SLIDE 9 19-Sep-16 Presentation by C.C. Fellows on Domain Station Construction 9
BACK-UP: ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
~ ubmi
sion
to the Environmental Effects Statement for the
Melbourne Metro Rail P roject (MMRP) Sub missio n Author: Christopher C. Fellows Address: Apartment 207 / 416a St Kilda Rd, M elbourne 3004 Email: Christopher.c.fellows@gmail.com The objective of
this submission is to request that the Panel provide a quantitative comparison of the adva ntages and disadvantages of locating the Domain Statio n along the western edge of the Shrine
Reserve rather than under St Kilda Road (refer blue box in the diagram below).
No one disputes that the disruption to St K ilda Road area traffic, businesses and residents resulting from the "cut & cover" approach to the proposed Domain Station will be massive. This will extend well beyond St K ilda Road itself and include K ings Way, Punt Road and more. An aerial view of the proposed routing in the Domain area shows that the alignment has been deviated from the straightest possible path to accommodate a long, straight platform under St K ilda Road. However, from this same perspective it appears practical to keep to the straightest (shortest) path, use the same station entrances at the O
- main1, but build the station in the Shrine Reserve.
I attended a presentation by MMRP representatives James To nkin and Simon Adams on 271t1 of June and suggested the above alternative. They were not able to raise specific objections to this option. Nor could l find any discussion cf alternative station sites2 in the documentation available at the local
libraries.
1 The station platform would run nortll of
the Domain entrances rather than to the south.
2 A
n endemic short coming of the publicly available material is a lack of discussion of alternatives which should be a building block for any concept analysis. I'm sure there has been considerable work on alternatives so I impute There are many factors to consider when comparina: these two alternatives. CJearty it would be desirable
to minimize disruption to the Shrine Reserve but the EE
S documentation makes it clear that it is permissible to impact the reserve on a temporary basis to construct infrastructure!1. Critically, there is a prima facie case that the public and traffic disruption would be dramatically reduced with the attendant benefits of a shorter execution schedule•, lower costs and reduced project risks. In my experience. requests to evaluate alternatives proposed by the general public are often brushed aside with a qualitativo response such as •we looked at this option but considored the impact on the Shrine precinct to be excessive.• For this reason I am explicitly requesting a quantitative comparison using engineering estimates for cost, schedule and traffic impacts during construction•. I recoanlze that quantitative analysis mlaht be redundant If there Is a fatal en1lneerin1 or plannine flaw in the concept. However, as a design engineer with 40 years' experience in front end co nceptual evaluation for major International projects, I know that It Is rare to find an option which Is truly
- intractable. For example. a dismissive response to my req uest might be "this alternative would run !2Y..l
- f
the Melbourne Grammar underaround car park'". If this were a concern, the response should be "show me diagra ms and screening level estimates to illust rating w hat it would take to address this issue· so that a balance of the pro's and
~
can be evaluated, rather than accept this as a prfma facle showstopper. In addition to the above request, additional points I would like the panel to consider are as follows: Shaft/excavate versus Cut & Cover: If there is a fundamental reason why the station location cannot be relocated to the Shrine Res, erve, alternative construction options should be considered to minimize disruption associated with the existing proposal, specifically a shaft / excavation approach or a hybrid of cut & cover and shaft/ excavate. Station Entrances: Based on international experience and bearing in mind both peak l~el passenger traffic and emergency escape requirements•, best practice would be to have at least
- ne entrance at the far end of
such a long platform rather than having all the entrances at one end. Station Name: We strongly suggest renaming the station ANZAC {or possibly "Shrine") as a more meaningful name as well as providing: an excellent opportunity to use the interior desien of station to reinforce the o bjectives of
the Shrine precinct.
that it was a policy decision not to make this analysis available. It's possible that the material ls In the public domain, but if so, I could not find it. Nor could Mr. Tonkin or Mr. Adams direct us to it.
Transportation Project F acilitation Act 2009 " For example. substantial reductJOn in preparatory works such as traffic and tram rerouting. s "Risk"' is used here in the global context
all project risks including cost, schedule and safety for construction s taff and the general public.
6 As a minimum. A
quantitative comparative risk assessment would also be extremety informative. A table of quantitative pro's and '-llD:s. would also be required.
1 This is a possible hypothesis on my part as to why the option suggested
was not pursued. I saw no reference to this in the documentation but likewise I don't have any eneineerine details for the referenced car park or other subsurface challenges in the area. which, 1f relevant, should have been included in the reparts. a This requirement continues to be a growing concern due to the increasing number of terrorist attacks on such locations.
