Public disquiet is growing over East West Link threat to Royal Park

The giant yellow pillar of the Melbourne International Gateway that rises above the northern entrance to CityLink could be viewed less as a welcome to the city, and more like a warning to users of nearby Royal Park of more toll roads to come.

By TODD SHILTON

The proposal for stage one of the East West Link – which includes a tunnel running from the southern end of Royal Park to the Eastern Freeway – has sparked concerns over its impact on the popular public space.

While the Linking Melbourne Authority  has estimated the affected area to be as little as 1 per cent (1.3 hectares) of Royal Park, the Melbourne City Council puts the total at a more drastic 6 per cent (9.3ha), based on the publicly available planning documents.

Despite criticism that the Comprehensive Impact Statement released last year by the LMA is light on planning specifics, the park’s Ross Straw sports field and Trin Warren Tam-boore (bellbird waterhole) wetland are squarely in its sights.

Friends of Royal Park president Gordon Ley says Melbourne will lose a unique place if the East West Link goes ahead.

“It’s an absolute gem of a spot in the inner city. It’s an isolated little pocket, which makes it all the more valuable,” he says.

Submissions from Mr Ley and FRP were among the 1400 made to the Transport Department’s recently concluded East West Link Project Assessment Committee, and chief among the issues raised were concerns about the impact on the native wildlife.

“There is a habitat down there near the wetlands, which is a habitat for a comparatively rare lizard known as White’s skink,” Mr Ley says. “That habitat is within the project boundaries.”

Mr Ley is also worried about the impact on the areas of vegetation around the escarpment bordering Ross Straw Field – an area between Melbourne Zoo and the City Link tollway – which will be destroyed by the project.

“It’s described as a remnant area of comparatively undisturbed native vegetation, more or less since pre-settlement times,” he says.

Among the other submissions to the assessment committee was a scathing report from the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, which called for the project to be abandoned completely, saying there was “no justification of EWL [East West Link] based on a rational comparison with alternatives”.

The institute also raised concerns over the vague references in the impact statement to “cut and cover”-type construction, which would see the tunnel dug from above ground rather than being wholly underground, greatly increasing the impact on Royal Park.

“Noting that cut and cover construction was even used where the Domain Tunnel crosses the Yarra River, it seems highly probable that cut and cover construction across the full width of Royal Park may be proposed by one or more of the project bidders,” the submission says.

The institute is concerned that if cut and cover construction is considered, there could be significantly more damage to Royal Park.

“The potential cost savings from this approach could easily give these bids a strong financial advantage,” the submission says, while describing the impact statement as “deficient” in not properly reviewing the risk of cut and cover construction.

Mr Ley has tried to get the Linking Melbourne Authority  to explain exactly what it means by “cut and cover”, but says he has been unable to get a satisfactory definition of the process.

“Despite several weeks of hearings, and despite me having pressed the panel on the matter, I still do not understand what ‘cut and cover’ means in the context of Royal Park,” he says.

In a response to this and other concerns, the authority says it has asked prospective construction bidders “to come up with innovative construction methods to reduce impacts and avoid cut and cover construction, where the tunnel is built from the surface, as much as possible”.

The authority has also given assurances that every effort will be made to minimise the impact on the population of White’s skink.

“Where works are to occur in the White's skink habitat area, the contractor must salvage the White's skink before construction starts, and provide a suitable habitat after construction finishes,” it said in a statement.

While the Department of Transport Assessment Committee hearings have now finished, its recommendations are yet to be delivered to state Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

Victorian Greens leader Greg Barber says that despite the best efforts of the authority and the State Government, public dissatisfaction with the project is rising.

“It is amazing how quickly most people have caught on that this is a stupid idea. And I am talking across Victoria,” he says.

“The community is way ahead of us. They implicitly understand that it is a bad idea, and they implicitly support public transport as a better option.”

Mr Barber says that whatever intentions the State Government had, at this stage East West Link is “the albatross around the Government’s neck”.

“Nobody gets a legacy from building a couple of freeways that 20 years later are full. You get a legacy for being the person who sets a new direction towards a public transport transformation.”

The State Government has become increasingly conscious of these arguments, announcing large scale changes to public transport costs ahead of the state election this year, as well as rail infrastructure upgrades in the recent State Budget.

According to the Department of Transport website, these changes will “boost capacity by 30 per cent” with an $11.5 billion Melbourne Rail Link that includes a rail line to Melbourne Airport.

This has not put a halt on plans for East West Link however, with the announcement at the end of last month of $1.5 billion in federal funding for stage two of the project.

But in spite of the new money, questions remain over the plan’s economic viability.

Melbourne University transport planning lecturer Dr John Stone says he opposes the project, citing poor economic prospects. The Government’s own cost-benefit analysis has the project potentially recouping as little as 80 cents to the dollar.

“I think that any project where the public cost benefit ratio is making a loss shouldn't even be talked about,” he says.

Dr Stone sees public transport as a higher priority, particularly train and bus networks.

“We need to be fixing the very real problems we have with the reliability of the existing rail system, and we need to be expanding that rail system into the suburbs,” he said. “But really importantly, we have to be using the huge resources – over a billion dollars at the last count – that we spend annually on our bus system, to make it a viable part of the transit system rather than a random collection of bus routes.”

Economic concerns aside, the environmental impact of the prioritisation of roads over public transport stretches far beyond Royal Park.

Chief research officer at the Monash Sustainability Institute Dr Janet Stanley says a focus on road infrastructure can only worsen Australia’s contribution to global climate change.

“At the moment, about 15 per cent of greenhouse gasses come from transport, and about 88 per cent of that comes from vehicles,” she says.

“The more roads you build, the more people become reliant on vehicles, and the more greenhouse gasses we emit.

“It’s one of the few sectors where greenhouse gasses are continuing to increase, second only to agriculture.”

Dr Stanley says the damage to Royal Park is not worth the cost – whether it be the City of Melbourne’s estimated 9.3ha or the authority’s 1.3ha.

“We’ve got to use every bit of green open space that we’ve got in Melbourne,” she says.

“The loss of that asset is far more damaging in my mind then any gains from increases in traffic movement.”

Someone else frustrated with the loss of open space is Paul Sinclair, president of the Youlden Parkville Cricket Club.

Faced with the loss of Ross Straw Field and with no alternatives offered for sporting activities conducted there, Mr Sinclair is upset at the lack of consideration in the East West Link proposal for sporting clubs in the inner city, which are already struggling with limited facilities.

“It makes a tough problem even tougher,” he says.

“The development will remove about 17 per cent of sporting fields in Royal Park. What it effectively does is eat up land that could have been used to deal with increasing demand for sporting facilities over the next 15 years.”

If it goes ahead, Mr Sinclair would like to see a portion of project costs go towards ensuring that additional sporting facilities and parkland are generated. Despite his frustration, he says the mood in the club is still positive.

“The game is never over until the fat lady sings. Our mood is hopeful that this is a project that makes no sense economically, functionally or environmentally – and we remain confident that it won't happen.”

The Premier Dennis Napthine, Minister for Transport Terry Mulder, Melbourne City councillors Kevin Louey, Cathy Oke and Rohan Leppart, as well as representatives for the AILA, were unavailable for comment.