SECOND CONTAINER PORT ADVICE Consultation summary

SECOND CONTAINER PORT ADVICEConsultation summary

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice2

3

Contents Introduction 4

What we did 6

Feedback and submissions 6

Stakeholder meetings 7

Workshops 8

What we heard 9

Key themes from feedback and submissions 9

Feedback from workshops 12

Timing 12

Location 12

How we’ve used what we’ve heard 14

Another chance to have your say 15

Appendix one – Additional factors identified through consultation 17

About us 23


In May 2016 the Victorian Special Minister of State asked Infrastructure Victoria to provide advice on the need, timing and location of a second container port in Victoria – at either a Hastings or Bay West location

You can read the Minister’s full Terms of Reference on our website at infrastructurevictoria.com.au/second-container-port.

Our advice on planning for Victoria’s future ports capacity, which is due to the Minister by May 2017, takes into account the economic, environmental and social impacts of developing a new port.

Consistent with our approach, and the Terms of Reference for the advice, Infrastructure Victoria is committed to transparent engagement with the community, industry and other stakeholders. This engagement will assist us to promote a deep, informed discussion, while building consensus on the key issues of public importance, policy priorities, options and trade-offs.

Introduction

In 2016, we undertook the first phase of engagement with local communities and stakeholders, focused on the process to prepare the advice and the key factors for investigation.

This report summarises the key themes from this first phase and discusses how what we heard has influenced how we are preparing our advice.

Together with this report we have now released our evidence base for consultation in March 2017.

5


In September 2016 Infrastructure Victoria released a discussion paper, Preparing advice on Victoria’s future ports capacity. The paper outlined Infrastructure Victoria’s scope and approach in preparing advice on Victoria’s future commercial port capacity and described:

• the proposed process for preparing our advice • key factors and drivers of change likely to affect

further development at the Port of Melbourne, Bay West and Hastings

• the additional work we are likely to undertake to inform our advice.

The paper was used as a basis to seek input on our process and whether we have identified the key factors necessary for deciding when a second port will be needed, where it should be located, and what should drive these decisions.

What we did

Feedback and submissionsThe release of the discussion paper Preparing advice on Victoria’s future ports capacity marked the start of a four week formal consultation period. An online feedback form was available to complete on Infrastructure Victoria’s consultation website from 1 September 2016 until 30 September 2016.

Questions in the feedback form included:

• Have we missed any key factors that may influence demand and capacity at the Port of Melbourne?

• Which key factors are likely to have the greatest influence on demand and capacity at the Port of Melbourne?

• What do you view as the key links and interactions between key factors?

• Do you think we have missed any key factors or issues for assessment of the sites?

• Do you think there are any constraints to testing the key factors we have identified?

• Do you have any information to help us build our evidence base?

We received over 50 feedback forms from local councils, peak bodies, environment groups, community groups and individuals. Key themes from this feedback is available on pages 9-11.

7

Stakeholder meetingsAs part of the consultation process Infrastructure Victoria also held a series of meetings in the second half of 2016. Meetings were held with:

Avalon Corridor Planning

Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability

Customs Brokers and Forwarders Council of Australia

Transport for Victoria

Western Distributor Project Team

Fisheries Victoria

Plan Melbourne

DP World

Drewry

Environment Protection Authority

Geelong Ports

Fishermans Bend Taskforce

Institute for Supply Chain and Logistics

Linfox

Maribyrnong Truck Action Group

Melbourne Water

Patricks

Port of Brisbane

Port of Melbourne Corporation

Port of Melbourne (lessee)

Port of Hastings Development Authority

Port of Portland

Port Phillip Conservation Council

Port Phillip Sea Pilots

Ports Australia

Salta Properties

Seafood Industry Victoria

Strategic Maritime Group

Transport Safety Victoria

VicRoads

Victorian International Container Terminal

Victorian Planning Authority

Victorian Ports (Melbourne)

Victorian Regional Channels Authority

Victorian Transport Association

Victorian National Parks Association

Western Port Biosphere Reserve

Western Port Preservation Council

Woolworths Supermarkets

Meetings were focused on the information and questions included in the discussion paper. Key themes from this feedback are available on pages 9-11.


WorkshopsIn November 2016, Infrastructure Victoria held five workshops with key stakeholders and local communities in and around Hastings, Geelong and Melbourne.

The purpose was to draw on local knowledge and expertise to understand factors that are important to participants and whether any other evidence or inputs should be considered in developing our independent advice.

The key stakeholder workshops were facilitated by RPS, an independent consultancy, and were designed to hear the views and perspectives of individuals and organisations from a variety of backgrounds, sectors and communities including:

• local government• port operations and management• logistics and freight• education, research and policy• planning and economic development• environmental conservation and protection• Victorian Government departments and authorities.

Two community workshops were held in Hastings and Hoppers Crossing. The focus of these workshops was to hear directly from the community near the Hastings and Bay West locations about what they thought the issues and opportunities of a potential port at these locations might be.

A summary of what we heard from the workshops is available in the RPS Workshop Summary report available at yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/ports.

9

What we heard

• There is sufficient yard space at the Port of Melbourne to support much more capacity.

• There is the possibility of developing the Port of Melbourne land for residential or commercial uses in the long term. However, there is likely to be sufficient land for development for at least 50 years within current redevelopment precincts such as Docklands, Fishermans Bend, Arden-Macauley, E-Gate and North Dynon.

In relation to other Victorian ports we heard:

• There are many options for relocating trades from Melbourne to other Victorian ports. This would free up space to increase the capacity of the Port of Melbourne, as well as providing an economic boost to other Victorian commercial ports. This was discussed particularly in relation to relocating the automotive trade to either Hastings or Geelong, and the potential of relocating liquid bulk and break bulk from the Port of Melbourne.

In relation to future trade growth and demand for container capacity we heard:

• Feedback differed on the likely future demand for container capacity, but there was awareness of the importance of demand projections in shaping our study.

• Some stakeholders argued that planning for a new port needs to begin soon to ensure Victoria is ready for increased demand. Other stakeholders argued that the rates of container demand seen prior to 2008 are unlikely to return. Future growth is more likely to be in line with GDP than be a multiple of GDP growth.

Key themes from feedback and submissionsThere was broad support for our approach and the key factors we are considering as we prepare our advice.

There were additional factors raised for us to explore. These are outlined in Appendix One together with a summary of how Infrastructure Victoria is taking these additional factors into account.

In addition to the specific suggestions for additional key factors, the following key themes also emerged:

In relation to the capacity of the Port of Melbourne we heard:

• The major constraints at the Port of Melbourne are the quay line, the height of the West Gate Bridge, the size of the Swanson Dock turning basin and the width of the Yarra River and Swanson Dock. We heard that Swanson Dock was more limited in accepting larger ships than Webb Dock. Swanson Dock is already experiencing situations where stevedores have to work together to manage arrival of the biggest ships because of the current width of the dock. The use of more powerful and manoeuvrable tug boats may increase the size of ships that can be accommodated at Swanson Dock.

• To maximise the capacity at the Port of Melbourne significant development would need to occur at Webb Dock, because it can accept larger ships and does not face the height constraint of the West Gate Bridge. Rail capacity needs to be expanded and there needs to be more focus on the optimisation of truck movements, including less ‘frustrated trips’ where trucks arrive expecting to pick up a container but for a variety of reasons leave empty.

• The transport networks around the Port of Melbourne are adequate, but a shift to night operations for transport companies is likely to be necessary as the port increases its capacity. The amount of trucks on roads in Melbourne’s inner west is likely to have a health and safety impact. This needs to be addressed, especially if the Port of Melbourne continues to grow.


In relation to the impact of future ships sizes and Port Phillip Heads we heard:

• Shipping lines are already making enquiries about bringing larger ships – in the range capacity of 8000-10,000 TEU – into the Port of Melbourne. Submissions differed on the size of ships likely to visit Melbourne in the future, but are consistent in suggesting Infrastructure Victoria needs an informed and credible view on future ship sizes to inform our study.

• Some feedback argued it is important that a new port has capacity for much larger ships than are currently visiting Australia, perhaps up to the largest ships in the world today, of about 18,500+ TEU. On this basis, stakeholders argued that Hastings was a better option, because of the difficulty of ships this large accessing the Port Phillip Heads.

• Other feedback argued that because of the relatively small size of the Australian market, the largest ships in the world today were unlikely to visit Australia and that the current size of the Port Phillip Heads would be sufficient for a long time.

• Future technology may improve the manoeuvrability of ships, meaning that bigger ships than anticipated may be able to manoeuvre through Port Phillip Heads.

• The cruise ship industry is growing and we need to consider the projected increase in these accessing the heads when we consider the amount of traffic that may want access through the Port Phillip Heads in the future.

In relation to supply chains we heard:

• The logistics industry wants access to cheap, flat land that is close to good transport networks and the port. At the moment, the industry is shifting to the west because of land availability and access to the M80 Ring Road. There is more vacant land for industrial development in the west than the south-east.

• In relation to the impact on supply chains of a port at either Hastings or Bay West, feedback focused on the impact of changed supply chains on their current warehousing locations. Warehousing has a 15–25 year lifespan. Industry would like certainty on port and transport planning so that it can make investment decisions.

• Supply chains prioritise reliable and repeatable trips, even if they are slightly longer. Some feedback questioned the impact on supply chains if traffic flows around the Port of Melbourne become more congested because of increased freight volumes or a densification of urban development.

• A new port at either Hastings or Bay West needs to have sufficient road and rail infrastructure to support efficient supply chains. Many stakeholders providing feedback focused on the need for rail to take a larger mode share as part of any significant expansion to the capacity of the Port of Melbourne. Submissions overwhelmingly recommended that rail must be a significant consideration as part of any new port development. Exporters are more cost sensitive than importers, so access to rail and the cost of accessing a new port must be considered in planning.

• The government should prioritise the establishment of an integrated High Performance Freight Vehicle network to maximise the efficiency of Victorian supply chains. Current weight limits on the West Gate Bridge and the Bolte Bridge are preventing this from happening. The planned Western Distributor will help address some of these problems. State and commonwealth governments should be encouraged to take a national approach to freight supply chains and port capacity.

11

In relation to environmental and social issues of developing a port at either Bay West or Hastings we heard:

• Developing a new port at either Hastings or Bay West will have significant environmental impacts.

• The delicate state of the environment in Western Port could be upset by a port development at Hastings. Some of the potential environmental issues raised as a result of a port development in Western Port were damage to existing seagrass and saltmarsh, the delicate nitrogen balance of Western Port, the potential danger of oil spills to the health of the bay and damage to Ramsar treaty environmental values.

• Some of the potential environmental issues raised as a result of a port development in Port Phillip Bay were the possible damage to reefs and bayside beaches that could occur if further dredging of the Port Phillip Heads was necessary, the impact on important habitat for the Orange Bellied Parrot and the need to manage any impacts on Ramsar treaty environmental values.

• There is an opportunity to set up a comprehensive monitoring framework for environmental indicators in Port Phillip Bay and Western Port. Beginning this data gathering early would mean we are better prepared when it comes to seeking approval for a port in either location.

• Some of the potential social issues raised as a result of a port development in Western Port were the impact on recreational fishing (particularly access around channels and port waters) and the impact on Phillip Island and Mornington Peninsula tourism.

• A potential social issue raised as a result of a port development in Port Phillip Bay was the impact on recreational fishing, particularly for boats leaving the Werribee River boat ramp. Loss of access for recreational fishers was also raised as a significant concern in Western Port.

• In relation to increasing the size of the Port of Melbourne, feedback focused on the social impacts of more trucks needing to access the port, and in particular the health and safety effects of a large number of trucks travelling on streets in Melbourne’s inner west.

In relation to the economic impact of different port locations we heard:

• There is an opportunity for a new port to create jobs and generate related freight and logistics activity. We heard from groups in both Hastings and Bay West that these areas are economically depressed and would benefit from the immediate and indirect benefits of a new port development.

• Feedback from local government and industry peak bodies focused on the importance of an efficient port and supply chain for a healthy economy. Local government feedback generally advocated for the new port to be closest to their location, because of the increased employment and economic activity from a new port and ancillary business activity.

• Feedback noted the importance of the south-eastern region as a population centre and hub for economic activity, employment and consumption.

In relation to Infrastructure Victoria’s assessment approach in providing advice we heard:

• Infrastructure Victoria should be clear about the techniques it uses to assess when and where Victoria should invest in new ports’ capacity, including whether economic or cost-benefit analysis is being undertaken.

• The assumptions Infrastructure Victoria is making to prepare its advice should be clearly documented.


A detailed summary of what we heard from the workshops is available in the RPS Workshop Summary Report available at yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/ports.

TimingIn relation to the timing of a second container port we heard that the decision may be influenced by the following:

• Physical constraints at the Port of Melbourne including landside constraints such as encroaching urban development and waterside constraints such as increasing ship sizes.

• Economic constraints including the lease price of Port of Melbourne, which may cascade down to the consumer and affect Melbourne’s ability to remain competitive.

• Social constraints and the acceptability of port operations in largely urban areas. Many participants cited the international trend of moving river ports out of cities.

• Other participants suggested that the issue should be framed from a national perspective and should consider other freight and logistic mechanisms such as inland rail and coastal shipping.

Feedback from workshops

LocationWorkshop participants identified links between economic, transport, social and environmental considerations for Hastings or Bay West with concerns, issues, opportunities and benefits to balance for each location. An overarching point made by some participants at the sessions was that Infrastructure Victoria could consider a container port at both Hastings and Bay West in the long term.

13

Some of the key issues and opportunities raised at the workshops include:

ECONOMICParticipants felt a second port at either location would:• creategreateremploymentand

business opportunities for the area, mainlyfromsupportingfreight industries and services

• createopportunitiesforindustriesinthearea that would be complementary (such asboatbuildingandlogisticindustries)

• allowforthedevelopmentofindustriesthat may compete with current industries inthearea(suchasagriculture,marketgardensandtourism).Thiswasseen asbothpositiveandnegative.

SOCIALParticipants felt a second container port in either location would impact on the amenityofthesurroundingareaincluding:• thebeautyofnaturalwetlands

at both locations• generalqualityofthelifeand

wellbeingenjoyedinbothareas• negativeimpactscreatedbyport

operations–airquality,noisenad visual impacts

• potentiallossofcommunityidentity anddamagetothesocialfabric of both areas

• recreationalactivities,especiallyfishing.

ENVIRONMENTParticipants felt a second container port in either location could:• havenegativeimpactsonRamsar

wetlands at either location• havenegativeimpactsonthe

environmentthroughdredging• particularconcernswereraised

attheHastingscommunitysession aboutimpactsinmangroves,seagrass,penguins,seals,dolphinsandwhales andgeneraldeteriorationofthewhole bay ecosystem from the construction andoperationofacontainerport.

TRANSPORTParticipants felt a second port at either location would:• needtobesupportedbynewroad

andrailinfrastructure.Thiswasseen asbothpositiveandnegative:

– Positive: Bay West options couldleverageoffexisting transportnetworks.

– Negative:wideroadandrail corridors could become barriers and dislocate communities

• therewasanemphasisonproviding regionswithgreatercertaintyonland useandtransportplanning.

KEY THEMES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Source: RPS, Workshop summary report, 2016

13


Our process of engagement has been iterative. We used what we heard from submissions to help shape the stakeholder and community sessions and sought to confirm or test information we received with stakeholders during our one-on-one meetings.

We received substantial feedback on the things we need to consider in building the evidence base to support our advice. This includes a number of reports on specific environmental issues, employment and population statistics for different areas of Melbourne, studies on transport links and options for port locations within Port Phillip Bay and Western Port. All this information has been used as inputs in shaping our technical work. Appendix One provides a summary of how Infrastructure Victoria is responding to additional factors that were raised for our consideration during consultation.

While much of what we heard was covered by the technical studies we had already underway, a number of themes came up consistently enough to warrant Infrastructure Victoria commissioning additional pieces of work. In particular, we have commissioned further studies on:

• the predicted future growth in ship sizes seeking to visit Australia and the impact on our work

• a more detailed investigation of how to provide rail access to the Port of Hastings

• a separate study into the final destination of imported goods (after the first stop of unpacking the container at a distribution centre), to ensure we have a full understanding of how supply chains work, including the final point of consumption.

How we’ve used what we’ve heard

In relation to environmental and social considerations, we have further investigated specific issues raised during consultation, including the impact of port development on:

• blue carbon in Western Port • tourism near both sites• recreational fishing• the likelihood of a significant environment adverse

event, such as ships blocking the Port Phillip Heads• aquifers• the nitrogen balance of Port Phillip Bay and

Western Port.

We are undertaking a broad strategic assessment of the suitability of port locations at Bay West and Hastings. The level of detail required for this assessment is different to the level of detail that would be required if we were project proponents, seeking environmental approval for a new port. Any further detailed work by a future project proponent would need to examine some of the specific issues raised in our consultation in even greater detail.

15

Together with this report we have now released our evidence base for consultation.

This includes a number of technical studies and a discussion paper explaining why the results of the studies are important in helping us prepare our advice to government. These documents form the evidence base which will underpin our advice.

We are seeking submissions on our evidence base until Monday 3 April 2017. This is your chance to tell us:

• whether we have the right evidence to help us prepare our advice

• if there are any gaps in our evidence that we should consider

• if there is any additional information to help us prepare our advice.

We will also run a number of community drop-in sessions to discuss our evidence base during March 2017. You can find out more on our website yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au.

Another chance to have your say


17

ADDITIONAL FACTOR INFRASTRUCTURE VICTORIA’S RESPONSE TECHNICAL REPORT

PORT OF MELBOURNE

The opportunity cost of using inner city land for a port.

We will consider the impact of the Port of Melbourne on adjacent land use as part of understanding the triggers for developing a second port. We did not estimate the value of the Port of Melbourne land for use as a residential redevelopment because it is not clear its current use as a port is not the highest and best use. There are a number of other precincts in metropolitan Melbourne available for redevelopment, for example Docklands, Fishermans Bend, Arden-Macauley, and E-Gate. If these precincts were to be developed first, it would be some time before the Port of Melbourne land was needed. There would also be significant costs to remediate the site.

To be provided with the final advice

How will the growth of the west and potential projects such as the Brisbane to Melbourne Inland Rail and the Western Interstate Freight Terminal impact on the Port of Melbourne’s operations?

We have considered future freight and transport supply chain investments as part of considering the future size of the Port of Melbourne.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice TEU cost assessmentInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Concept Options – Bay West and Hastings

The attitudes and corporate plans of the freight industry, including preferred location of future warehousing and transport modes.

We have spoken to a number of freight and logistics companies as part of our initial phase of consultation.

Infrastructure Victoria Consultation summary report.

The potential to move other trades away from the Port of Melbourne for safety reasons (chemicals and crude oil) or to make more space for international containers.

We have considered the need to relocate trades in the Port of Melbourne to enable growth in container handling capacity.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Estimated Capacity of the Port of Melbourne

Consider the social and environmental impacts of a large Port of Melbourne on the city of Melbourne.

We recognise that there is a tension between port and residential uses, particularly in the inner west of Melbourne. We will consider how this tension could be managed as densification occurs in the inner west and the Port of Melbourne increases in size.

To be provided with the final adviceInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Environment and Social Advice

Consider imports and exports separately. We have considered demand forecasts for the following categories of non-containerised trade: motor vehicles, break bulk, dry bulk and liquid bulk.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice container trade forecast for Victoria

Appendix one – Additional factors identified through consultation



Demand forecasts for non-containerised cargo.

We have generated separate demand forecasts for exports and imports.


Better understand the role of competition between Australia east coast ports (Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne).

We have compared the cost of shipping a container directly from Asia to the Port of Melbourne with the cost of shipping a container from Asia to Brisbane then land-bridging it to Melbourne.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice TEU cost assessment

The suitability of road and rail networks servicing the Port of Melbourne to service a much larger Port of Melbourne, perhaps 8 million TEU.

We have modelled the key intersections outside the port gate, to understand how they perform as Port of Melbourne capacity increases.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice Ports landside transport modelling

TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS

The impact of potential future carbon restrictions on the balance of current freight operations, which are dominated by carbon intensive road freight, rather than rail.

The likely future mode-share at the Port of Melbourne and at a new port are important considerations. We are ensuring that rail access is a part of the transport mix for a new container port.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Estimated Capacity of the Port of MelbourneInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Concept Options – Bay West and Hastings

The feasibility of providing sufficient rail capacity to either new port locations, especially Hastings.

The provision of rail capacity, including upgrades to the existing network, will be a consideration in preparing our advice.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Concept Options – Bay West and HastingsRegional Rail East and Hastings Rail Link – Concept of Operations Report

The feasibility of providing sufficient road capacity to either new port locations, especially Hastings.

The provision of road connections is a consideration in preparing our advice.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Concept Options – Bay West and Hastings

The need for metropolitan intermodal freight terminals and developing metropolitan rail shuttles for moving containers beyond the new port location. The ability of port location options to support a viable metropolitan intermodal freight terminal network should be considered.

Rail is an important consideration for our study, including for increasing the capacity of the Port of Melbourne and providing transport options at either of the two possible port locations.


The potential to use the Port of Brisbane as Australia’s main port and bring containers to Victoria by rail.

We have compared the cost of shipping a container directly from Asia to the Port of Melbourne with the cost of shipping a container from Asia to Brisbane then land-bridging it to Melbourne.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice TEU cost assessment

The need to develop better transport connections between Victoria’s major international port (either the Port of Melbourne or a new port) and Gippsland.

The ability for exporters, including those based in Gippsland, to access a port at either Bay West or Hastings will be included in our supply chain analysis for the two locations.


19


CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS

Geelong should be considered as a location for the second container port because of the ability to utilise infrastructure already in place and provide an economic stimulus to the city. The advantages of Geelong are:• local workforce with relevant skills• high quality existing motorway• standard plus broad gauge rail access

to state and national networks• large under-utilised freight rail yards

close to the dock.

The Minister’s request specifically asks us to examine the suitability of locations at Bay West and Hastings.A preliminary assessment of the suitability of the Port of Geelong indicates that the length of its channel and the presence of basalt means that the dredging required to facilitate a container port would be prohibitively expensive, especially when a nearby solution is present at Bay West, without the additional dredging costs.

Infrastructure Victoria Evidence Base Discussion PaperA detailed investigation was out of scope of our study

Widen the Bay West assessment to include the existing Port of Geelong region and the surrounding area, particularly the Corio and Moolap region including Point Henry Alcoa site.

The Port of Geelong has a long channel with significant amount of rock, which means any further dredging of the channel so it could accept larger ships will be very costly. The Port of Geelong has the potential to accept relocated trades from the Port of Melbourne, but is not suitable as the location of a second container port.

Infrastructure Victoria Evidence Base Discussion PaperA detailed investigation was out of scope of our study

THE PORT PHILLIP HEADS

The ability of Port Phillip Heads to have an internationally acceptable channel for 14 metre draft vessels, for example 8000 to 10,000 TEU container ships, according to international standards, and the future traffic impacts of many more ships wanting to access the Port Phillip Heads.

The capacity of the Port Phillips Heads is critical to understanding the ultimate capacity of the Port of Melbourne and the suitability of Bay West as a location of a new container port. The results of our navigation simulation will help address this issue, as will work to understand the likely future traffic volume through the Heads.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Navigation Study

The environmental, economic and social impacts of any required dredging at the Port Phillip Heads, including community concerns.

Our hydrodynamics study considers the likely impacts on nearby bayside beaches of any potential changes to the Heads.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Environment and Social AdviceInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – HydrodynamicsInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Geomorphology

What is the likely future ship size visiting Australia?

Forecasting the future ship sizes likely to visit Australia is a key focus of our work. The result of this work influences the likely future size of the Port of Melbourne and the decision about whether Bay West or Hastings is more suitable.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Estimated Capacity of the Port of MelbourneContainer Ship Fleet Forecast and Maritime Economic Assessment

The accident and natural disaster risk of having two ports in Port Phillip Bay (both using the Heads), rather than having redundancy through locating a second port in Western Port.

We will consider this as part of the multi-criteria analysis to assess the availability and suitability of the two port locations. We have also examined the likelihood of a shipping incident blocking Port Phillip Heads.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Navigation Study



ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL

More detailed consideration of environmental impacts, such as:• the locally rare southern brown

bandicoot • road fatalities of wildlife (predominantly

swamp wallaby, koala, blue tongue lizard and echidna) and the potential for robust wildlife crossings factored in to transportation infrastructure

• potential for the release of ballast water to also release pests

• seagrass meadows• mangroves (carbon sinks and erosion

prevention)• oil spill potential and impacts • the loss of blue carbon in Western

Port as a result of dredging • coastal erosion and inundation

of communities in Western Port.

In relation to specific species, the environment and social study has investigated the impact of a development at either site on threatened species. Detailed management plans go beyond the level of detail we are undertaking in our study, but we recognise that these would need to be an important part of any further work to actually plan and develop a port.We have examined the potential impacts on seagrass and mangroves.Potential oil spills, blue carbon and coastal erosion are considered in our environment and social study. As with specific fauna species, we have only undertaken a desktop study. There would need to be much more detailed investigations as part of any planning or approvals process.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Environment and Social AdviceInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – HydrodynamicsInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Geomorphology

Impact on penguins and tourists on Phillip Island.

Tourism and recreational activities at both Bay West and Hastings are considered in our environment and social study.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Environment and Social Advice

The potential social impacts, positive and negative, of a new port development at either Bay West or Hastings, including job creation, particularly for local populations.

We will estimate the number of jobs that are likely to be created by building and operating a port at either Bay West or Hastings.

Estimates of job creation to be provided with the final adviceInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Environment and Social Advice

How enhanced port infrastructure and associated freight infrastructure will assist in reducing our climate impact whilst enhancing liveability of Melbourne.

Our port concept designs are at concept level. Design of port infrastructure to minimise emissions and climate impact would be considered at detailed design phase.

Our economic modelling will cost vehicle emissions based on the total kilometres travelled for each port location. To be provided with final advice.

The potential to enable growth of the Gippsland Region which is best placed to support future population growth of Melbourne and has a growing agriculture sector.

We have used the Victorian Government’s ‘Victoria in Future’ population projections, along with existing metropolitan and regional planning policies, as the basis of our population and economic studies. We have investigated the number of jobs that are likely to be created by building and operating a port at either Bay West or Hastings.

Construction and operating job numbers will be part of the economic assessment and be provided with the final advice.

Actions to improve the sustainability of the Australian economy such as on-shore plastic recycling and manufacture to reduce the need for container shipping in the first place.

We have undertaken projections of future container shipping demand under a range of demand scenarios. Detailed consideration of the specific impact of plastic recycling and manufacture is beyond the scope of our study.


SUPPLY CHAINS

The impact on transport infrastructure of containers and goods movement over road and rail must be considered as part of the location selection criteria, including where goods will be transported after being unloaded. Costs of container movement to and from the port must be considered a key factor to port location.

The shape of existing and future supply chains is an important consideration in our advice. We will develop separate possible supply chains for a port at either Bay West or Hastings, and check this against available industrial land and travel times and distances, to understand the relative supply chain costs of different port locations.


21


The current and future distribution of supply chain and markets around Melbourne should be a consideration.

We will examine the current operations of supply chains servicing the Port of Melbourne.


The location of empty container parks and their role in the supply chain.

Empty container park operations and locations will be considered as part of understanding the existing supply chains for the Port of Melbourne.


Strategic shape of the future city – where will the new industries and people that will send and receive containers be? How easy will it be to move containers from port options to the next stage in the supply chain in the city of the future?

We have examined the population forecasts for Melbourne, and the amount of industrial zoned land, at a high level to inform our supply chain investigations for both Bay West and Hastings.

To be provided with final advice

IMPACT ON EXPORTERS

The impact on the regional economy, particularly exporters and new industries.

Exporter access to a second port has been considered, particularly the need to have access to rail.


The impact of the second port on existing and future freight networks, particularly for freight from Gippsland, South East Melbourne, Dandenong, Mornington Peninsula and Tasmania.

Exporter access to a second port has been considered as part of examining supply chains for a port at either Bay West or Hastings.


CONCEPT DESIGN

Provide a reasonable estimate of the future land required to be set aside for future port development at either Bay West or Hastings.

We have provided a port concept for each location, including the area required for the terminal areas and transport corridors.


Existing land use impacts beyond just the port and its immediate environs, including transport corridors.

Our concept designs examine land use impacts of the port environs and required transport corridors. This includes nearby land uses, for instance the Western Treatment Plant within the Bay West study area.


The relevance of the substantial Special Use Zone land in Hastings.

The Special Use Zone has been considered as part of detailing our concept design for Hastings.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Concept Options – Bay West and HastingsInfrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Environment and Social Advice

Economic benefit opportunities as well as cost implications. As Victoria’s population of 6 million is projected to top 10 million over the next 35 years, there will be strong business growth. How will the container port location best support this growth?

A consideration in our study is maintaining the efficiency of Victoria as a freight and logistics hub, to help support access to imports for consumption and manufacturing inputs, as well as access to foreign markets for Victorian exporters.As part of our supply chain analysis, to be provided with our final advice, we will undertake a high level assessment of the adequacy of land available for freight and logistics purposes in metropolitan Melbourne, linked with future population forecasts for Melbourne.

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Concept Options – Bay West and HastingsInfrastructure Victoria Evidence Base Discussion paper


23

About us

InfrastructureVictoriaisanindependentadvisorybodywhichbeganoperatingon1October2015undertheInfrastructure Victoria Act 2015.

It has three main functions:

• preparinga30-yearinfrastructurestrategyforVictoria, toberefreshedeverythreetofiveyears

• providingwrittenadvicetogovernmentonspecific infrastructure matters

• publishingoriginalresearchoninfrastructure-relatedissues.

Infrastructure Victoria will also support the development of sectoral infrastructureplansbygovernmentdepartmentsandagencies.

TheaimofInfrastructureVictoriaistotakealong-term,evidence-basedviewofinfrastructureplanningandraisethelevelofcommunitydebateaboutinfrastructureprovision.

Infrastructure Victoria will not directly oversee or fund infrastructureprojects.

Photo credit: HiVis Pictures/Peter Glenane/Port of Melbourne Corporation.

This publication may be of assistance to you, but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. You should seek appropriately qualified advice before making any decisions regarding your particular project.

Printed by Infrastructure Victoria

March 2017

© Copyright State of Victoria 2017

Except for any logos, emblems, trademarks, figures and photography this document is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. It is a condition of this Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence that you must give credit to the original author, who is Infrastructure Victoria.

This document is also available in PDF and accessible Word format at infrastructurevictoria.com.au.

ISBN: 978-1-925632-24-8

Documents

SECOND CONTAINER PORT ADVICE Consultation summary