The Victorian government is switching up its infrastructure commitments and beyond. Among them, it’s finding $2 billion in savings from Suburban Rail Loop East and winding up Infrastructure Victoria. But major infrastructure needs a long term plan, argues Pat Fensham.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Tunnel boring has begun on Melbourne’s Suburban Rail Loop.
It is a significant milestone. Whatever your view of the rail loop, there is no question it will shape Melbourne for generations. The first stage alone involves 26 kilometres of twin tunnels, six new stations and precincts expected to accommodate tens of thousands of additional homes and jobs.
But as the tunnel boring machines start moving underground, Victoria should also be looking ahead.
The question facing us before the November election is bigger than the future of one project: how do we make better, more durable decisions about the infrastructure Victoria needs next?
The past fortnight has provided a useful case study.
The Victorian government has committed to finding $2 billion in savings from Suburban Rail Loop East. Around $1 billion is expected through immediate scope changes, including not proceeding with underground interchanges at Box Hill and Glen Waverley, a second entrance at Clayton and pedestrian bridges at Burwood and Cheltenham. A technical review will seek another $1 billion in savings.
At the same time, the government is winding up Infrastructure Victoria, the state’s independent infrastructure advisory body.
There are legitimate debates about each of those decisions. But together they point to a bigger issue Victoria needs to confront.
Major infrastructure needs a long term plan.
Transport infrastructure is rarely just about moving people from A to B. Stations shape where homes and jobs go, how neighbourhoods develop and where private investment follows. Connections between transport modes, pedestrian access and surrounding public spaces influence whether those places ultimately work.
That relationship is particularly important for the rail loop. Its rationale has always extended beyond the railway itself. It is a transport and city shaping project intended to support major growth around its six station precincts.
The recent Victorian Auditor-General’s report highlights the challenge. It found significant costs required to deliver some of the project’s intended benefits were unfunded or underfunded, including station interchange works. It also identified significant pressures around funding, delivery and the project’s timetable.
These are difficult decisions for any government.
The lesson should be that we need to resolve more of them earlier.
Victoria needs a stronger process for determining what infrastructure we need, what outcomes we expect it to deliver, how projects fit together, what they will cost and when they will be built.
That is why the Planning Institute of Australia is calling on all parties contesting November’s election to commit to a 10 year infrastructure delivery plan for Victoria.
The plan would provide a statewide framework aligning infrastructure investment, funding and delivery with Victoria’s plans for housing, jobs and population growth.
It would identify the infrastructure needed in priority infill and greenfield growth areas and set out a clear sequence for delivering transport, utilities, schools, open space and other essential infrastructure.
Importantly, it would also provide greater discipline around major investment decisions.
Clear objectives should be established before projects are committed. Alternatives should be transparently tested. Costs, benefits and risks should be understood. Funding and delivery responsibilities should be clear enough that communities, councils and industry can confidently plan around them.
Victoria’s history shows why that discipline is valuable.
The East West Link was abandoned following a change of government, leaving taxpayers with substantial compensation costs. The rail loop has survived changes in leadership but is now undergoing significant changes to scope, funding and governance while construction proceeds.
The lesson isn’t that governments should stop making ambitious infrastructure decisions.
Victoria is growing and needs ambition.
But the biggest investments should be supported by processes strong enough to survive changes in government, economic conditions and political priorities.
There are lessons in what Victoria has done well too.
The level crossing removal program established a clear program of works and then progressively delivered it. Individual projects have attracted debate and opposition, but the broader program has built confidence through delivery.
We should bring that same long-term discipline to the infrastructure needed to support Victoria’s growth.
That becomes even more important as Victoria pursues ambitious housing targets.
Rezoning land creates development capacity. It doesn’t build the transport, schools, utilities, parks and community infrastructure that turn that capacity into functioning neighbourhoods.
If Victoria wants substantially more homes in established and growing communities, infrastructure planning cannot follow housing reform years later.
The two need to move together.
The decision to wind up Infrastructure Victoria makes the question of how Victoria undertakes long term infrastructure planning even more important. Whatever institutional model government chooses, Victoria still needs independent evidence, transparent prioritisation and a long-term pipeline that extends beyond individual budget and election cycles.
With tunnelling now underway, the rail loop is entering a new chapter.
The November election should begin another one.
PIA is asking all parties to commit to a 10 year infrastructure delivery plan that connects Victoria’s housing and growth ambitions with the infrastructure required to deliver them.
Victorians should be able to see not only where more homes are planned, but what infrastructure will support them, when it will arrive, how it will be funded and who is responsible for delivering it.
That would give communities greater confidence in growth, industry greater certainty to invest and governments a stronger foundation for making the big infrastructure decisions that will shape Victoria for decades.
Victoria doesn’t just need the next big project. It needs a plan for what comes next.
