level crossings to Craigieburn will have been completed before these

duplication and electrification works begin. The electrification costed independently and also including

contingency will be around $1.3 billion – $2.0 billion and thus the total when combined will be $3.1 billion – $4.9

billion.


CLR


2.2.4 Rolling stock

Based on information provided by Infrastructure Victoria and assuming train costs of $22.5 million per seven-car

set, the cost of providing rolling stock for the City Loop reconfiguration with Wallan electrification is $383 million in

2031 rising to $698 million by 2046, requiring 17 additional trains initially but rising to 31 trains as services

increase.

2.3 Operational costs

The annual operational costs have been provided by Infrastructure Victoria and are based on unit cost estimates

used in previous rail projects.

Based on Infrastructure Victoria advice the total operating cost per annum for the services without the Wallan

extension is approximately $2 million and increasing to $4 million after 15 years. With the addition of the Wallan

extension the cost per annum is $51 million which increases to $67 million after 15 years. The operational cost

assumptions are that track maintenance is $264,498 per track/km/year, underground stations are $6 million each

and stations at-grade are $0.5 million each.

Using a discount rate of seven percent, the net present value of the operating costs is $926 million including

Wallan extension and $55.2 million without it for the 50 year life of the project. Escalation is excluded, thus the

future value would be higher than this estimate.

2.4 Scope risk

There is significant scope risk involved due to the nature of tying back into existing rail segments which are of

varying ages. Overhead infrastructure through the Jolimont area can be up to 100 years old, while excavated city

loop tunnels are of unknown condition. These items could lead to significant replacement being required to bring

adjoining infrastructure up to current standards to accommodate increased service numbers.

2.5 Cost risk

The risks of construction are related to operational impacts and constructability.

We have not included costs of re-routing trains or the cost of works which may be required to mitigate the

disruption of line closures during construction, though it is likely these will be a significant cost factor.

The connection between Parliament and Richmond Stations would require significant tunnelling through the

operational rail area carrying the Clifton Hill, Burnley, Dandenong, Frankston and Sandringham lines.

Construction of a new tunnel would require closures of multiple tracks between Richmond and Parliament

stations as a cut and cover tunnel is constructed under the Clifton Hill and Burnley Group lines before continuing

at surface level to Richmond station.

Under ongoing closures, significant replacement services would be required between Richmond and

Parliament/Flinders Street as well as closures required to construct the connections to the loop tunnels at

Flagstaff and Parliament.

Constructability of the tunnel between Parliament and Richmond would require a works site to drive a tunnel to

Parliament and to construct the cut and cover sections to Richmond.

Doncaster heavy rail

DHR


Doncaster heavy rail DHR


Construction of a new heavy rail link that will extend from Doncaster Hill, along the Eastern Freeway; before

connecting with the Clifton Hill heavy rail trunk near Collingwood station. The new rail link would connect middle

suburbs through eastern Melbourne. The operation of the Doncaster Heavy Rail Service is dependent on the

reallocation of capacity in the Clifton Hill Loop Line through the construction of a new tunnel from Clifton Hill via

Parkville to Southern Cross Station for the South Morang – Southern Cross Line (MMS). This region is currently

serviced by the Doncaster Area Rapid Transit (DART) bus system. The construction of this rail extension would

provide the first rail line to the City of Manningham and linking to the city from the Doncaster area for people to

access jobs and services.

Scope summary

This project would involve the construction of a new 12.7km rail corridor from the Clifton Hill lines via Collingwood

station along the Eastern Freeway to the existing Doncaster Park and Ride before continuing in a tunnel to

Doncaster Hill.

Sector

Transport


Medium

Evidence base

Doncaster Rail Study Engineering and

Environmental Investigation (Dec 2012)




Capital cost



$34 million

Whole-of-life PV: $472 million

Construction period

4 years


50 years

Cost certainty

Certainty of evidence – Medium

Doncaster Hill geology is a large unknown and cost

risk to the project for tunnelling costs. As is traffic

management for works within the Eastern Freeway

corridor.



DHR


3.0 Doncaster heavy rail line (DHR) – Preliminary costing

3.1 Scope

This project would involve the construction of a new rail corridor from the Clifton Hill lines via Collingwood Station

along the Eastern Freeway to the existing Doncaster park-and-ride before continuing in a tunnel to Doncaster

Hill. This option is related to the Doncaster Rail Study in 2012.

New stations would be constructed to be positioned at Kew (Chandler Highway), Burke Road, Bulleen, the

existing Doncaster park-and-ride and underground at Doncaster Hill.

These stations would also be provided with facilities including parking, access and forecourts.

Adjustment to Victoria Park Station will need to be made in order to also support additional Doncaster line tracks,

although this station will be decommissioned.

The illustrative alignment of this can be seen in Figure 3. Note the station at Burke Road was not included in

previous scoping projects and thus is not included in this figure.


DHR


Figure 3 DHR illustrative alignment (excluding Burke Road station)

Source: Doncaster Rail Study


DHR


3.2 Capital costs

Tunnelling costs are assumed to be a road header and/or cut and cover type tunnelling which both have a similar

cost per kilometre, however this would be dependent on the geology of the area and if some other tunnelling

method were required this could possibly double the cost of the project.

Indirect costs are assumed as a proportion of direct construction costs.

The lower range of the costing includes an inherent risk contingency of 40 percent while the upper bound limit

includes a contingent risk component of 50 percent.

The lower and upper bound costs for the DHR project can be found below in Table 6 and Table 7.

Table 6 DHR – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Track at grade

Track at grade (all infrastructure) 18 km $20.02 million per km $361.76

Elevated viaduct

Rail track 1,320 metres $4,830 per m $6.37

Viaduct structure 6,600 m2 $17,500 per m

2 $115.50

Cut and cover tunnel

Construction 3.165 km $105 million per km $322.32

Rail track 6.33 km $3.57 million per km $ 22.60



Signalling and communications 7.65 km $2.8 million per km $21.42

Stations

Elevated station 5 $56 million each $280

Underground station 2 $231 million each $462

Land acquisition 3,000 m2 $4,783 per m

2 $14.35


Indirect costs







Source: AECOM


DHR


Table 7 DHR – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Track at grade

Track at grade (all infrastructure) 18 km $30.03 million per km $542.64

Elevated viaduct



2 $173.25


Construction 3.16 km $157.50 million per km $498.49

Rail track 6.33 km $5.35 million per km $ 33.90


Substations 4 $10.5 million each $42.00


Stations


Underground station 2 $346.5 million each $693.0

Land acquisition 3,000m2 $7,174 per m

2 $21.52


Indirect costs





Total indirect $1,418.23


Source: AECOM

3.2.1 Land acquisition

For the land acquisition costs these have been based on RP data for house sales in the area and the State

Revenue Office (DA.048) advice that 45 percent of land value is made up of capital improvements while 55

percent is made up of land value. This gave a value per square metre of $3,416.60 (real 2016).

The total of land required which is not already within the road reservation is approximately 3,000m2.

Based on these figures the approximate value of the land required for acquisition is $14 million – $22 million

excluding indirect costs.


DHR


3.2.2 Rolling stock

Based on information provided by Infrastructure Victoria and assuming train costs of $22.5 million per 7-car set,

the cost of providing rolling stock for the Doncaster Hill line is $225 million for 10, 7-car sets.

3.2.3 Comparison to previous study

A previous study into the Doncaster Heavy Rail line titled ‘Doncaster Rail Study’ was commissioned by the

Victorian Government and undertaken by AECOM, Aurecon, SKM and URS in 2012. For the Rapid Transit 1

(RT1) option the estimated cost of the project was projected to be $3 billion – $6 billion to Doncaster plus an

extra $800 million – $1 billion to Doncaster Hill, for a total cost of $3.8 billion – $7 billion. The Doncaster Rail

study cost has been released publically as $3 billion – $5 billion with an extra $1 billion to extend the line to

Doncaster Activity Centre in line with the PTV response to the Doncaster Rail Study.

In media the Doncaster Rail line has been represented as possibly costing only $840 million to build if it were part

of the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel proposal. This is much less than the calculated costings and we believe it to be

significantly less than the actual costs.




Based on Infrastructure Victoria advice the total operating cost per annum for these services is approximately

$34 million. The operational cost assumptions are that track maintenance is $264,498 per track/km/year,

underground stations are $6 million each and stations at-grade are $0.5 million each.

Using a discount rate of seven percent, the net present value of the operating costs is $469 million for the 50 year

life of the project with price escalation excluded.

3.4 Scope risk

The Melbourne Metro 2 (MMS) project would need to be completed prior to Doncaster Rail being constructed, to

ensure sufficient capacity, including redirecting the Mernda line via MMS allowing Doncaster and Hurstbridge

services to run via the existing Clifton Hill tracks.

3.5 Scope alternatives

There are other options that can be considered for the new Doncaster line:

- The Rapid Transit 2 (RT2) option has similarity to the RT1 option in that it will involve constructing the

Doncaster line underground as identical to the new South Morang line proposed in RT1. From there the

alignment will continue as identical to the RT1 Doncaster line and its proposed stations.

- The Rapid Transit 3 (RT3) option has the alignment beginning at a new station at Franklin Street which

would then continue to new stations at St Vincent’s and Smith Street, with the alignment then becoming

identical to the RT1 option.

- The Local Access Option 1 (LA1) alignment involves the proposal for an entirely separate underground rail

line as compared to the others that allow connection to other lines.

- The Local Access Option 2 (LA2) alignment will share the Glen Waverley line direct from Flinders Street to

Burnley Station, then following an underground junction the line would continue to a new station at

Glenferrie and continue as identical to LA1 to Doncaster Hill.

- The alternative Orbital Route (OR1) includes a bored tunnel between Box Hill and Doncaster Hill. This

option has not been costed, but may prove to be a more viable alternative in the short to medium term as it

has the inner-city capacity available on the Burnley Group to run.

In previous studies the RT1 alignment costed here has been the preferred alignment.

3.6 Cost risk

The cost figures presented do not include substantial traffic management and access costs which would be

incurred during construction due to limited access to sites within the freeway corridor.

There may be the possibility of Aboriginal heritage sites that will affect the alignment and stations, especially

within the vicinity of Merri Creek and the Yarra River. Other local heritage sites may also be impacted by works

and this must be avoided.

The impact of construction should avoid affecting threatened fauna and flora species in the area.


DHR


Tunnelling and structure construction along the lines will cause significant impacts of the operation of the roads

and existing stations. This may include road closures and diversions which require planning and will incur costs.

There are certain points along the alignment of the route that will need extensive investigation in how to approach

the existing infrastructure in the area. This will likely involve the relocation of certain services and this will add a

significant cost to the project.

Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection

EWE


Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection EWE


Improve road connectivity across the city from east to west. While there are a number of possible solutions

(alignment, length of tunnel, number of lanes, etc.), for the purpose of an initial assessment the option is

assumed to be a six lane (total) road link from the Eastern Freeway to CityLink, with a substantial amount of

tunnelling. It includes capacity expansion on the Eastern Freeway and localised works to improve inner north

public transport and amenity. This concept of the option draws in particular on the East West Link Needs

Assessment (Eddington Review, 2008). It also draws on the East West Link (Eastern Section) Project, but the

name has been generalised noting that the existing business case design could be revisited.

Scope summary

Construction of a 4.4km road tunnel from Alexandra Parade to Royal Park and a freeway-freeway interchange at

CityLink. Widening of the Eastern Freeway by one lane between Yarra Bend Road and Tram Road and managed

motorways between Hoddle Street and Springvale Road.

Sector

Transport


Medium

Evidence base

East West Link Needs Assessment Overview

(2008)

East West Link Project Victorian Auditor-Generals

Report (December 2015)

Concept Estimate Report, East West Link (Aquenta,

2013)

East West Link Business Case Update (Sept 2013)

Direct option cost

$6.7 billion – $8.6 billion (2016)1

Excluding widening: $6.4 billion – $8.2 billion

Capital cost

$6.3 billion – $8.2 billion (2016)2

Excluding widening: $6.0 billion – $7.8 billion


$24 million

Whole-of-Life PV: $331 million (2016)3

Option lead time (design to opening)

5 years


50 years (based on building life) majority of

infrastructure had 100 year design life.4

Cost certainty


Actual cost will be higher as these figures do

not include price escalation for future years.

1 East West Link Project Victorian Auditor-General’s

Report (December 2015) 2 East West Link Project Victorian Auditor-General’s

Report (December 2015) 3 East West Link Project Victorian Auditor-General’s

Report (December 2015) 4 East West Link Stage 1 Project Scope and

Requirements


EWE


4.0 Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection (EWE) – Preliminary

costing

The costing for EWE has been undertaken using elements of the proposed alignment and scope from the

previous East-West Link project (terminated June 2015). This involved a tunnel connecting the Eastern Freeway

to CityLink as well as widening of sections of the Eastern Freeway, Alexandra Parade Renewal and various

public transport upgrades. It does not include the cost of the port link between East West Link and Footscray

Road.

There are other alignments which have previously been considered in business case development and could be

considered in the future. Alignment with CityLink to Western Ring Road connection (EWW) would still remain an

option, currently planned for north of Western Distributor; however it is not clear if any further planning has been

carried out on the EWW alignment since the development of Western Distributor. Some of the alternative East-

West Link alignments proposed are displayed below in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Alternative East-West link alignments

Source: East West Link Business case (2013)

For the purposes of consistency, the cost scope from the East-West Link business case and the subsequent

agreement between the State and successful bidding consortium (East West Connect, EWC) have been used to

cost this project (presented in Figure 5). Some allowance has been made in the upper limit to allow for potential

scope alternatives.


EWE


Figure 5 Preferred Eastern Freeway to CityLink connection alignment

Source: Linking Melbourne Authority

4.1 Scope

Cost considerations for this option include construction of a 4.4km road tunnel from Alexandra Parade to Royal

Park and a freeway-freeway interchange at CityLink. They also include widening of the Eastern Freeway by one

lane between Yarra Bend Road and Tram Road and managed motorways between Hoddle Street and Springvale

Road (costed separately). DART improvement packages and tram upgrades included in the business case have

not been captured in this assessment.

The “Port Link” between the freeway interchange at CityLink and Footscray Road has not been included.

The alignment which has been costed is consistent with the previous project scope. This consists of widening of

the Eastern Freeway to the extent considered in the original project. Some further widening of freeways or arterial

roads may require additional works but these are not included in this costing.

Capital costs

Under the East West Link contract signed between East West Connect and the Victorian Government, the capital

cost of the project includes $400 million for complementary projects and $4.3 billion for capital costs of

construction of the tunnel and freeway interchange (nominal dollars). In addition, $559 million was allowed for

other design and construction period costs, $515 for land acquisition and $382 million for risk and contingency

held by the state (nominal dollars).5 In the case of land acquisition, we note that some land is currently in State

Government ownership but do not have full details of this. A simple assumption was made for the lower bound

cost estimate that half of the original land acquisition costs would be required, and that the full land acquisition

would be required for the upper bound cost (noting that design changes could require a different footprint).

The above costs were used for the basis of this estimate, however they needed to be translated from nominal

dollars (for a delivery program between 2013 and 2018) to a real 2016 dollar basis, which was done assuming an

overall price escalation rate of 2.5 percent per annum. The resulting figures were only slightly different to the

nominal figures.

In order to allow for adjustment of scope to realign the tunnel or create additional public transport projects or

interchanges, a 30 percent contingency has been allowed in the upper bound cost. The costing information is

displayed in Table 8 through Table 11.

5 Victorian Auditor Generals Office – East West Link, 2015


EWE


Table 8 EWE (excl. Eastern Freeway widening) – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Core works

Design and construction Eastern

Freeway to CityLink - $4,337 million $4,337

Associated works

Property Acquisition 0.5 $555 million $555

Pre-agreed modifications to D&C

package - $169 million $169

State costs

Business Case Update - $29 million $29

Other design and construction period

State costs - $559 million $559

Risk and contingency held by State - $382 million $382

Subtotal $6,031

Lower bound total $6,031

Source: AECOM

Table 9 EWE (excl. Eastern Freeway widening) – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Core works

Design and construction Eastern

Freeway to CityLink

- $4,337 million

$4,337

Associated works

Property Acquisition 0.5 $555 million $555

Pre-agreed modifications to D&C

package

- $169 million

$169

State costs

Business Case Update - $29 million $29

Other design and construction period

State costs

- $559 million

$559

Risk and contingency held by State - $382 million $382

Subtotal $6,031

Risk and contingency for alternative design (30%) $1,809

Upper bound total $7,840

Source: AECOM


EWE


Table 10 EWE (including widening) – Lower Bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Lower bound total excluding widening $6,031

Works on existing freeways

Eastern Freeway Widening 1 $306 million $306

Lower bound total $6,337

Source: AECOM

Table 11 EWE (including widening) – Upper Bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Upper bound total excluding widening $7,840

Works on existing freeways

Eastern Freeway Widening 1 $306 million $306

Upper bound total $8,238

4.1.1 Plans

A high level summary of the tunnelling and construction works is displayed in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Figure 6 Tunnelling profile

Source: East West Link – Comprehensive Impact Statement Chapter 4


EWE


Figure 7 East West Link (east) ramps and intersections

Source: East West Link – Project Scope Requirements Volume 1


The cost to operate the East West Link have been derived from the VAGO report into the East West Link project

which indicated the operations and maintenance costs of the project were $3.3 billion assumed to be over 30

years (in nominal dollars). We believe this number accounts for activities beyond operations and maintenance of

the infrastructure and involves tolling, promotions and other activities possibly involving financing.

Operating costs for Eastlink for 2009 – 2011 were approximately $70 million per year, which adjusted to 2016

dollars would be $79 million per annum. The majority of this cost is involved in tolling and customer operations

and administrative expenses. The cost of roadside operations was $17.9 million per annum which is converted to

$20.2 million per annum in today’s currency.

Scaling up for the complexity and length of tunnel, the operating cost for EWE is estimated at $24 million per

annum.

Using a discount rate of seven percent, the net present value of the operating costs is $331 million with cost

escalation excluded.

4.3 Scope risk

The removal of public transport aspects from the project has been done to align with the benefits being modelled

in VITM. These projects may need to be re-introduced into the project to accommodate public transport routes

which are impacted by the EWE construction or to exploit opportunities created by the project.

Staging of the North-East link (NEL) and EWE will be important in determining the scope of each project. If the

NEL is constructed before EWE, this has likelihood to impact the works required for construction of the EWE

including regarding widening of the Eastern Freeway and works to adjacent arterial roads which were not

considered in the original East-West Link Business Case.

4.4 Scope alternative

A previous costing report included an alternative option which was an elevated road between EWE at CityLink

and a connection to the Port area also referred to as Port Link. This road was proposed along the western side of

CityLink. Construction of the Western Distributor may increase the benefits of this connection. A realignment of

the EWE tunnel itself could also be considered for direct connection to Western Distributor at CityLink.

The cost for Port Link in the previous report was $1.18 billion (P50) to $1.34 billion (P90). It is unlikely these costs

would still be accurate as they did not include consideration of Western Distributor which should be included in

further analysis and a cost update.

A change to the tunnel alignment could result in a new alignment from Royal Park under Gatehouse Street and

under residential areas of North Melbourne before surfacing in the vicinity of Arden Station (Melbourne Metro) to


EWE


create an above ground interchange with CityLink and Western Distributor. This tunnel alignment would be

slightly longer than the proposed alignment but would provide more direct connectivity to the Western Distributor

and avoid the need for the Port Link connection. An alignment directly to the Western Distributor through North

Melbourne would interact with the Melbourne Metro tunnels with the possible interchange in close proximity the

Arden station precinct.

There may also be additional public transport costs and other local road widening to accommodate any

realignment.

4.5 Cost risk

The cost risk for this project along the previous alignment is relatively low if the same design is adopted, with a

previously signed agreement indicating the project costs and with detailed geotechnical work already undertaken.

The link has faced previous opposition in the past by the community and was subject to court appeals to prevent

the project going through back in 2014.Thus this project may be at risk of similar action and this poses some cost

risk, particularly additional legal costs which could be substantial. This would likely apply to any similar road

alignment.

Other projects which have been undertaken since the cancellation of the proposed EWE such as the CityLink-

Tullamarine Freeway widening project may change costs to the EWE project with potentially different connections

and servicing requirements as well as different benefits.

Melbourne Airport heavy rail line

MAH


Melbourne Airport heavy rail line MAH


Delivery of a rail link between Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport and the central city, including the possibility of a

staged approach to full implementation of a service that is integrated with the Melbourne Metro (MM) project.

While the ultimate vision is to run 10-car trains via the MM tunnel through to the south east at 10-minute

frequencies, earlier completion of the branch along the Albion East reservation from Sunshine to Melbourne

Airport would allow the provision of a pre-MM airport train using existing 6-car trainsets into Southern Cross

Station or the City Loop (depending on the level of signalling upgrades to be undertaken). This service could

potentially run at frequencies of 20 minutes which would be comparable to most upper-tier airport rail services

from around the world. Compared with the existing SkyBus (which offers higher frequencies but widely varying

passenger loads and journey times) the proposed interim train service would offer a more reliable, comfortable

and predictable travel option particularly during the heavily-congested peak periods.

Scope summary

The scope considered for construction under this project includes the construction of a twin tracks from Albion

station to a new elevated platform at Melbourne Airport. The new alignment would follow the existing freight rail

lines from Albion before turning west and crossing the M80 and continuing along the median of Airport Drive to

the airport. At the airport, the alignment is assumed to run on a viaduct connecting to the departure terminal level

between terminal 4 and the new transport hub opposite terminal 4.

Sector

Transport


Medium

Evidence base


Melbourne Airport Rail Link Study – PTV 2013


$3.0 billion – $3.9 billion (2016)

Capital cost



$54 million


Construction period

5 years


50 yrs

Cost certainty


Significant cost risks exist for services and planning

with numerous interfaces with existing

infrastructure.



MAH


5.0 Melbourne Airport heavy rail line – Preliminary costing

5.1 Scope

The scope considered for construction under this project includes the construction of a twin tracks from Albion

station to a new elevated platform at Melbourne Airport. The new alignment would follow the existing freight rail

lines from Albion before turning west and crossing the M80 and continuing along the median of Airport Drive to

the airport. At the airport, the alignment is assumed to run on a viaduct connecting to the departure terminal level

between terminal 4 and the new transport hub opposite terminal 4.

The alignment has been designed to provide access directly to and from the airport as an express service.

This scope does not include additional works to the network between Albion and the south east (via Melbourne

Metro) which may be required to accommodate the proposed number of services. Previous scoping had

assumed this enabling works would be undertaken as part of the Melbourne Metro project.

There are known to be significant services within the study area including, but not limited to, high voltage power

lines adjacent to the M80 and fuel pipelines which service the airport. Due to the lack of knowledge of the location

of these services, the relocation or mitigation to accommodate these services along the alignment has not been

included in this scope, but has been considered in determining the appropriate contingency. Normal service

relocations for communications, low-voltage power, gas and water have been allowed for as part of the rates.

This project does not include any new stations other than the Melbourne Airport station which is assumed to be a

single elevated station. This represents a high quality service for airport patrons. An alternative for consideration

could include new stations along the route to serve the employment areas around the airport and residential

areas around Airport West.

5.2 Capital costs

Table 12 and Table 13 outline the cost rates and quantities assumed in calculating the capital costs of the project

based on the attached plans.




Government costs for this project are set at 20 percent to account for the need for federal approvals for changes

in the airport precinct.


MAH


Table 12 MAH – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Track at grade

Track at grade (all infrastructure) 23.3 km $20.02 million per km $467.02

Elevated viaduct


Structure 15,222 m2 $17,500 per m

2 $266.38

Bridge overpasses



2 $78.75

Bridge strengthening 3 $7 million per bridge $21

Maribyrnong bridge 6,640 m2 $10,500 per m

2 $69.72




Stations

Albion Station 1 $49 million per station $49

Airport Station 1 $231 million per

station

$231

Land acquisition 17,550 m2 $524.73 per m

2 $9.21


Indirect costs







Source: AECOM


MAH


Table 13 MAH – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(million)

Track at grade


Elevated viaduct



2 $399.56

Bridge overpasses



2 $118.12

Bridge strengthening

3

$10.5 million per

bridge $31.5

Maribyrnong bridge 6,640 m2 $15,750 per m

2 $104.58


Substations 4 $10.5 million each $42


Stations

Albion Station

1

$73.50 million per

station $73.50

Airport Station

1

$346.50 million per

station $346.50


2 $13.81


Indirect costs







Source: AECOM

These costings do not include significant traffic management and site access costs which may be incurred at the

airport above the normal traffic management and site access costs.


MAH





percent is made up of land value. This results in a value per square metre of $374.81 (real 2016).

The total of land required which is not already within the road reservation is approximately 17,550m2.

Based on these figures and applying additional scope and cost escalations the approximate value of the land

required for acquisition is $9.2 million – $13.81 million excluding processing, legal and management costs.

As detailed in the above tables, the estimated project capital costs are $2.1 billion – $3.1 billion.

5.2.2 Rolling stock


the cost of providing rolling stock for the Melbourne Airport heavy rail line is $205 million for seven 10-car sets.





$54 million. The operational cost assumptions are that track maintenance is $264,498 per track/km/year,



life of the project excluding any price escalation.

5.4 Scope risk

There are significant risks to scope based on the operating constraints of the network between Albion and the

city. The project may need to provide greater capacity in this section which will be a significant increase in the

scope of the project. This could include additional tracks between Albion and the CBD, an alternate alignment

between the Airport and the CBD (connecting to another rail line or dedicated tracks for the full route) or an

alternate network configuration, for example taking advantage of the capacity created by Melbourne Metro 2

should that project proceed.

Until detailed planning is undertaken between the State Government, Federal Government and Airport

authorities, additional scope risk may be encountered within the Airport planning area. It is important to seek prior

approval from key stakeholders in further development of the project.

The addition of stations along the alignment may also add to the cost of the project with the possibility of

additional stations in the airport precinct or in the Airport West area. Station placements may add cost for not only

station construction but also rail alignments.

5.5 Scope Alternative

A study was undertaken in 2012 by PTV into the alternative alignments that were viable for the Melbourne Airport

rail link as detailed in PTV’s 2013 ‘Melbourne Airport Rail Link Study’. The alternatives included the Albion East

base case, a direct tunnel link, a Craigieburn link via the Craigieburn line with new track through Westmeadows

and a Flemington link via the Flemington line and then a rail tunnel. The alternatives were assessed next to a

number of criteria and the Albion base case was recognised as the best option. In summary this was due to:

- The direct tunnel and Flemington link being too costly in comparison to the Albion East base case and as

these alternatives utilise the City Loop and this would cause capacity restraints

- The Craigieburn link alternative would cause congestion in relation to the level crossings due to increased

services

- The Albion East option would have the best connectivity as the Melbourne Metro project would allow

patrons to travel from the airport to Dandenong


MAH


5.6 Cost risk

Elevated structure construction along the line will cause significant impacts of the operation of the roads and

intersections. This may include road closures and diversions which will incur additional costs

There has not been intensive geotechnical investigation into the ground conditions for this project and this should

be undertaken. Depending on the outcomes the required foundations for elevated rail structures and associated

works will be affected and costs related to these.

Services through the airport area have not been investigated and are likely to include communications and fuel

as well as water, gas and sewerage.

The Maribyrnong River bridge has been costed at approximately $50 million, but the interface with existing

structures, environment and services has not been taken into account and any realignment through this area may

add significant cost to the project.

The bridge across the M80 will also present several challenges with long spans and high clearances required for

the crossing as well as the proximity of high voltage power lines which may need to be lifted to allow for

construction of the track.

No comparable previous costings have been publicly released for the project although the Melbourne Airport Rail

Link (MARL) was part of the previous Melbourne Rail Link project proposed by a previous State Government.

This project has now been superseded by the Melbourne Metro project.

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


Melbourne Metro 2 MMS


Construct a heavy rail connection between Clifton Hill and the CBD through to Fisherman's Bend and Newport

via two new rail tunnels. The works will separate the high growth South Morang – Southern Cross Line from the

Clifton Hill group. This will provide flow on capacity benefits to the Werribee line and will allow for future

extensions/additions to the Clifton Hill group (such as the Doncaster and Wollert rail extensions). This tunnel

forms the major component of the network upgrade during Stage 3 of the PTV Network Development Plan –

Metropolitan Rail, December 2012.

The new link could provide the opportunity for additional stations in the inner north and urban renewal precincts

such as Fisherman’s Bend. The construction of this link contributes to amenity and the attractiveness for

businesses and people to relocate to the redevelopment areas. Furthermore, it will add capacity for people to

access employment and social activities in the central city.

Scope summary

The scope of the Melbourne Metro 2 project is to create a new Metro-style train tunnel through the Melbourne

CBD connecting Clifton Hill with Newport via Parkville, Southern Cross Station and Fishermans Bend. The new

Metro service will provide additional capacity between Clifton Hill and Southern Cross, allowing for more services

on the Hurstbridge, Mernda and proposed Doncaster Rail line. New capacity will also be provided between

Newport and Southern Cross Station accommodating more direct Wyndham Vale (Werribee) line services. Nine

potential new underground stations have been identified, although only three of these would be in areas which

will not already have a station.

Sector

Transport


Low

Evidence base

PTV Network Development Plan 2012

Melbourne Metro Business Case 2016

Project variations

Option 1: Clifton Hill to Newport (full project)

Option 2: Parkville to Newport (possible staging)


Option 1 (full project):


Option 2 (possible staging):


Capital cost (excluding rolling stock)








Whole-of-Life PV: $1,232 million



Whole-of-Life PV: $869.5 million

Construction period

6 years


50 years

Cost certainty

Certainty of evidence – Low


Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


6.0 Melbourne Metro 2 – Preliminary costing

6.1 Scope

The scope of the Melbourne Metro 2 project is to create a new metro-style train tunnel through the Melbourne

CBD connecting Clifton Hill with Newport via Parkville, Southern Cross Station and Fishermans Bend. The new

Metro service will provide additional capacity between Clifton Hill and Southern Cross, allowing for more services

on the Hurstbridge, Mernda and proposed Doncaster Rail line. New capacity will also be provided between

Newport and Southern Cross Station accommodating more direct Wyndham Vale (Werribee) line services.

The through running Metro line will free up capacity from the City Loop allowing more services through the Clifton

Hill loop, and will also provide additional connections between the Melbourne Metro and City Loop stations.

6.1.1 Alignments

The Fishermans Bend taskforce are currently undertaking planning for the Melbourne Metro 2 project through the

Fishermans Bend precinct. The current study is aimed at choosing the best alignment and number of stations for

the Newport – Southern Cross section of the project.

Two possible alignments for the two sections of the project have been prepared and are displayed in Figure 8.

For the south west section between Newport and Southern Cross Station we have prepared both an urban option

along the previously developed alignment through the urban regeneration area (shown in purple below) and an

alternative alignment through the employment zone (shown in green below). Stations shown are opportunities

only, see the next section for more information about the scope of this cost estimate.

Figure 8 Melbourne Metro 2 south-west section showing station opportunities

Source: AECOM

VITM modelling undertaken by Infrastructure Victoria is based on the purple alignment, therefore our costing has

been undertaken based on the purple urban alignment.

For the north-east section we have prepared an alignment based on the Network Development Plan (NDP,

shown in pink) as well as a lower-cost alternative alignment (shown in yellow) found in Figure 9.

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


Figure 9 Melbourne Metro 2 north east section

Source: AECOM

The benefit of the yellow alignment would be the ability to construct the line above ground along the old inner

metropolitan ring corridor to Princes Park before going into a tunnel. The NDP alignment would be a fully

tunnelled option. For the purpose of this cost estimate, only the NDP alignment has been assessed.

No consideration has been given to alternative vertical alignment options at this early stage.

6.1.2 Stations

While indicative station locations have been shown on the above plans, the number and location of stations is

likely to change. For costing purposes we have adopted the number of stations based on VITM diagrams

provided by ARUP on behalf of IV. These plans indicate a single station between Clifton Hill and Parkville and

two stations in Fishermans Bend. The following station numbers and locations have been assumed:

- Merri Creek Station (new underground station required to achieve river crossing)

- Clifton Hill (new underground station for interchange with existing Clifton Hill Station)

- North Fitzroy (new underground station)

- Parkville (new underground station linked to Melbourne Metro Parkville Station)

- Flagstaff Station (new underground station linked to existing Flagstaff Station)

- Southern Cross Station (new underground station to the west of existing Southern Cross Station)

- Montague Station (new Fishermans Bend Station)

- Wirraway Station (new Fishermans Bend Station)

- Newport Station (new underground station at Newport has been assumed for interchange with existing at-

grade station

This total of seven new stations (plus one at either portal) for an alignment which is approximately 20.2km in

length results in a station every 2.8km. The Melbourne Metro 1 alignment contains one station every 1.8km.

However, unlike Melbourne Metro where three out of five stations are at locations which previously did not have a

heavy rail link (and no new station at either portal), this proposal would see just three out of a total of nine new

underground stations being in areas not previously served by a station. While this is an appropriately

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


conservative assumption given the early stage of this project, it does add substantial cost and would require

further assessment in subsequent planning.

6.2 Capital costs

6.2.1 Capital cost

High level cost estimates have been developed for the fully tunnelled MMS project from Clifton Hill to Newport

(Option 1) in Section 6.2.2 and a shorter alignment linking Parkville to Newport (Option 2) in Section 6.2.3, which

is effectively a staged approach to Option1. Due to the reduced length of the tunnel, Option 2 does not link to the

Clifton Hill group of lines and will not allow for Mernda – Werribee service patterns.

This capital cost does not include costs beyond the train portals and into the broader train network such as

platform adjustments or signalling upgrades.



Indirect Government costs of 20 percent have been assumed based on the complexity of the project and

interface with other major infrastructure.

6.2.2 MMS – Option 1 (Whole Project)

While the yellow alignment offers the potential for a lower cost solution, the “lower bound costs” set out in Table

14 was based on the fully tunnelled alignment (pink alignment), and no consideration has been given to

rationalising the number of underground stations. The upper bound costs can be found in Table 15 overleaf.

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


Table 14 MMS (Option 1 – Whole Project) – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Rail track

TBM boring and construction 36.2 km $140 million per km $5,068

Rail Systems 36.2 km $14 million per km $506.80




Stations

Underground station 9 $280 million each $2,520

Land acquisition Fishermans Bend 24,000 m2 $2,372.7 per m

2 $56.94

Land acquisition Carlton 12,000 m2 $4,914.5 per m

2 $58.97


Indirect costs

Site works 25% of direct costs $2,070.28


Design work 15% of direct costs $1,242.16

Government costs 20% of direct costs $1,656.22



Source: AECOM

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


Table 15 MMS (Option 1 – Whole Project) – Upper bound costs

Item Quantity Unit cost Cost per element

(million)

Rail track

TBM boring and construction 36.2 km $210 million per km $7,602

Rail Systems 36.2 km $21 million per km $760.20


Substations 4 $10.5 million each $3,780


Stations


Land acquisition Fishermans Bend 24,000 m2 $3,559 per m

2 $85.42

Land acquisition Carlton 12,000 m2 $7,371 per m

2 $88.46


Indirect costs





Rail track $8,384.62


Source: AECOM

This estimate indicates the overall capital cost of the MMS project would range from $13.9 billion to $20.8 billion.

The large cost variance reflects the uncertainty of tunnelling conditions and potential obstacles as well as

variation in possible station construction costs depending on depth of station which will be guided by geotechnical

information.

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


6.2.3 MMS – Option 2 (Newport to Parkville only)

MMS Option 2 involves a shorter alignment linking Newport to Parkville via Southern Cross without continuing to

Clifton Hill and the costings for this are displayed in Table 16 and Table 17.

Table 16 MMS (Option 2 – Newport to Parkville only) – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Rail track

TBM boring and construction 21 km $140 million per km $2,940

Rail systems 21 km $14 million per km $294




Stations


Land acquisition Fishermans Bend 24,000 m2 $2,372.7 per m

2 $56.94


Indirect costs







Source: AECOM

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


Table 17 MMS (Option 2 – Newport to Parkville only) – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Rail track

TBM boring and construction 21 km $210 million per km $4,410

Rail systems 21 km $21 million per km $441




Stations


Land acquisition Fishermans Bend 24,000 m2 $3,559 per m

2 $85.42


Indirect costs







Source: AECOM

The cost of this option ranges from $8.4 billion to $12.7 billion for the shorter alignment.

6.2.4 Rolling stock


the cost of providing rolling stock for Option 1 is $878 million for full operations and will require 30 trains. For

Option 2 the cost of rolling stock for full operations is $644 million and requires 22 trains.




Based on Infrastructure Victoria advice the total operating cost per annum for these services for MMS Option 1 is

$66 million per annum initially and increases to $89 million after 15 years of operation. MMS Option 2 is $45

million increasing to $63 million after 15 years of operation. The operational cost assumptions are that track

maintenance is $264,498 per track/km/year, underground stations are $6 million each and stations at-grade are

$0.5 million each.

Using a discount rate of seven percent, the net present value of the operating costs is $1.23 billion for MMS

Option 1 and $869 million for MMS Option 2 for the 50 year life of the project excluding price escalation.

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


6.4 Scope risk

Scope risks to the project are significant. Additional planning is required for determining station locations and

station numbers, and further geological investigation is required to determine tunnelling alignments based on

specific geography.

A proposed freight rail connection to Webb Dock in the Fishermans Bend area, which may also involve a tunnel

under the Yarra between Newport and Fishermans Bend may also pose a scope risk to the MMS project.


There are a number of possible alignments requiring further investigation. Development in the Fishermans Bend

area may dictate possible tunnel alignment options with modified catchments and attractors in the region.

Development around Clifton Hill and Merri Creek and between these locations and Parkville could lead to

selection of the alternative alignments outlined in this report. Once more detailed geotechnical information is

revealed, there will be greater certainty about preferred alignments.

6.6 Cost risk

6.6.1 Geotechnical

The risks of construction are predominantly related to the geotechnical unknowns and potential difficulties of the

alignments, such as below ground structures. Pending further transport modelling and detailing of the preferred

station locations and alignments, a detailed geotechnical investigation will be required to determine the potential

cost risks of geotechnical challenges.

A key element which has not been included in this estimate is the risk of encountering substantial foundations

between Flagstaff Station and Fishermans Bend. Particularly to the south west of Southern Cross Station, there

are numerous new developments with deep piled foundations, including deep piles for the West Gate Freeway

bridge structures.

There are alignments which could avoid foundations completely by tunnelling under the Yarra for greater

proportion but these would have significant impact on the benefits of the project due to station locations. The

early nature of the project as well as the lack of a firm alignment and the ongoing development of the Fishermans

Bend precinct means it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of encountering substantial building foundations.

Likewise, until the depth and alignment of the tunnel are known as well as the foundations likely to be

encountered the cost of mitigation is also unknown.

The cost estimate provided does not include the costs to avoid or to modify existing building foundations. The

assumption that a tunnel can be constructed through the area without modifying existing foundations or other

significant changes to alignments presents a significant cost risk to the project. The contingency built into the

project should be sufficient to realign the tunnel to avoid any significant foundations or to allow for compensation

in the event that the eventual alignment reservation impacts on previously approved developments.

Without detailed investigation of potential alignments (which is currently being undertaken by the Fishermans

Bend task force) it would not be reasonable to assume a range of costs or possible works as the scope and

impact assumptions would need to be very broad. When an alignment is selected, appropriate planning controls

are required to prevent new developments along the alignment creating foundations which would affect the

construction of the project.

A desktop analysis of the likely geotechnical challenges for other sections of the alignment has been undertaken

and is attached as Appendix B.

This analysis outlines the geology of three sections of the alignment.

- The north east section which travels through largely rock formations. Detailed investigations have previously

been undertaken of similar tunnelling projects through this area including East-West Link, Melbourne Metro

and even the City Loop.

- The south west section which involves tunnelling largely through Coode Island silt below the water table.

- The western Yarra River crossing which transitions from the Coode Island silt to newer volcanic basalt

flows.

A closed face TBM would likely be required for tunnelling through the south west section and for tunnelling under

the western Yarra section due to the transition from Coode Island Silt to newer volcanics.

Melbourne Metro 2

MMS


6.6.2 Station structures and land acquisition

The depth, composition and required footprint to cut and cover stations has not been confirmed as the location

for the stations and alignments has yet to be finalised. It has been assumed that the stations can be constructed

as cut and cover tunnels although there is a significant cost risk of stations being required at deep levels to avoid

foundations south west of Southern Cross Station and to construct a station and alignments under the proposed

Parkville and Flagstaff Stations. This may require significant land acquisition. The additional risk contingency in

the upper bound limit is expected to accommodate any such scope increases. Determination and reservation of

the tunnel alignment at an early stage will help to reduce any risks or potential for compensation.

6.7 Staging

The project could be staged to realise earlier benefits and reduce the overall cost of the project.

The northern Clifton Hill – Southern Cross section of the route could be accelerated if the Doncaster Heavy Rail

project is built, as there will not be sufficient capacity in the network to accommodate the additional Doncaster

trains if new tracks between Clifton Hill and Southern Cross have not yet been constructed.

The southern Newport – Southern Cross section (assessed as Option 2 in this report, linking as far as Parkville)

could be brought forward pending development of the Fishermans Bend precinct and growth on the Werribee

line. This section could be constructed to bring Werribee trains directly into the city and provide a heavy rail

service for the employment zone within the Fishermans Bend precinct.

6.8 Cost benchmark

The above capital cost estimates were also benchmarked against the Melbourne Metro 1 project, using capital

costs from the Melbourne Metro Business Case shown in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10 Melbourne Metro projected capital costs

Item

Real ($m) Nominal ($m)

P50 P90 P50 P90

Total project risk adjusted capital costs 8,887 9,480 10,154 10,837

Source: Melbourne Metro Business Case

This capital cost estimate excludes rolling stock but includes all other types of items assessed above, including

supporting infrastructure across the rail network. Melbourne Metro 1 involves two new 9km tunnels with five new

stations as well as associated tram, rail infrastructure and rail systems works. Without an accurate breakdown of

these costs (detail was redacted from the Melbourne Metro Business Case) we cannot include or exclude certain

elements from the costing.

Assuming the $8.9 billion – $9.5 billion capital works cost for a 9km rail tunnel, we have adopted a cost of $990

million – $1.05 billion per km (real 2016) including the cost of tunnelling, portals, track works, signals and station

construction. Applying this rate to a 20 kilometre alignment, as identified for Melbourne Metro 2 would produce an

estimate of $19.8 billion – $21.0 billion (real 2016), which is close to the upper bound cost estimate identified by

the cost estimate identified in this paper. While a range of conservative assumptions have been made about the

scope of the project (e.g. fully tunnelled, many new interchanging stations), this suggests the overall estimate is

not especially conservative.

North-East Link

NEL


North-East Link NEL


Construction of the North-East motorway link between the eastern freeway and the M80 to improve outer north-

south links for road freight movement and improve travel time and reliability. Multiple possible corridors have

been identified, and tunnelling could be required.

Scope Summary

The North-East link (NEL) is a proposed connection between the end of the M80 at Greensborough and the

Eastern Freeway. Several alignments have been put forward during development of the project including a direct

connection from Greensborough south along the Greensborough Highway, across the Yarra River to Bulleen

where it connects with the Eastern Freeway. This is the alignment which has been modelled in VITM and has

been considered for detailed costing. Scope assumed to include widening of Eastern Freeway and Northern

Metropolitan Ring Road.

Sector

Transport


Low

Evidence base

Report for East West Link Needs Assessment

Response Team Review – GHD for Department of

Premier and Cabinet (September 2008)

East West Link Business Case and contract

documents

Direct option cost


Excluding Widening: $4.7 billion – $6.9 billion

Capital cost


Excluding Widening: $4.4 billion – $6.6 billion


$26 million


Option lead time (design to opening)

5 years


50 years

Cost certainty



North-East Link

NEL


7.0 North-East link (NEL) – Preliminary costing

7.1 Scope

The North-East link (NEL) is a proposed connection between the end of the M80 at Greensborough and the

Eastern Freeway. Several alignments have been put forward during development of the project including a direct

connection from Greensborough south along the Greensborough Highway, across the Yarra River to Bulleen

where it connects with the Eastern Freeway. This is the alignment which has been modelled in VITM and has

been considered for detailed costing. Further work is required to assess alternatives, including a more easterly

alignment option.

The general alignment has been interpreted from the GHD EWLNA review document which describes the NEL

alignment. Based on this outline and analysis we have prepared a proposed alignment and connections for the

NEL. More analysis of local conditions is required along with detailed planning work to determine optimum

alignment and intersection configurations.

From the end of the M80 to Lower Plenty Road, the alignment is assumed to be at or above ground, including

upgrading Greensborough Road to freeway standard with grade separated intersections with the Greensborough

Bypass, Grimshaw Street and Watsonia Road. The alignment is assumed to enter a tunnel portal north of Lower

Plenty Road.

The twin three lane tunnels are assumed to run from Lower Plenty Road under residential areas of Rosanna,

under the Yarra River and Banyule Flats to Bulleen Road. The length of the proposed tunnel is approximately

4.2km depending on alignments and geotechnical investigations. A southern tunnel portal is assumed to the

north of the Eastern Freeway, with the new link interchanging with the Eastern Freeway in place of the existing

Bulleen Road intersection displayed below in Figure 11.

For the widening of the Eastern Freeway the following has been assumed. For the segment between North East

Link to Doncaster Road the lanes will be increased by four lanes. Between Doncaster Road and Springvale Road

an extra lane will be added to each direction. From Chandler Highway to Bulleen Road the lanes will be

increased by four. This does not include any widening to Chandler Highway.

For the widening of M80, the road is to be widened from Plenty Road to Greensborough Highway which has been

assumed to be part of this project.

The alignment which has been costed is the previous alignment in line with the VITM modelling being

undertaken. Some arterial roads may require additional works but these are not included in this costing.

North-East Link

NEL


Figure 11 Illustrative NEL alignment6

Source: GHD – Potential staging opportunities for Northern Link (2008)

6 Potential staging opportunities were produced by earlier work and have not been reviewed or

proposed here.

North-East Link

NEL


7.2 Capital costs

Unit costs are based on the cost of constructing freeways in a brownfield environment, as well as the contract

costs of East West Link to estimate tunnelling costs.

Total capital construction costs for the East West Link tunnel and freeway interchange were $4.3 billion.

Assuming freeway interchange costs made up a small portion of the project costs (~$100 million based on bridge

deck costs and freeway interchange costs, and noting that the complex Elliot Avenue was removed from project

scope) we have assumed a conservative estimate of $4.3 billion for the 4.4km tunnel at a rate of $977 million per

km for road tunnel.

Intersection costs include costs of signalisation. Costs for the lanes that will be added to widen the Eastern

Freeway, M80 and other surrounding roads are also shown. These have been taken from the VITM model

although local widening around intersections and on feeder arterials have not been included.



Table 18 through Table 23 present the itemised costings for the North-East link.

Table 18 Widening costs – Lower bound


Cost per element

(millions)

Widening works on existing roads

Eastern Freeway 42.8 km $2.91 million per km $124.64

M80 9.6 km $2.91 million per km $27.96

Total Direct Cost $152.60

Source: AECOM

Table 19 Widening costs – Upper bound


Cost per element

(millions)

Widening works on existing roads

Eastern Freeway 42.8 km $4.37 million per km $186.96

M80 9.6 km $4.37 million per km $41.94

Total Direct Cost $228.90

Source: AECOM

North-East Link

NEL


Table 20 NEL with widening – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Freeway interchange 3 $8.21 million each $24.64

Tunnel interchange (Bell St) - $76.90 million $76.90

Divided road arterial intersection 3 $2.02 million each $6.07

Bridge (six lanes) 15,400 m2 $3,296.7 per m

2 $50.77

Tunnel (incl. portals) 3.93 km $758.23 million per km $2,981.38

Six lane freeway 3.41 km $17.47 million per km $59.54


2 $163.53

Widening Works - $2.91 million per km $152.60

Total Direct $3,515.43

Site Work 9% of direct costs $315.51


Design Works 9% of direct costs $315.51

Government Costs 6% of direct costs $216.90

Total Indirect $1,056.39

Lower bound costs $4,581.81

Source: AECOM

North-East Link

NEL


Table 21 NEL with widening – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)


Tunnel interchange (Bell St) - $115.35 million $115.35

Divided road arterial intersection 3 $3.03 million each $9.10

Bridge (six lanes) 15,400 m2 $4,945 per m2 $76.15

Tunnel (incl. portals) 3.93 km $1,137.35 million per km $4,472.06

Six lane freeway 3.41 km $26.21 million per km $89.31

Land acquisition 186,420 m2 $1,315.84 per m2 $245.30

Widening Works - $4.37 million per km $228.90







Upper bound costs $6,857.72

Source: AECOM

Table 22 NEL excluding widening – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)







Lower bound costs $4,373.36

Source: AECOM

North-East Link

NEL


Table 23 NEL excluding widening – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)







Upper bound costs $6,560.03

Source: AECOM


Land acquisition costs have been based on RP data for house sales in the area and the State Revenue Office

(DA.048) advice that 45 percent of land value is made up of capital improvements while 55 percent is made up of

land value. This gave a value of $815 per square metre. Contingency was then applied and the cost was broken

down into indirect and direct as per the tables above.

The total of land required which is not already within the road reservation is approximately 186,400m2, based on

the alignment in the 2008 study.

Based on these figures the approximate value of the land required for acquisition is $152 million excluding

processing, legal and management costs.

7.3 Operational Costs

The operational costs could be broken into two sections, maintenance of the at-grade pavement and operations

and maintenance of the 4.2km road tunnel.

Operating costs for Eastlink for 2009 – 2011 were approximately $70 million per year, which inflated to 2016

costs would be $79 million per annum. The majority of this cost is involved in tolling and customer operations and

administrative expenses. The cost of roadside operations was $17.9 million per annum which is converted to

$20.2 million per annum in today’s currency.

Scaling up for the complexity and location of the tunnel under the Yarra River and sensitive environmental issues,

the operating cost for NEL has been estimated at $26 million per annum.

Using a discount rate of seven percent, the net present value of the operating costs is $358.8 million for the 50

year life of the project with escalation excluded.

7.4 Scope risk

There is significant risk involved in additional scope being added to the project due to the sensitive built-up areas

the project passes through. This may lead to additional requirements for bypasses or treatments on surrounding

arterial roads and public transport routes.

Without detailed modelling of impacts it is not clear what other mitigating works will be required on the network to

accommodate the new link and to achieve the best outcome.


While this scope has included the Bulleen alignment, there are two other viable alignments which could be

investigated as alternatives, including an alignment which connects via Ringwood to EastLink and an alignment

which runs further to the east as a more orbital route. The contingency costs do not allow for substantial changes

to alignment such as completely alternative routes, but does allow for minor changes to tunnel, road and

interchange alignments.

Due to topography and growth since early planning for the orbital completion in the late 1970’s, the more orbital

outer route is unlikely to be preferable to the Bulleen or Eastlink alignments.

North-East Link

NEL


Other lower cost alternatives are also possible, including elevated road structures in the place of tunnel through

the Banyule Flats. More detailed analysis of these scope alternatives would be required to settle on a preferred

alignment.

Some alternative alignments for the North-East Link can be found in Appendix C.

7.6 Cost risk

7.6.1 Geotechnical

Without detailed knowledge of the geology along the proposed alignment it is difficult to confirm the expected

geotechnical challenges. The creation of an interchange with Manningham Road immediately west of the Yarra

River bridge may be difficult to achieve while managing environmental impacts particularly with respect to

ground-water levels and the geology of the area.

A detailed analysis of the likely tunnelling methods and geotechnical challenges has been undertaken and is

included as Appendix D. The conclusion of this analysis is that a TBM would be the selected construction method

for the tunnel with access points north of Lower Plenty Road and at Bulleen Road south of the Yarra River.

7.6.2 Planning and environmental

The acquisition of land and the impacts on the surrounding environment, particularly in the tunnelled area and

where the proposed freeway will be close to adjoining properties, are a risk for the project. These may result in

additional land acquisition or additional mitigation works.

Further investigation into preferred alignments and the impacts of tunnelling on the environment would be

required prior to determining the level of risk involved.

Outer Metropolitan Ring Road

OMR


Outer Metropolitan Ring Road OMR


Construction of the outer metropolitan ring road to improve cross-Melbourne freight vehicle access and

connections to the north and east from key freight precincts in the west. This option will also improve access to

employment in north and western metropolitan Melbourne.

Scope summary

The Outer metropolitan ring road (OMR) and E6 corridors are 70km and 23km long respectively. The OMR

alignment has been designed for a four lane carriageway in each direction while the E6 section is designed for

three lanes in each direction.

While the corridors could also support freight rail, this has not been included in this cost estimate.

Sector

Transport


Medium

Evidence base

Geotechnical Assessment of Outer Metropolitan

Ring (OMR) Transport Corridor (May 2009)

Geotechnical Assessment of E6 Transport Corridor

VicRoads Outer Metropolitan Ring /E6 (OMR/E6)

Transport Corridor Planning Assessment Report

Direct option cost


Capital cost



$9.4 million

Whole-of-life PV: $129.7 million

Construction period

4 years


50 yrs

Cost certainty




OMR


8.0 Outer Metropolitan Ring Road – Preliminary costing

8.1 Scope

The Outer metropolitan ring road (OMR) and E6 corridors are 70km and 23km long respectively. The OMR

alignment has been designed for a four lane carriageway in each direction while the E6 section is designed for

three lanes in each direction (however is costed below assuming two lanes in each direction).

The OMR has been designed to accommodate a 4-track rail corridor down the centre of the reservation to

connect freight lines from the west and north of Melbourne as well as providing an orbital public transport route.

The scope of this costing does not consider the cost of providing the rail or the additional structural costs likely to

be incurred due to the rail alignment.

Scoping has been undertaken based on the OMR/E6 corridor plans available from the VicRoads website

attached at Appendix E, with an overview of the future road displayed in Figure 12.

The Melbourne Airport Link is a road link connecting the Tullamarine Freeway to the Outer Metropolitan Ring

Road. It is expected that any construction of the OMR through this area would not occur without this connection

being made and therefore the cost of this extension has been included in the costing.


OMR


Figure 12 Outer metropolitan ring road indicative alignment

Source: VicRoads


OMR


8.2 Capital costs

Capital costs are based on rate costs for the various components of the project based on the design alignments

available on the VicRoads website. These costs include costs to construct interchanges with arterial roads and

freeway interchanges but do not include the cost of constructing joining roads such as the Bulla Bypass or

connection to the Deer Park Bypass.

The Melbourne Airport Link connection between the OMR and Tullamarine Freeway has been included as a

separate item and in the overall cost.

While allowance has been made for a six-lane freeway on the E6 and eight-lane on the OMR in the respective

road reservations, it is unlikely that the freeway would be initially constructed to this standard. Due to the likely

high number of trucks and anticipated speed of development, we have assumed construction of a freeway with

two lanes in each direction for the purposes of these costings for the entire length of the OMR and E6 corridors.

Further work is needed to identify appropriate staging, including which sections of the road might warrant delivery

ahead of others, or whether some sections should initially be delivered to an arterial road standard.

Unit costs are based on general alignments and estimated bridge and interchange costs. The cost breakdowns

including direct construction costs, indirect costs, margins and owner project costs are displayed Table 24

through Table 27.

Intersection costs include costs of signalisation.



Table 24 OMR – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Four lane freeway 88.37 km $11.65 million per km $1,029.33


Arterial interchange 25 $2.02 million each $50.56

Bridge deck 269,045 m2 $3,295.93 per m

2 $886.75

Land acquisition

Werribee 5,440,000 m2 $341.41 per m

2 $1,857.26

Bulla 6,290,000 m2 $243.18 per m

2 $1,529.61

Epping 2,070,000 m2 $436.31 per m

2 $903.15


Indirect costs

Site work 9% of direct costs $565.22


Design works 9% of direct costs $565.22



Total lower bound $8,190.20

Source: AECOM


OMR


Table 25 OMR – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Four lane freeway 88.37 km $17.47 million per km $1,544


Arterial intersection 25 $3.03 million each $75.84

Bridge deck 269,045 m2 $4,943.9 per m

2 $1,330.13

Land acquisition

Werribee 5,440,000 m2 $512.11 per m2 $2,785.89

Bulla 6,290,000 m2 $364.77 per m2 $2,294.41

Epping 2,070,000 m2 $654.46 per m2 $1,354.73


Indirect costs






Total upper bound $12,285.30

Source: AECOM

Land acquisition costs have been based on RP data for house sales in the area and the State Revenue Office

(DA.048) advice that 45 percent of land value is made up of capital improvements while 55 percent is made up of

land value. This gave a value per square metre of $317.12 for Werribee $225.88 for Bulla and $405.26 for

Epping. The alignment is segmented into three sections and costed for land acquisition based on these suburbs

for simplicity. The width of the road reserve was assumed to be 170m for the Werribee and Bulla, 90m for

Epping. Contingency was then applied and the cost was broken down into indirect and direct as per the tables

above.

The total of land required which is not already within the road reservation is approximately $13,800,000m2.

Based on these figures the approximate value of the land required for acquisition is $4.0 billion excluding

processing, legal and management costs. Any already incurred costs are considered to be relatively minor and

therefore have not been included for consideration.

Melbourne Airport Link is a 7km extension of the Tullamarine Freeway to the OMR with interchanges at

Somerton Road, Sunbury Road and a freeway interchange with the OMR.

The cost of this extension is outlined in Table 26 and Table 27.


OMR


Table 26 OMR Extension – Lower bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Four lane freeway 7 km $11.65 million per km $81.53


Arterial interchange 2 $2.02 million each $4.04

Land acquisition

Bulla 1,190,000 m2 $243.18 per m

2 $289.38


Indirect costs






Total lower bound $498.32

Source: AECOM

Table 27 OMR Extension – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Four lane freeway 7 km $17.47 million per km $122.30


Arterial intersection 2 $3.03 million each $6.07

Land acquisition

Bulla 1,190,000 m2 $364.77 per m

2 $434.08

Direct total $574.76

Indirect costs






Total upper bound $747.48


OMR


Source: AECOM

Total capital cost including the Melbourne Airport Link (road) is $8.7 billion – $13.03 billion.


Based on maintenance costs being a portion of the existing road maintenance budget and taken from existing

road maintenance costs, the annual cost of maintaining the OMR would be $9.4 million.

Using a discount rate of seven percent, the net present value of the operating costs is $129.7 million for the 50

year life of the project excluding any future price escalation for improved freeway management or similar

operational projects.

8.4 Scope risk

Due to the dependence on development around the OMR corridor for timing and staging of the project there is

the possibility that development in the local area would require additional scope to the project. For example a

new rail or road connection through the corridor may add costs to the project.

Staging of the project will also likely add cost as some sections will be constructed before others. It is likely that

some connections will need to be constructed under partial traffic conditions.

Construction of part or all of the rail corridor during or prior to construction of the freeway would place additional

costs on the construction of the freeway. Lowering of the Bendigo – Melbourne Railway Line may also be

required.

Specifically, the proposed interchange with the Western Freeway may require relocation of the Western Freeway

alignment slightly to the north.

8.5 Scope alternative

Due to the detailed level of planning already undertaken it is unlikely that the scope will deviate substantially from

the alignment assessed. Changes may include local movements to accommodate unforeseen road or rail

projects which may develop in the interim. Such a change would be unlikely to have a material change to the cost

or scope identified in this report.

8.6 Cost risk

8.6.1 OMR Geotechnical

Major bridge structures are required at the Werribee River, Kororoit Creek, Jacksons Creek and Deep Creek

which are in incised valleys.

Many areas of the corridor contain ‘non-rippable’ basalt exposed at natural surface level where additional

investigation may be required to investigate re-processing and reusing excavated rock for pavement materials.

On the northern side of Bulla – Sunbury Road there is a substantial area of landfill which requires further

investigation to understand costs.

While these risks are known they have not been included in this costing. The nearby availability of existing

quarries and potential quarry sites may offset the costs encountered by these risks.

8.6.2 E6 Geotechnical

The Geotechnical Assessment of E6 Transport Corridor identified that there were no major impediments apart

from the common presence of near surface, high to very high strength basalt (including basalt boulders) and the

area between the Metropolitan Ring Road and McKimmmies Road which may be substantial landfill over 40m

deep at the site of an old quarry.

For at-grade structures it is likely that spread footings or large diameter bored piles would be used. For elevated

structures, pre-bored or driven piles are the preferred foundation.

Darebin Creek and Merri Creek may have softer weak soils than other areas and require further investigation.

While surface materials may be too weak for use as fill, there are several established quarries in the area which

could provide suitable fill material for no additional overall cost.

While these risks are known they have not been itemised in this costing, but have been considered in terms of

the overall risk allowance. The nearby availability of existing quarries and potential quarry sites may offset the

costs encountered by these risks.


OMR


8.6.3 Flora and Fauna

Some sensitive flora and fauna are encountered at the southern end of the alignment around the Werribee River

including the Golden Sun Moth (threatened) and the Large-headed Fireweed (vulnerable). Mitigation or alteration

of the proposed route are a potential risk to the project. The implications of this on the overall project have not

been considered in this costing as they are assumed to be a small proportion of the overall project.

8.7 Staging options

Staging of the OMR and E6 would be largely dependent on development in the surrounding areas. Given the

existing traffic congestion on north-south arterials through Whittlesea, the E6 corridor is most likely to be

warranted earlier than other sections; however, pending traffic modelling, it may rely on the construction of NEL

as an enabling project as north-south routes across the Yarra south of Whittlesea are also heavily congested

during peak periods.

Another likely early stage would be at the Werribee end where congestion at the southern end of the M80 and

growth around the Werribee urban area may trigger the need for the OMR in this section.

The other possible lead stage could be a connection between the Hume corridor and the airport via the

Melbourne Airport Link. Growth in high value exports and airport growth in general could see the need for this

connection as an alternative to the M80.

There are upgrades of the M80 still being undertaken and therefore the staging of the OMR as an alternative will

be dependent on the impacts of the further expansions of the M80. There may also be consideration given to

further M80 widening as an alternative or supplementary project to the OMR.

Rowville heavy rail line

RHR


Rowville heavy rail line RHR


A new heavy rail line to Rowville connected at Huntingdale Station running East along the central median of

North Road and Wellington Road to Stud Road, then turning north to terminate at Stud Park. The works include

the construction of four stations at Monash University, Mulgrave, Waverley Park and Rowville. This option has

the ability to reduce congestion on the road network in this corridor through passenger mode change. This option

provides a better service for people to access employment opportunities around the Monash Employment Cluster

and jobs and services in the central city. A rail extension to Rowville is identified in the PTV Network

Development Plan – Metropolitan Rail, December 2012 for delivery in Stage 3. A feasibility study has also been

completed which identified that prior to this project occurring there is a need to remove level crossings on the

Dandenong corridor (committed) and introduce extended trains (e.g. 10 car trains – option HCT2) operating via a

new Melbourne Metro tunnel (committed).

Scope summary

This project proposes to construct a heavy rail line from Huntingdale Station along North Road and Wellington

Road and then through an existing golf course reserve and park lane before terminating at Stud Park. The rail

line will consist of both underground and elevated rail sections along its length. Four stations are assumed to be

constructed including Monash University, Mulgrave, Waverley Park and Rowville.

Sector

Transport


Medium

Evidence base

Rowville Rail Study Preliminary rail design report –

URS/AECOM 2012


Rowville Rail Pre-Feasibility Study – Independent

Study 2004



Capital cost



$52 million


Construction period

4 years


50 yrs

Cost certainty


Significant risk due to number of interfaces with

existing infrastructure.



RHR


9.0 Rowville heavy rail line (RHR) – Preliminary costing

9.1 Scope

The scope considered for construction under this project includes the enabling works to develop the 31km dual

track heavy rail line and its components. Construction projects required to enable these works are as follows.

- three new underground rail stations placed at Monash University, Waverley Park and Rowville

- new underground platforms at Huntingdale Station

- a new above ground station at Mulgrave

This heavy rail line is to be constructed with the track at the end of the alignment elevated over the flood plain

running east – west to Eastlink before terminating at Stud Park shopping centre.

The track structure along the line will include both elevated viaduct structures and underground tunnelled sections

at different points. The illustrative alignment from the Rowville Rail Study Final Stage 1 Report can be seen in

Figure 13.

Figure 13 RHR illustrative alignment

Source: PTV

9.2 Capital costs

The capital costs of the Rowville Heavy Rail are based on length elements of the alignment including at-grade,

tunnel and viaducts.




Table 28 and Table 29 display the itemised costs for option RHR.


RHR


Table 28 RHR – Lower bound cost


Cost per element

(millions)

Track at grade


Elevated Viaduct

Rail track 13,414 m $4,830 per m $64.79


2 $1,173.73


Construction 6.14 km $105 million per km $644.56

Rail track 12.28 km $3.57 million per km $43.83




Stations


Underground station 4 $231 million each $924


2 $34.91


Indirect costs







Source: AECOM


RHR


Table 29 RHR – Upper bound costs


Cost per element

(millions)

Track at grade

Track at grade 1 km $30.03 million per km $41.13

Elevated Viaduct

Rail track 13,414 m $7,245 per m $97.18


2 $1,760.59


Construction 6.14 km $157.5 million per km $966.84

Rail track 12.28 km $5.35 million per km $65.74



Signalling and communications 25.69 km $21 million per km $71.93

Stations



Land acquisition 52,063 m2 $1,005 per m

2 $52.37


Indirect costs







Source: AECOM




percent is made up of land value. This results in a value per square metre of $478.96 (real 2016).

The total of land required which is not already within the road reservation is approximately 52,063 square metres.

Based on these figures the approximate value of the land required for acquisition is $25 million excluding

processing, legal and management costs. As detailed in the above tables, contingency has been applied and thus

the project is projected to cost between $4.8 billion – $7.8 billion.


RHR


9.2.2 Rolling stock


the cost of providing rolling stock for the Rowville extension is $146 million given the assumption that five trains

will be required.

9.2.3 Comparison to previous study

Knox City Council had a study undertaken in 2004 which indicated the cost of the Rowville heavy rail project from

Huntingdale to Rowville would be around $480 million. The Rowville Rail Study Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report

indicated that this cost was likely to be too low.

9.3 Operational Costs

The annual operational costs have been provided by Infrastructure Victoria and are based on running additional

services to Rowville as well as re-directing some existing services from the Dandenong Group.


$51.7 million. The operational cost assumptions are that track maintenance is $264,498 per track/km/year,



life of the project. Escalation is excluded, thus the future value would be higher than this estimate.


There are a number of alternatives for various sections of the alignment for the construction type and other

factors; these have the potential to impact the scope and cost of this project. The options that are viable for the

current alignment are as follows:

- For Huntingdale Station the new underground platforms could be located to the east of the existing station to

lessen the impact on the existing mainline and station.

- There are several crossing points for local service roads along the North Road line that could be reduced

and this will impact the level of the rail alignment in this area. There is also an option to have open-cut

tunnelling with overbridges at the median crossing points.

- The major intersection with Princes Highway can be either cut and cover or a Sprayed Concrete Lining

(SCL) tunnelling method. This may depend on the location of the Monash University Station.

- The location of Monash University Station will be based on suitable horizontal alignment and the locations of

buildings.

- Cut and cover tunnelling could be replaced by tunnel-bored machines.

It should also be noted that for the project overall, there is an alternative of using TBM bored tunnels instead of

cut and cover or SCL tunnel. This may result in change in areas of the alignment and station locations.

9.5 Scope risk

- Preference for bored tunnels to reduce impacts on services and disruptions to traffic or environmental

impacts may result in additional costs for deeper stations and additional tunnelling costs.

- The foundations of structures may be impacted by tunnelling type, including those of the North Road Bridge,

North Road, Huntingdale Road and the Oakleigh Army Barracks. This could result in the need for

demolitions. Other interfaces with the existing Huntingdale Station infrastructure may also pose a scope risk.

- Demolition of properties may be required along the eastern end of the alignment towards Rowville Station

9.6 Cost risk

Tunnelling and elevated structure construction along the route will cause significant impacts on the operation of

the roads and intersections. This may include road closures and diversions which need to be planned for

accordingly. Temporary works for support of existing structures including North Road Bridge may also need to be

provided, adding further costs to the project.

There has not been intensive geotechnical investigation into the ground conditions for this project. Depending on

the outcomes of this type of investigation, the required foundations for elevated rail structures and the

construction of tunnelling may incur additional costs.

Environmental factors will have an impact on the final cost of this project.


RHR


There are certain points along the alignment of the Rowville Rail line that will need extensive investigation into

how to approach the services that are currently in the area. This will likely involve the relocation of certain services

which will add cost to the project.

Appendix C: North-east Link – Alternative alignments

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page C-1

Appendix A

City loop reconfiguration Geotechnical assessment

Appendix A

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page A-a

Appendix A: City loop reconfiguration – Geotechnical assessment

City loop reconfiguration

Assumptions

- Tunnel to break into the existing Northern Loop tunnel, south of Parliament Street

- Tunnel to pass beneath Glen Waverley up and down lines; Lilydale up and down lines

- Tunnel portal close to Melbourne Park; live rail either side of portal.

Anticipated Ground Conditions – CBD to North Melbourne

In the section of the alignment between North Melbourne and the CBD, it is anticipated that the top formation of

the subsurface profile will comprise Quaternary sediments of the Coode Island Silt Formation. The Coode Island

Silt is a soft to firm, dark grey to black, high plasticity silty clay. Coode Island Silt is rich in organic content and is

a highly compressible material. Some occasional sand lenses and shells are known to present within the Coode

Island Silt Formation. Beneath this unit lies the Fishermans Bend Silt Formation, which comprises stiff to very stiff

brownish silty clay and clay with some occasional sandy clay and sand lenses. The Fishermans Bend Silt is far

less compressible than the overlying Coode Island Silt. In this area the Fishermans Bend Formation will likely be

underlain by variably weathered Basalt flows of the Tertiary Older Volcanics and the Tertiary-aged Werribee

Formation which typically comprises sand, silty sand and sandy clay. The Werribee Formation is underlain by the

Silurian-aged basement rock of the Melbourne Formation, which comprises interbedded siltstone and sandstone.

There is potential for some fill layers to be present along the alignment. Fill material from a variety of sources is

expected to be encountered and as such the composition and thickness of fill will likely be highly variable,

depending on current and historical land use.

Reference has been made to the Surface Geology of Victoria 1:250,000 maps by the Victoria State Government,

an excerpt of the near surface geology in the area is presented in Figure 14.

Figure 14 CLR – 1:250,000 Surface Geology Map

Anticipated Ground Conditions – New tunnel link between Parliament Station (Northern Loop) and

Richmond Platform 3.

The surface profile from Parliament Station to Richmond will be variable along the alignment. Based on the

regional geology map presented in Figure 14, it is anticipated that Silurian-aged bedrock of Melbourne Formation

will outcrop at the surface along the Spring Street section of the alignment. The upper surface of the Melbourne

Formation is generally highly weathered to decomposed, while around the tunnelling depth range moderately to

slightly weathered rock may be expected, with the rock becoming fresh at depth. Further east, the alignment

would pass through the surface sediments of the Quaternary-age Newer Volcanics Formation, which typically

Appendix A

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page A-b

comprises high plasticity residual clay overlying variably weathered Basalt rock (basalt may be slightly to

moderately weathered in this area). The depth to Basalt may be quite variable over the alignment. Through the

middle section of the alignment, Quaternary Colluvial sediments of gravel, sand, silt and clay will be present. The

Newer Volcanics Basalt and Quaternary sediments uncomfortably overlie the Melbourne Formation.


expected to be encountered and as such the fill materials and thicknesses will likely be highly variable,

depending on current and historical land use.

Note the anticipated ground conditions for the City Loop reconfiguration are based on a desktop review of limited

available information only and the composition and depths of the geological units present along the tunnel

alignments should be confirmed through site investigations.

Potential Acid Sulphate Soil

Exposing the Coode Island Silt to oxygen can lead to the formation of acid sulphate soil. Any cut and cover

excavations in these soils trigger the requirement for further assessment, and may require management during

construction. Any temporary or permanent drawdown of the groundwater will also require management.

Tunnelling Methods and Associated Risks

It is understood the existing Northern Loop between North Melbourne Station and Dudley Street was constructed

as a cut-and-cover structure.

The Northern Loop tunnel between Dudley Street and Adderley Street/LaTrobe Street encountered Werribee

Formation, Older Volcanics, Fishermans Bend Silt and Coode Island Silt. The tunnel heading excavation in the

Older Volcanics was excavated using a Road Header. The softer sediments were excavated by hand mining

techniques. The bench was excavated using a backhoe.

High rates of groundwater inflow were experienced within the Werribee Formation and near the base of the

Coode Island Silt.

The City Loop tunnel between Adderley Street and Flagstaff Station encountered the Silurian-aged Melbourne

Formation, Werribee Formation, Older Volcanics and Quaternary-aged Colluvium. Groundwater inflow was

recorded in the lower tunnels. The tunnel headings were excavated using a Road Header. The benches were

excavated by a backhoe.

Based on recorded experiences during construction, open face tunnelling by a Road Header of the proposed

tunnel between Dudley Street and Flagstaff Station would be feasible.

Open face tunnelling in poor ground would require the installation of pre-support such as canopy tubes and

sacrificial face support, and/or ground improvement around the tunnel. Excavations beneath the groundwater

table can cause local groundwater drawdown. Groundwater drawdown in the softer Quaternary aged sediments

can induce consolidation of these soils. Consolidation can result in differential settlements within the soil,

potentially affecting pipes and services within the soil, and settlement of the ground surface, impacting on third

party properties. Groundwater inflow into the tunnel excavations will need to be managed, through ground

improvements and possibly by supplementing local groundwater level with water injection.

Reference: Bennet, A.G, Smith, N.B, Neilson, J.L. (1992); Tunnels. Engineering geology of Melbourne, Balkema,

1992

Appendix A

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page A-c

Appendix A

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page A-d

Appendix B

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page B-1

Appendix B

Melbourne Metro 2 Geotechnical assessment

Appendix B

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page B-a

Appendix B: Melbourne Metro 2 – Geotechnical assessment

North East of Southern Cross Station

Anticipated ground conditions

The surface geology along the proposed alignments between Spencer Street Station and Clifton Hill

predominantly consists of tertiary aged rock units including Red Bluff Sandstone of the Brighton Group which

comprises pale yellow and brown, fine to coarse grained sandstone, sands and gravel and Basalt flows of the

Newer Volcanic Group and Tullamarine Basalt. The Newer Volcanics typically comprise residual clays overlying

Basalt.

The Silurian-aged Melbourne Formation, comprising folded siltstone with interbedded sandstone bands, is also

expected to be present. The upper surface of the Silurian bedrock may be highly weathered, becoming fresh with

depth.

A thin layer of Quaternary aged sediments or fill materials may be present at the surface in some locations. The

near-surface geology along the alignment is presented in Figure 15 (Surface Geology of Victoria 1:250,000 maps

by the Victoria State Government)

Figure 15 MMS – Near-surface geology North East of Spencer Street Station


A cut and cover tunnel typically requires access from ground surface for construction, therefore being more

disruptive to existing surface development than a driven tunnel.

Open face tunnelling techniques using road header or open beam Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) are suitable in

the Melbourne Formation and other competent rock sections of the tunnel, and road header tunnels have been

typically adopted for road projects in the past.

Open face driven tunnels would typically be temporarily supported with combinations of steel sets and/or rock

bolts with mesh or sprayed concrete. Continuous monitoring of the ground surface above the tunnel within the

Appendix B

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page B-b

tunnel excavation would be required until a permanent concrete lining is installed. The permanent lining may

include a waterproof membrane if adverse groundwater conditions are encountered.

Southern Cross Station to Webb Dock

Anticipated Ground Conditions

The main geological features between Southern Cross Station and Webb Dock generally comprise deep Aeolian,

alluvial and marine sediments of the Yarra Delta. The Yarra Delta is a low lying region located between the

Volcanic Plain and the Nillumbik Terrain. The near-surface quaternary, Neogene and Paleogene-aged sediments

consist principally of estuary and coastal deposits, comprising sands, silts and clays. Reference has been made

to the Surface Geology of Victoria 1:250,000 maps by the Victoria State Government, an excerpt of the near

surface geology in the area is presented in Figure 16.

Figure 16 MMS – Near-surface geology from Southern Cross Station to Webb Dock

The top formation of the Yarra Delta consists of the Port Melbourne Sand, which is a fine to medium grained sand

typically in a loose to dense condition, with some silt and clay and shell beds. This overlies the Coode Island Silt

which comprises a soft to firm, dark grey to black, high plasticity silty clay. The Coode Island Silt is rich in organic

content and is a highly compressible material. Some occasional sand lenses and shells are known to present

within the Coode Island Silt. Beneath this unit lies the Fishermans Bend Silt which comprises stiff to very stiff

brownish silty clay and clay with some occasional sandy clay and sand lenses. The Fishermans Bend Silt is far

less compressible than the overlying Coode Island Silt. The Fishermans Bend Formation is typically underlain by

the Moray Street Gravels which comprise medium to coarse grained sand and fine to medium grained gravel,

typically in a dense to very dense condition and with some irregular clay and sandy clay beds.

The Quaternary alluvium overlies Tertiary-aged sediments known as the Werribee Formation, which typically

comprise sand, silty sand and sandy clay. The Werribee Formation is underlain by the basement Silurian-aged

Melbourne Formation, which comprises interbedded siltstone and sandstone. The thickness of the Quaternary

deposits increases towards the west. The Silurian-aged basement rock is almost 100 m below ground surface

near the Yarra River, in the vicinity of Webb Dock.

The subsurface profile in the section north of the Yarra River and south of Spencer Street Station (section Qyc on

Figure 1) is expected to be reasonably consistent with the geological units of the Yarra Delta described above.

Tertiary aged Older Volcanics may underlie the Coode Island Silt and Fishermans Bend Silt in this section of the

alignment. The Older Volcanics unit comprises variably weathered Basalt rock and it is underlain by the Werribee

Appendix B

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page B-c

Formation and Melbourne Formation. The Older Volcanics may be present nearer to the surface towards the east.

It is not anticipated that rock will be encountered within typical tunnelling depth ranges, however limited geological

information is available and therefore this assumption should be confirmed through targeted site investigations.

Based on a review of aerial photographs from 1945, significant land development has occurred over time

throughout the study area. As such, it is anticipated that a layer of fill will be present throughout much the

alignment. Fill material from a variety of sources is expected to be encountered and as such the composition and

thickness of fill will likely be highly variable, depending on current and historical land use. Any existing fill is

unlikely to have been placed as engineered fill, by using appropriate material types and compaction, and as such

may be subject to subsidence when loaded.

Hydrogeology

Given the proximity of the proposed tunnel to the coast, shallow groundwater is anticipated. Groundwater levels

are expected to be within a few metres of the surface and groundwater may be saline. The depth to groundwater

may become greater closer to the Melbourne CBD. Seasonal and tidal fluctuations in groundwater level should be

expected.

Perched groundwater tables may also be present locally within fill materials.

Acid Sulphate Soils

Acid sulphate soil may be present in near-surface Quaternary aged Yarra Delta sediments, particularly in the

Coode Island Silt. Any cut and cover excavations in these soils trigger the requirement for further assessment,

and may require management during construction. Any temporary or permanent drawdown of the groundwater

will also require management.


Near surface stations would typically be excavated as cut-and-cover structures, while sections of the tunnels

close to the surface may also be constructed this way.

A cut and cover tunnel typically consists of excavating a relatively shallow trench, in which the tunnel structure is

constructed and covered with an overhead support system strong enough to carry the load of what is to be built

above the tunnel. It typically requires access from ground surface for construction, therefore being more disruptive

to existing surface development than a driven tunnel.

Cut and cover excavations below the groundwater table require groundwater retention. Secant pile or diaphragm

walls are common methods to achieve waterproofed structures beneath the water table.

Groundwater drawdown in the softer Quaternary aged sediments can induce consolidation of these soils.

Consolidation can result in differential settlements within the soil, potentially affecting pipes and services within

the soil, and settlement of the ground surface, impacting on third party properties. Temporary and permanent

groundwater inflow into cuttings and tunnel excavations will need to be managed, through ground improvements

and possibly by supplementing local groundwater level with water injection.

Closed face tunnelling techniques provide support to the excavated face, usually soft soil, while the face is being

excavated. Depending on ground conditions, either a closed face Earth Pressure Balance Machine or a Slurry

Shield TBM provides the face support during tunnel excavation. The permanent tunnel lining, typically in the form

of interlocking concrete segments, is installed progressively behind the TBM as the heading is advanced. TBM

tunnels are circular in section. Unlike an open face tunnel, there is generally no temporary groundwater drawdown

associated with closed faced tunnelling. A single shield TBM can operate in a closed face mode, installing the

permanent concrete liner as it excavates through the softer soil, and then as an open face machine in the

competent rock sections of the tunnel.

Western Yarra Crossing


The main geological features underlying the Yarra River generally comprise deep Aeolian, alluvial and marine

sediments of the Yarra Delta. The geological units expected to be encountered include Coode Island Silt, which

comprises a soft to firm, dark grey to black, high plasticity silty clay with occasional sand lenses. The Coode

Island Silt is rich in organic content and is a highly compressible material. Beneath this unit lies the Fishermans

Bend Silt which comprises stiff to very stiff brownish silty clay and clay with some occasional sandy clay and sand

lenses. Moray Street Gravels are expected beneath the Fishermans Silt. The Moray Street Gravel Formation

comprises medium to coarse grained sand and fine to medium grained gravel, typically in a dense to very dense

condition and with some irregular clay and sandy clay beds. These Quaternary sediments overlie the basement

Silurian-aged Melbourne Formation, which comprised interbedded siltstone and sandstone. Silurian-aged

basement rock is present at almost 100 m below ground surface near the Yarra River.

Appendix B

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page B-d

West of the Yarra River lies a geological boundary between the Quaternary sediments of the Yarra Delta and the

Tertiary aged Newer Volcanics basalt flows .The Newer Volcanics unit typically comprises fresh to slightly

weathered basalt, with basalt weathered to a high plasticity residual soil at the surface. Underlying the Newer

Volcanics is the Brighton Group, comprising fluvial and marine deposits of dense to very dense silty sand with

some coarse sand, fine gravel, silt and clay. Beneath this unit lies the Newport Formation which consists of

calcareous silty clay and silty sand, with some limestone and shells. The Newport Formation overlies the

Werribee Formation which comprises dense sands and silty sands with some hard clay and occasional lenses of

gravel.

Reference has been made to the Surface Geology of Victoria 1:250,000 maps by the Victoria State Government,

an excerpt of the near surface geology in the area is presented in Figure 17.

Figure 17 MMS – Near-surface geology west of the Yarra River

Hydrogeology

Immediately west of the Yarra River groundwater is expected at shallow depths, likely within a few metres of the

surface, reflecting the water level in the river. Groundwater may be saline given the proximity to the coast.

Seasonal and tidal fluctuations in groundwater level may be expected.

Groundwater may be present at greater depth towards the west, within the Newer Volcanics Basalt.

Acid Sulphate Soils

Acid sulphate soil may be present in near-surface Quaternary aged Yarra Delta sediments, particularly in the

Coode Island Silt. Any cut and cover excavations in these soils trigger the requirement for further assessment,

and may require management during construction. Any temporary or permanent drawdown of the groundwater

will also require management.


A number of tunnel construction options exist for the western crossing of the Yarra River.

Immersed tube tunnels are constructed by linking together a series of separate tunnel segments typically across

the floor of a river, estuary or harbour. The segments are generally constructed off-line, floated to the tunnel site,

sunk into place and then linked together. The ends of an immersed tube crossing of the Yarra River will need to

interface with the tunnel from Southern Cross through the sediments of the Yarra Delta, and west towards

Newport through the Newer Volcanics and/or underlying sediments.

A cut and cover tunnel crossing of the Yarra River would require temporary coffer-dams to be set up across the

river, allowing access to the river bed for sequential excavation and construction of the tunnel segments. As with

the immersed tube option, the ends of a cut and cover crossing will need to interface with tunnels either side of

the river.

Appendix B

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page B-e

Closed face tunnelling techniques provide support to the excavated face, usually soft soil and/or high groundwater

inflows and pressures, while the face is being excavated. Depending on ground conditions, either a closed face

Earth Pressure Balance Machine or a Slurry Shield Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) provides the face support

during tunnel excavation. The permanent tunnel lining, typically in the form of interlocking concrete segments, is

installed progressively behind the TBM as the heading is advanced. TBM tunnels are circular in section. Unlike an

open face tunnel, there is generally no temporary groundwater drawdown associated with closed faced tunnelling.

A single shield TBM can operate in a closed face mode, installing the permanent concrete liner as it excavates

through the softer soil, and then as an open face machine in the competent rock sections of the tunnel.

A closed face TBM can pass continuously from a terrestrial tunnel beneath the Yarra River and beyond without

the need for the tie-ins that would be required for an immersed tube and possibly the cut and cover.

A closed face TBM could continue west from the Yarra River through the Newer Volcanics and underlying

Neogene/Paleogene sediments west of the Yarra River and onto Newport Station.

Open face tunnelling techniques using road header or an open beam TBM are also likely to be suitable in the

Newer Volcanics and underlying Neogene/Paleogene sediments west of the Yarra River and onto Newport

Station. An open faced tunnel would require a tie-in to the closed-face tunnel or cut-and-cover tunnel crossing of

the Yarra River. Open faced tunnelling would be suitable for Melbourne Formation basement rock, but depths of

near 100 metres below ground surface are unlikely to be practical for transit rail.


Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page C-1

Appendix C

North-East link Alternative alignments


Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page C-a

Appendix C: North-East link – Alternative alignments

North-East link

Five alternative routes for North-East link are displayed below in Figure 18 and Figure 19

Figure 18 North-East link alternatives 1


Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page C-b

Figure 19 North-East link alternatives 2

Appendix D

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-1

Appendix D

North-East link Geotechnical assessment

Appendix D

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-a

Appendix D: North-East link – Geotechnical assessment

North-East link

The proposed alignment for the North East Link tunnel runs from the north east corner of the intersection of Lower

Plenty Road and Greensborough Road to Bulleen Road south of the Yarra River, as shown approximately on

Figure 20.

Figure 20 Generic Alignment of proposed North-East Link Tunnel


Regional geology in the area is expected to comprise Quaternary-aged river alluvium consisting of clay, sand, silt

and some gravel deposits, overlying Silurian-aged siltstone and sandstone of the Melbourne Formation. The

Melbourne Formation generally comprises high plasticity residual clay overlying variably weathered rock.


expected to be encountered and as such the fill materials and thicknesses will likely be highly variable, depending

on current and historical land use.

Hydrogeology

Previous investigations in the area suggest that regional groundwater may be present from within a few metres of

the surface up to about 10 m below the surface. Groundwater levels may be influenced by the nearby Yarra River

water level. Perched water tables may also be present above the regional groundwater table.


A number of tunnel construction methods could be considered for the North East Link tunnel.

A cut and cover tunnel typically requires access from ground surface for construction, therefore being more

disruptive to existing surface development than a driven tunnel. The southern proposed tunnel section has

available land and surface access to make cut and cover tunnelling viable.

Open face tunnelling techniques using road header or open beam Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) are suitable in

the Melbourne Formation, and road header tunnels have been typically adopted for similar road projects in the

past. Open face driven tunnels would typically be temporarily supported with combinations of steel sets and/or

rock bolts with mesh or sprayed concrete. Continuous monitoring of the ground surface above the tunnel within

the tunnel excavation would be required until a permanent concrete lining is installed. The permanent lining may

include a waterproof membrane if adverse groundwater conditions are encountered.

Appendix D

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-b

Open face tunnelling in poor ground would require the installation of pre-support such as canopy tubes and

sacrificial face support, and/or ground improvement around the tunnel. Excavations beneath the groundwater

table can cause local groundwater drawdown. Groundwater drawdown in the softer Quaternary aged sediments

can induce consolidation of these soils. Consolidation can result in differential settlements within the soil,

potentially affecting pipes and services within the soil, and settlement of the ground surface, impacting on third

party properties. Groundwater inflow into the tunnel excavations will need to be managed, through ground

improvements and possibly by supplementing local groundwater level with water injection.

Closed face tunnelling techniques provide support to the excavated face, usually soft soil, while the face is being

excavated. Depending on ground conditions, either a closed face Earth Pressure Balance Machine or a Slurry

Shield TBM provides the face support during tunnel excavation. The permanent tunnel lining, typically in the form

of interlocking concrete segments, is installed progressively behind the TBM as the heading is advanced. TBM

tunnels are circular in section. Unlike an open face tunnel, there is generally no temporary groundwater drawdown

associated with closed faced tunnelling. A single shield TBM can operate in a closed face mode, installing the

permanent concrete liner as it excavates through the softer soil, and then as an open face machine in the

competent rock sections of the tunnel.

Due to the crossing under the Yarra and the need to avoid groundwater drawdown, closed and open faced TBM

tunnelling based on local geology is likely to be the preferred tunnelling method.

Appendix D

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-1

Appendix E

Outer metropolitan ring road Design drawings

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-a

Appendix E: Outer metropolitan ring road – design drawings

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-b

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-c

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-d

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-e

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-f

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-g

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-h

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-i

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-j

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-k

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-l

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-m

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-n

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-o

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-p

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-q

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-r

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-s

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-t

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-u

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-v

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-w

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-x

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-y

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-z

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-aa

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-bb

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-cc

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-dd

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-ee

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-ff

Appendix E

Supplement C – Major transport projects – preliminary costings Page D-gg

Documents

Important Notice · third parties or other bodies for any other purpose than those intended by Infrastructure Victoria. 2. AECOM has used its reasonable endeavours to ensure that