Melbourne Metro One Business Case Draft public transport patronage forecasts

Melbourne Metro One Business Case Draft public transport patronage forecasts Date: December 2010 Version 2.2 Page 1 of 42

Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 2 2 Public transport demand and forecasting... 3 3 Melbourne Metro public transport patronage modelling... 10 4 Public transport patronage forecasts... 19 5 Sensitivity tests... 30 6 Project impacts... 33 7 Conclusions... 40 Please note: This working document was prepared to inform the design and development of the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel. The project team used the relevant patronage forecasts, population projections and workforce statistics available at the time of writing. It is not a statement of government policy nor is it necessarily an accurate description of the current project. These forecasts and inputs are subject to regular review and updating during the project planning and development stage. Third parties should not place any reliance on the content of this document and, if they do so, such reliance is at their own risk. Page 1 of 42

1 Introduction Melbourne Metro Project The Melbourne Metro (MM) was announced as a key element of the 2008 Victorian Transport Plan (VTP). It is expected that it will significantly improve overall public transport capacity and connectivity in Melbourne and stimulate urban redevelopment in specific areas. The first stage, MM1, runs between Sunbury and Domain via Parkville and the CBD using existing tracks from Sunbury to South Kensington and a new rail tunnel from South Kensington to Domain. The ultimate stage (MM Full Scheme) provides continuous rail services between the western suburbs of Melton and Sunbury, to the eastern suburbs of Pakenham and Cranbourne. It involves electrification and duplication of the Melton Line and a rail tunnel connection between Domain and Caulfield. Figure 1.1: MM Full Scheme: Melton/Sunbury-Pakenham/Cranbourne Purpose of this report The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the transport modelling forecasts for the Melbourne Metro project in relation to the MM1 Business Case. This report will: provide historical context for the modelling forecasts document the methodology and key input assumptions highlight key results including: network statistics and capacities; line loadings and boardings and alightings at inner stations provide results from sensitivity test analysis highlight the impacts of the project including: improved accessibility to employment and the areas surrounding the new stations of Domain and Parkville document results and input data for future reference. Page 2 of 42

2 Public transport demand and forecasting It is important to consider the MM project in the context of Melbourne s existing and historical public transport patronage demand. The demand for rail and tram is detailed below, highlighting the upsurge in public transport patronage demand experienced over the last decade, which was not adequately captured by existing patronage forecast models. Figure 2.1 illustrates the relative growth in patronage in recent years. Patronage has been rising since the 1980 s but the 2000 s has seen a further upsurge in patronage demand, which is in line with government policy objectives. Rail Melbourne s rail network has seen extraordinary growth in recent years, with rail patronage increasing by 50% within the last five years. Travel patterns and mode choice have changed significantly as the city has grown faster than forecast. Factors contributing to the rapid increase in public transport use include a population boom, the rapid growth in the level of activity and jobs within the inner city area and behavioural travel changes due to environmental issues and in response to the price of fuel. Passengers entering the CBD in the morning peak period increased by around 28,000 (30%) between 2004 and 2009, as shown in Table 2.1. The increase across the network averaged 5.6% per annum with the highest percentage increase occurring on the Northern Rail Group servicing Melbourne s north and west (9.7% pa). Within the Northern Group, the increase was the highest on the Werribee Line (11.8% pa) closely followed by the Sydenham Line with 11.5% pa. Table 2.1: AM Peak train loads at city cordon, 2004-2009 Rail Group 2004 2009 Average Annual Growth Total % growth (2004 09) (2004-2009) Northern 22,528 35,735 9.7% 59% Craigieburn 7,545 11,416 8.6% 51% Sydenham 5,691 9,793 11.5% 72% Upfield 2,197 3,388 9.1% 54% Werribee 4,285 7,482 11.8% 75% Williamstown 2,811 3,656 5.4% 30% Clifton Hill 13,385 16,412 4.2% 23% Burnley 26,285 29,936 2.6% 14% Caulfield 28,232 36,658 5.4% 30% Total 90,430 118,741 5.6% 31% Source: DOT Load Surveys, 2004-2009 Page 3 of 42

Page 4 of 42 Source: Metropolitan Train Patronage Long Run Series Fact Sheet 1946-47 to 2009-10 Financial year ended 30 June 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 0 50 Suburban services were suspended for 34 days due to strikes suburban' 20 mile limit dropped; Petrol rationing ends Feb 1950 All services suspended for 55 days due to strikes 29 days of strike Dandenong-Pakenham electrified for coal traffic 1956 Olympic Games - introduction of televison to Melbourne Credit Squeeze Upper Ferntree Gully-Belgrave electrified Hyperinflation induced by oil shocks Recession Suburban services extended to Pakenham All modes on strike for 5 days Burnley loop opens, Comeng trains enter service The 'Met' formed, last 'red rattler' withdrawn Altona Loop opens Last of the four city loops opens Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines closed. Public Transport Corporation formed Recession Cranbourne electrification opens Franchising - Connex and National Express Sydenham electrification opens Passenger Boarding (Millions) 100 Re-franchising - Connex assumes control of entire network 150 200 250 Figure 2.1: Events affecting Metropolitan train patronage Craigieburn electrification opens Global Financial Crisis

Tram Twenty-four out of the 27 tram routes in Melbourne connect radially to the CBD. The St Kilda Road corridor is served by 9 routes. All St Kilda Road routes terminate on Swanston St at Melbourne University in Parkville, except for Routes 1 and 8, which run to East Coburg and Moreland respectively. Table 2.2 shows both the number of trams and highest capacity utilisation for the morning peak period. (Capacity utilisation is the ratio of the average load over the average maximum capacity). In total, there are currently 90 services northbound and 93 southbound in the two-hour morning peak period. In the height of the peak, there is more than one tram every minute. Tram patronage growth between 2003/04 and 2008/09 was 31%. Table2.2: St Kilda Rd tram routes (9 routes) AM Peak (7-9am, May 2009) Route St Kilda Road connection point Peak H way (mins) Northbound into CBD Frequency (per hr) 1 hr Capacity Utilisation (%) Peak Headway (mins) Southbound out of CBD Frequency per hour 1hr Capacity Utilisation (%) 1 Southbank Boulevard 8 7.5 99 8 7.5 71 8 Domain Rd 7 8.6 117 8 7.5 85 72 Commercial Rd 12 5.0 86 11 5.5 98 6 High St 10 6.0 100 11 5.5 91 5 Dandenong Rd 10 6.0 95 11 5.5 106 16 Fitzroy St 10 6.0 63 9 6.7 86 64 Dandenong Rd 10 6.0 110 12 5.0 118 3 Carlisle St 11 5.5 89 11 5.5 122 67 Brighton Rd- Glenhuntly Rd 11 5.5 100 12 5.0 103 TOTAL 56.0 53.5 Notes: (1) The scheduled 2-hour AM peak frequency and scheduled number of vehicles at route level provided by PTD / Franchise Relationships Branch (2) The capacity utilisation is for a rolling hour at max load points for 2 hr am period south of Flinders St provided by PTD Information Services YARRA TRAMS LOAD STANDARDS SURVEY 2009 conducted in May 2009 (3) Capacity utilisation is the ratio of the average load over the average maximum capacity Factors in recent public transport patronage growth The recent surge in patronage has led to a re-consideration of long held assumptions regarding the drivers for public transport patronage growth. It has long been considered that public transport patronage will largely follow population growth, and that public transport made share will decline with rising real incomes and levels of car ownership, unless major changes are made in relative travel costs between modes to encourage a mode shift. With recent patronage growth far outstripping population growth, attention turned to the underlying factors that drove this change. Market research conducted over a number of years helped identify the major influences resulting in these changes in travel behaviour. Figure 2.2 suggests that petrol price increases were the major factor in 2006 and 2008. But across the period covering 2006 to 2010, the research identified a number of other important factors, some of which are not captured directly in existing modelling approaches. Increasingly strong attitudes towards personal health and fitness and since 2008, concerns for the environment were seemingly driving a small but significant shift away from private vehicle travel. Whilst these attitudes were certainly not influencing everyone in the community, the strength of these attitudes may have been enough to drive the patronage surge well over and above what would otherwise have been expected based on existing modelling frameworks. Page 5 of 42

Figure 2.2 Major Reasons for reducing car usage (2006-2009) 70% 60% 50% 51% 58% 2006 2008 2009 (Feb) 2009 (Aug) 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 26% 20% 21% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% 8% 8% 8% 4% 4% 2% Petrol prices Parking Costs Health & Fitness Lack of parking availability 13% 13% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% Car running costs (excl petrol) Retired / Travelled Less 9% 7% 20% 15% Changed Jobs 24% 21% 7% 17% Environmental Concerns Note: Proportion in each year sums to more than 100% as respondents could nominate one or more reasons for reducing car travel High level patronage forecasts In 2008, DOT developed patronage forecasts for total usage of all public transport modes. These forecasts were based on established relationships between population and public transport usage, combined with the expected impacts due to changes in those factors that are known to influence travel demand, where measurable. The factors specifically included changes due to: population and economic growth (specifically population change and employment in the CBD) travel costs (specifically fuel prices, parking policies and public transport fares) service provision road and public transport infrastructure (especially road congestion and public transport service quality). A specific allowance was also made for changes in community attitudes, including around health and fitness and environmental concerns, making use of the market research results. The 2008 DOT forecasts are shown in Table 2.3. These forecasts are based on the following assumptions: - demand unconstrained by supply; - an average growth trend over a period of time, not for individual years which will be higher or lower based on market conditions; - long-term trends in key drivers of patronage (discussed above) While the average forecast growth over the periods shown in Table 2.3 is notionally linear, year-onyear growth will vary around this average. Due to uncertainties in the longer term forecasts, conservative estimates that mirror population growth have been adopted beyond 2021/22. Patronage estimates in 2010 reveal that there has been a recent slowing of patronage growth on all three modes, in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, as shown in Figure 2.4. Rail in particular has dropped marginally below the forecasts however it has still grown since 2009. While the average forecast growth over a period is notionally linear, year-on-year growth will inevitably vary around this average. Page 6 of 42

Table 2.3 - Forecast Annual Public Transport Patronage Growth Mode 2008-2011 2012-2021 2022-2031 Trains 9.6% 7.1% 1.3% Trams 4.8% 4.1% 1.3% Buses 3.8% 3.4% 1.3% Total 6.8% 5.6% 1.3% Figure 2.4 - Forecast Annual Public Transport Patronage Growth and Survey Estimates 300 Annual Patronage Estimates (Millions) 250 200 150 100 50 Jun-2005 Jun-2006 Jun-2007 Jun-2008 Jun-2009 Jun-2010 Jun-2011 Jun-2012 Jun-2013 Rolling Annual Patronage Train Mar 2008 Forecast (7.9% p.a.) Rolling Annual Patronage Tram Mar 2008 Forecast (4.4% p.a.) Rolling Annual Patronage Bus Mar 2008 Forecast (3.6% p.a.) These forecasts were re-confirmed by DOT in early 2010 and are assumed to apply for the short and medium term futures. Longer term estimates will ultimately rely on more complex modelling of future land uses, the transport system and behavioural changes. DOT also estimated peak hour growth rates for individual lines (refer Table 2.4), again confirming that lines operating within the Northern Group will experience the highest rates (average of 10.5%) compared to the metropolitan average of 7.1% pa. The MM1 project specifically targets the Northern Group lines, which have experienced the highest levels of growth in recent years, along with the highest levels of crowding, and are forecast to continue to grow more strongly than the rest of the network as the population in this catchment grows substantially. Page 7 of 42

Table 2.4 - Metropolitan Train Patronage Growth Rate Forecasts - AM Peak [2008-2031] Group Line 2008-2011 2012-2021 2022-2031 Northern Werribee / Williamstown 11.5% 6.9% 1.5% Northern Sydenham 11.5% 6.8% 1.5% Northern Craigieburn 9.0% 5.3% 1.5% Northern Upfield 8.7% 4.7% 1.0% Northern Total 10.5% 6.3% 1.5% Caulfield Pakenham / Cranbourne 8.2% 5.3% 1.5% Caulfield Frankston 5.0% 2.9% 1.0% Caulfield Sandringham 6.0% 2.7% 1.0% Caulfield Total 6.6% 4.0% 1.3% Burnley Lilydale/Belgrave/Ringwood 3.5% 2.6% 1.0% Burnley Glen Waverley 3.7% 2.5% 1.0% Burnley Alamein 3.5% 2.5% 1.0% Burnley Total 3.5% 2.6% 1.0% Clifton Hill Epping 8.5% 5.9% 1.5% Clifton Hill Hurstbridge 6.0% 3.0% 1.0% Clifton Hill Total 7.0% 4.2% 1.2% METROPOLITAN TOTAL 7.1% 4.5% 1.3% The MM2 project targets the Caulfield Group lines, which are also set to grow strongly. Peak patronage growth on these lines is forecast to continue to grow strongly over the next decade. Modelling results for the base case (i.e. without MM1) are shown in Table 2.5 and reflect the DOT projections, showing that the Northern Rail Group will see the strongest growth in demand. For comparison with the PTD forecast in this instance the 2031 public transport are not capacity constrained. The tram network will also see strong demand growth, with tram forecasts for 2031 showing that: there will be a significant increase in tram volumes along the St Kilda Road corridor tram loads to Melbourne University will more than double. The introduction of Melbourne Metro has the potential to help address crowding on the tram network. Table 2.5 - Modelled public transport network demand (unconstrained AM peak 2 hour) Mode 2008 modelling 2031 modelling Average Annual Growth 2008-31 Rail (inbound at CBD cordon) Northern 32,019 87,152 4.4% Caulfield 37,033 68,205 2.7% Clifton Hill 19,840 42,307 3.3% Burnley 29,622 53,694 2.6% Tram network boardings 98,756 220,528 3.6% Regional Rail Patronage Forecast Source: VLC (2010 ) V/line operations have a major impact on metropolitan train operations in Melbourne s north and west, as there are some sections where both metropolitan and regional services share tracks. In 2008, DOT Page 8 of 42

undertook forecasts for V/Line services, using a methodology similar to that used for metropolitan rail forecasts, although a major difference was that each line and major market segment (peak commuter, peak regional, rest of week and weekend) were examined separately. Table 2.6 below provides a summary of forecast V/Line growth for each of the major corridors. All corridors other than the Eastern corridor pass through the region serviced by the Northern Rail Group en route to the CBD. Table 2.6 V/Line Annual Growth Rates [2008-2021] Period / Sector TOTAL 2013-2018 South West West North North East East Peak - Commuter 7.2% 7.4% 7.9% 6.5% 7.2% 6.8% Peak - Regional 6.6% 6.8% 6.6% 6.5% 6.8% 6.7% Peak - TOTAL 7.0% 7.4% 7.3% 6.5% 7.0% 6.8% These forecasts do not take into account localised demographic changes associated with specific developments (such as Caroline Springs) or changes to the urban growth boundary. Page 9 of 42

3 Melbourne Metro public transport patronage modelling A summary of the modelling process and assumptions used for the Melbourne Metro Project are provided below, consisting of: modelling methodology model enhancements forecast years land use and demographics transport network assumptions validation and calibration public transport capacity constraining feature. Methodology The modelling process for Melbourne Metro comprised of two stages, which are outlined below. Stage 1: Options testing: in addition to the PTD forecast model, two four-step models were adopted MITM and Zenith enhancement of four step models for public transport project options assessment tested rail alignments and station locations for MM1 and MM Full Scheme sensitivity testing Stage 2: Business Case further model refinement modelling 2021, 2031, 2046 for Base, MM1 and MM full scheme (MM1, MM2, Melton electrification and duplication) with Zenith modelling public transport constrained and unconstrained sensitivity testing. Model enhancements Key enhancements to the four step models, incorporated in the options testing stage included: more refined zonal system, specifically around stations refined public transport assignments to train/tram/bus model validation (especially public transport) benchmarking against PTD forecast model capacity constraints on public transport, specifically key rail corridors. Page 10 of 42

The following refinements to the models were incorporated in the business case stage: updated service plan updated land use and timing assumptions for North Melbourne refined 2046 land use and demographics assumptions roll out of SmartBus upgrades and committed tram rolling stock capacity constraints extended to entire public transport network including V/Line. Modelling years The following years were modelled (for the nominated reasons): Base year 2008: the most recent year with travel statistics available 2021: Census year closest to the proposed opening of the first stage of the Melbourne Metro 2031: Census year representing stabilised travel patterns 2046: Census year far enough into the future but within the realms of predictability. Land use and demographics The base year land use assumptions for population and households, employment and education enrolments were obtained from various sources including: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department Planning and Community Development and Department Education and Early Childhood Development. Future land use assumptions were developed by SGS Economics and Planning based on small area forecasts using baseline forecasts at an LGA level from Victoria In Future 2008. Key population trends are: population growth is strong in the suburban fringe, especially to the west, north and south-east employment growth is more focussed on the south-east than the west. Table 3.1 provides a summary of land use statistics used in Zenith, which includes the regional areas of Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo, hence non metropolitan statistics are provided. Appendix A summarises the land use statistics for metropolitan LGAs. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 indicate the change in population and employment between 2006 and 2031 based on travel zones (which can vary in size). Table 3.1: Population and employment forecasts from the Zenith strategic transport model Population Employment 2008 2021 2031 2046 2008 2021 2031 2046 Melbourne SD 3,893,000 4,706,000 5,280,000 6,017,000 1,788,000 2,141,000 2,381,000 2,695,000 Non MSD 683,000 839,000 960,000 1,069,000 259,000 279,000 300,000 333,000 Total 4,576,000 5,545,000 6,240,000 7,086,000 2,047,000 2,420,000 2,681,000 3,028,000 Source Melbourne Metro Stage 1: Draft Zenith Model Report, Business Case, VLC, 2010 Page 11 of 42

Figure 3.1: Indicative population growth (2006 2031) Prepared by Veitch Lister Consulting Broadmeadows Population Growth Change in Population 20,000 5,000 1,000 100 0-2,000 Sunshine Footscray Box Hill Tarneit Ringwood Werribee Chadstone Monash University Arden Parkville Dandenong StKilda Road Frankston Z:\Projects\09-043_Melb_Metro\Excel\Results\2010_11_17\Population 2006 to 2031 Growth Map-BlueScale-SGSRaw_v02.wor Figure 3.2: Indicative employment growth (2006 2031) Prepared by Veitch Lister Consulting Broadmeadows Employment Growth Change in Employment 10,000 5,000 1,000 100 0-2,000 Sunshine Footscray Box Hill Tarneit Ringwood Werribee Chadstone Monash University Arden Parkville Dandenong StKilda Road Frankston Z:\Projects\09-043_Melb_Metro\Excel\Results\2010_11_17\Employment 2006 to 2031 Growth Map-BlueScale-SGSRaw_v02.wor Page 12 of 42

Transport network Road Network The models include a detailed representation of the road and public transport networks. The future transport networks reflect committed projects as well as those regarded as Business as Usual. Across the future years the transport network is generally kept constant. The only changes to the future networks, aside from the staging of the Melbourne Metro, was the staging of tram and Smartbus projects between the different years and modification of the road network in the project case at the future Arden Station and surrounding development. Projects incorporated in the future road network are summarised in Appendix B. Key projects include: M1 upgrade (Monash, CityLink, West Gate upgrade) M80 upgrade (Western and Metropolitan Ring Road) Geelong bypass Aiken Boulevard (E14) E6 arterial road in Whittlesea Dingley Bypass Peninsula Link. Public Transport network The future public transport network was based on the PT Network Modelling Specification (Default Option) 2008-2031 (PTD, 2010). A summary is provided in Appendix B. Key projects, aside from the Melbourne Metro, include; Regional Rail Link and Sunbury electrification extension to tram routes: 3 to East Malvern station, 48 to Doncaster Shopping Town, 112 to Docklands and 12 from East Melbourne to St Kilda introduction of growth area bus network and Smartbus upgrades. The rail service plans for the base, MM1 and Full Scheme projects are included in Appendix C. Comparison of the rail service plans for the Base Case and project cases for the different rail lines are as follows: no change assumed to the Burnley and Clifton Hill rail groups changes to the Cross City Line (between Werribee and Frankston) including increased frequencies, short starters and operation of the Frankston Loop through the City Loop in the MM Full Scheme, compared with running services through Flinders Street and Southern Cross in the Base Case and MM1 scenario increased frequency on Pakenham/Cranbourne Lines with MM Full Scheme, involving services running through the MM tunnel rather than via the City Loop increased frequency on the Upfield Line in the project cases increased frequency on the Craigieburn Line (including short starters) and all trains operate via the loop compared with some travelling to Flinders Street only in the Base Case increased frequency on the Sunbury Line with the project and stopping all stations although this includes rationalisation of Watergardens and St Albans services, specifically in the MM Full Scheme corresponding with increases on the Melton Line Page 13 of 42

no changes to the V/Line services except those relating to the Melton Line electrification in the Full Scheme with increased services, stopping all stations via the MM tunnel rather than to Southern Cross Station. The project offers significant benefits in term of increased capacity, through higher frequencies, as well as improved connectivity with new stations at Arden, Parkville and Domain. However there are changes which will disadvantage some trips, such as the operation of all Craigieburn services through the City Loop and the rerouting of the Pakenham/Cranbourne services through the MM Tunnel rather than via Richmond Station, which has interchange options for the Burnley Line. Both of these changes also have benefits, providing consistent services on the Craigieburn Line as well as more direct services into the city for the Pakenham/Cranbourne Line. Calibration and validation Calibration and validation for the models is detailed in the following reports: Melbourne Metro Stage 1: Draft Zenith Model Report, Business Case, VLC, 2010 Melbourne Metro Business Case Application of the Enhanced MITM. AECOM, 2010. Using the Zenith model as the example, some key points from the VLC report regarding the base year and future public transport validations are summarised below. Base year model validation (2008) The Zenith Model Report (2010) summarised the survey data which was used to validate the model: Rail patronage based on estimates from DOT Information Services for 2008, including: metropolitan station entries (2008) All day, AM peak and PM Peak CBD station entries and exits (2008) AM and PM peak Train loads in up direction at CBD cordon in AM peak Tram patronage based on: 2008 estimates of tram boardings for the entire tram system for all day, AM peak and PM peak 2005 estimates of tram boardings by route number by direction all day, AM peak and PM peak 2005 estimates of tram line loading profiles for Swanston Street and St Kilda Road trams Bus patronage based on 2008 bus boarding estimates for entire bus network by individual route Traffic counts from the model were compared with VicRoads 2006 estimates, including: screen line traffic counts (2006) for all day, AM peak and PM peak VicRoads travel time surveys All day, AM peak and PM peak. Due to the complexities of the public transport network the validation focused principally on the train load cordon data because this data was relatively clear-cut and established the distribution of rail patronage which was a key requirement for the project. The results in Figure 3.3 show that the number of passengers entering the CBD cordon in the Zenith model is 1% lower than the surveyed 2008 passenger loads. The accuracy of the model to reflect the AM peak rail passenger cordon loads is identified by its R 2 value of 0.9287 and gradient of 1.0143 as shown in Figure 3.4. Another critical consideration was the estimates for rail station entries (which excluded transfers). For the AM peak the R 2 value was 0.94 and the gradient was 1.14. Other validation results for the different modes are shown in Table 3.2. Page 14 of 42

Figure 3.3: 2008 Rail Passenger Loads at the CBD Cordon by Line Corridor (Inbound AM peak 2 hours) - Source Melbourne Metro Stage 1: Draft Zenith Model Report, Business Case, VLC, 2010 Figure 3.4: Validation results for 2008 Rail Passenger Loads at the CBD Cordon by Line Corridor (Inbound AM peak 2 hours Source Melbourne Metro Stage 1: Draft Zenith Model Report, Business Case, VLC, 2010 Table 3.2: Summary of Zenith validation results Gradient of line of Coefficient of best fit determination R 2 Train rail passenger load at the CBD by line corridor AM Peak 1.01 0.93 Train station entries daily 1.16 0.94 Train station entries AM Peak 1.14 0.94 Tram total passenger boardings by route - Daily 1.02 0.88 Tram total passenger boardings by route AM Peak 1.02 0.68 Bus total passenger boardings by route group Daily 0.99 0.55 Bus total passenger boardings by route group AM Peak 1.22 0.46 Bus total passenger boardings by route group PM Peak 0.88 0.49 Source Melbourne Metro Stage 1: Draft Zenith Model Report, Business Case, VLC, 2010 Page 15 of 42

Public transport validation (2031) The PTD forecast model, discussed previously, is the primary public transport forecast model as it best represents the observed growth in public transport patronage. The four step models, MITM and Zenith, were benchmarked against the 2031 PTD forecasts using cost parameter adjustments to better reflect the factors driving public transport demand, as identified through market research and in the PTD forecast model. In this manner the benefits associated with four step modelling could be integrated with the PTD forecasts, including incorporation of trip distributions, along with accessibility improvements and detailed quantification of impacts. Benchmarking was done using inbound AM 2 hour peak rail loads at CBD cordons, which were developed to reflect forecast land use growth along the rail corridors based on the PTD forecast. As shown in Table 3.3 the corridors with the highest growth rates between 2008 and 2031 relate to the metropolitan growth areas. Table 3.3 also shows the difference between these cordon forecasts and the Zenith model. The level of validation varies between the corridors, with notable underrepresentation of the Caulfield Group. It is not desirable to force the validation however and based on a network wide analysis of the validations, both the Zenith and MITM models were deemed fit for purpose. Table 3.3: Comparison of 2031 base Zenith model & PTD Public Transport rail load forecasts at the CBD rail cordons (inbound AM Peak 2 hours) PTD forecast model Zenith PT unconstrained Zenith PT constrained Line 2008 2031 Growth pa CAGR (2008-31) 2031 Total % change (cf 2031 PTD ) 2031 Total % change Ringwood Corridor 20,092 32,113 2.1% 37,893 18% 34,237 7% Alamein 2,810 4,448 2.0% 2,626-41% 3,483-22% Glen Waverly 7,766 12,351 2.0% 13,175 7% 14,616 18% Hurstbridge 10,488 18,899 2.6% 22,328 18% 19,926 5% Epping 6,545 17,518 4.4% 19,979 14% 18,396 5% Broadmeadows 10,310 26,677 4.2% 25,462-5% 26,948 1% Frankston 13,353 22,939 2.4% 22,744-1% 21,097-8% Dandenong Corridor 16,097 40,522 4.1% 37,406-8% 33,012-19% Sandringham 9,038 15,820 2.5% 8,055-49% 10,196-36% Sydenham 9,919 31,897 5.2% 26,455-17% 30,169-5% Upfield 3,455 8,005 3.7% 8,065 1% 7,980 0 Werribee/Williamstown 11,429 37,109 5.3% 27,170-27% 29,559-20% Total 121,303 268,298 3.5% 251,358-6% 249,62 Source Melbourne Metro Stage 1: Draft Zenith Model Report, Business Case, VLC, 2010 0 (cf 2031 PTD) -7% Modelling constraints on public transport Both MITM and Zenith include the option of capacity constrained transit assignment, which factors the impact of crowding on pubic transport into mode choice. The methodology used in Zenith to model capacity constraints on public transport, is as follows: a crowding factor is automatically calculated for each transit route segment based on its passenger load, seating and crush loads. the crowding factor is multiplied by the travel time of the route segment, and this cost of crowding is added to the hard variables of travel time and fare as passenger loads increase for a given route segment, the crowding factor increases, as shown indicatively in Figure 3.3, causing passengers to switch to other available options: Page 16 of 42

alternative transit routes alternative primary modes (ie. car / walk). It is an iterative process as transit passenger choices depend on crowding levels, which in turn depends on transit passenger choices. It should be noted that peak spreading has not been incorporated in the Zenith capacity constrained assignment process as yet. Figure 3.4 compares the line load into the city on the Epping Line for unconstrained and constrained transit capacity. In this example the constrained assignment closely relates to capacity however demand is not capped and in some scenarios the additional crowding costs are not sufficient to dissuade passengers from exceeding crush capacity, this is particularly true in the 2046 Base Case. Figure 3.3: Indicative crowding factor chart with respect to loading (Zenith) Figure 3.4: Epping Line Load in 2046 Base AM Peak 2 hour 25,000 20,000 Passengers per 2 hours 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Sth Morang Epping Lalor Thomastown Keon Park Ruthven Reservoir Regent Preston Bell Thornbury Croxton Northcote Merri Rushall Clifton Hill Victoria Park Collingwood North Richmond West Richmond Jolimont-MCG Flinders Street Southern Cross Flagstaff Melbourne Central Parliament Seating capacity Crush capacity Unconstrained Constrained "Crush Capacity" It should be noted that in some cases the constrained demand exceeds unconstrained demand, for example where capacity is underutilised. Capacity constraints on regional V/Line trains also cause metropolitan constrained demand to be higher. Sensitivity testing identified that some passengers Page 17 of 42

driving to regional train stations under unconstrained conditions may be induced to drive to the end of nearby metropolitan line, as metropolitan trains have a much higher capacity than V/Line. The vehicle capacities used in the modelling are included in appendix D. Despite some limitations, which will no doubt be the focus of future refinements, the results from the constrained transit assignment are considered the most realistic with regard to the base and project cases and are the basis for the Business Case. Unconstrained modelling results were used in the options testing stage and provide an understanding of potential demand. Page 18 of 42

4 Public transport patronage forecasts Network statistics Summary AM peak forecast results from the Zenith constrained model are presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 for comparison of the different project cases and different forecast years respectively. As previously identified the Zenith model includes key regional centres in its network which is reflected in the model statistics, for example population, employment and trip numbers. Table 4.1 shows an increase in total rail trips and a reduction in private vehicle trips and bus and tram boardings, for each progressive stage of the project reflecting the staged increase in capacity of the rail network and improved connectivity. The reduction of V/Line boardings for the Full Scheme is due to the reclassification of Melton services as part of the Melton Line electrification and duplication. The relative impact on public transport boardings in the Full Scheme, compared to the MM1 project case is decreased by less boardings per trip as the additional improvements to connectivity reduce the need for interchange. This improved network connectivity also goes towards explaining why the Full Scheme has marginally more tram and bus boardings in the AM peak compared with MM1. Table 4.1: Network wide statistics for Base, MM1 and Full Scheme Constrained AM 2 hour peak 2031 Constrained AM 2 hr Base MM1 Difference (MM1& Base) Full scheme Difference (FS& Base) Total person trips 3,838,546 3,838,546 0 3,838,546 0 Total person private veh trips 2,719,694 2,712,931-6,762-0.2% 2,703,213-16,480-0.6% Total car trips 1,915,533 1,909,724-5,810-0.3% 1,901,288-14,245-0.7% Total PT trips 609,838 617,459 7,621 1.2% 627,571 17,733 2.9% Total PT boardings 988,151 1,014,145 25,994 2.6% 1,024,259 36,107 3.7% Metropolitan rail boardings 550,121 585,718 35,597 6.1% 601,230 51,109 8.5% V/Line rail boardings 31,926 31,433-493 -1.5% 24,716-7,211-22.6% Total rail boardings 582,048 617,151 35,104 6.0% 625,946 43,898 7.5% Tram boardings 188,040 180,297-7,743-4.1% 181,390-6,650-3.5% Bus boardings 218,064 216,697-1,367-0.6% 216,923-1,141-0.5% With the implementation of MM1 the number of public transport trips increases by almost 8,000 passengers in the AM 2 hour peak. Although this appears a modest increase compared with the whole network this actually equates to 10 train loads of people (based on a load standard of 800). Although patronage modelling is based around the 2 hour peak period (to better reflect peak spreading behaviour) rail capacity analysis concentrates on the peak one hour. This is calculated by applying a factor of 0.6 to the two hour peak demand. The impact of MM1 in the peak hour is therefore an increase in public transport trips of 4,500 which equates to 6 train loads of people per hour. It should also be noted that the methodology used to constrain public transport capacity in the Zenith model provides a conservative estimate of the increase in public transport trips between the base and project case. The transport modelling assumes demand for rail can continue above crush capacity. It is reasonable to assume that service overcrowding would in fact divert a greater number of trips to the road in the base case. In this event the project case would provide a greater increase in public transport users and reduced traffic congestion but with less impact on public transport crowding. Comparison of key statistics between different forecast years for MM1, as shown in Table 4.2, indicate that public transport trips are forecast to grow more rapidly than population and employment 2021-2031, but these rates taper off 2031-2046 which is generally consistent with the DOT high level forecasts. The forecast growth in private vehicle trips is lower than population growth. Page 19 of 42

Table 4.2 Network wide statistics MM1 2021, 2031 and 2046 Constrained AM 2 hour peak MM1 Constrained AM 2 hr 2021 2031 CAGR 2021-31 2046 CAGR 2031-46 Population 5,544,590 6,240,112 1.2% 7,085,987 0.9% Employment 2,420,143 2,681,104 1.0% 3,027,936 0.8% Total person trips 3,457,633 3,838,546 1.1% 4,351,773 0.8% Total person private veh trips 2,496,023 2,712,931 0.8% 3,060,682 0.8% Total car trips 1,759,667 1,909,724 0.8% 2,153,502 0.8% Total public transport trips 513,786 617,459 1.9% 709,986 0.9% Metropolitan rail boardings 477,651 585,718 2.1% 693,737 1.1% V/Line rail boardings 26,312 31,433 1.8% 35,726 0.9% Total rail boardings 503,963 617,151 2.0% 729,463 1.1% Bus boardings 177,213 216,697 2.0% 242,459 0.8% Tram boardings 149,440 180,297 1.9% 201,656 0.7% Note that the Zenith model includes key regional centres in its network which is reflected in the statistics above, including population, employment and trips. The metropolitan public transport mode share for motorised trips with MM1 (as opposed to trip stages within a journey) is shown in Table 4.2. These results are compared with the daily public transport mode share from the 2007 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA). In the AM peak, the model forecasts that public transport mode share will reach 19% by 2021. Daily motorised mode share in 2021 is forecast to reach only 14%, a conservative result compared to the Victorian Government s mode share target of 20% by 2020. In 2046 the public transport mode share decreases outside of the peaks. Public transport journeys do increase, but not relative to private vehicle. This may be due to relatively lower road congestion outside the peaks, combined with an assumed reduction in the growth in public transport trips. Table 4.2: Public transport mode share for metropolitan motorised vehicle trips with MM1 Time Period VISTA 2007 2021 2031 2046 AM 16.5 18.6% 20.2% 20.4% Off peak 7.5 12.4% 13.5% 13.3% PM 15.6 16.6% 18.2% 18.4% Daily 10.8% 14.2% 15.5% 15.4% Line Loads The city bound 2 hour AM peak line loads for MM1 and the Base Case are shown in Figure 4.3. The line loads are compared with load standard capacities. The base loads demonstrate high patronage demand which exceeds load standard capacities, as well as crush capacities in 2046. As previously identified the capacities are not capped, and therefore crush capacities can be exceeded, however latent demand is evident, with the project providing for a small increase in demand in 2021, and a larger increase in 2046. The MM1 project increases capacity and reduces the cost of crowding. The 2 hour AM peak line loads for the Full Scheme and base are shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3. The graphs show an increased demand in the project case compared with the base and sufficient capacity to meet demand. The highest demand is from the west, with peak line loads at Footscray, relating to this area s dependence on CBD based employment. With the Melton Line electrification some demand shifts from the Sunbury Line, resulting in relatively even loads between the two lines. Page 20 of 42

Figure 4.3: AM peak line load in (eastbound) constrained MM1 60,000 50,000 Passengers per 2 hours 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Sunbury Diggers Rest Watergardens Keilor Plains St Albans 2021 MM1 2046 MM1 2021 Base 2046 Base 2021 MM1 Load Standard 2046 MM1 Load Standard Base Load Standard Ginifer Albion Sunshine Tottenham West Footscray Middle Footscray Footscray South Kensington West Melbourne Parkville (Melb Uni) Melbourne Central (RMIT) Flinders St Underground Domain Interchange Page 21 of 42

Figure 4.1: AM peak line loads in (eastbound) constrained Full Scheme and Base AM Peak Line Loads In Eastbound Constrained MM2 & Base 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Sunbury Diggers Rest Watergardens Keilor Plains St Albans Ginifer Albion Melton Rockbank Caroline Springs Deer Park Ardeer Sunshine Tottenham West Footscray Middle Footscray Footscray South Kensington West Melbourne Parkville (Melb Uni) Melbourne Central (RMIT) Flinders St Underground Domain Interchange South Yarra Underground Hawksburn Toorak Armadale Malvern Caulfield Carnegie Murrumbeena Hughesdale Oakleigh Huntingdale Clayton Westall Springvale Sandown Park Noble Park Yarraman Dandenong Lynbrook Merinda Park Cranbourne Cranbourne East Passengers per 2 hours Hallam Narre Warren Berwick Beaconsfield Officer Cardinia Pakenham 2046 MM2 Constrained 2021 MM2 Constrained 2046 Base Constrained 2021 Base Constrained 2008 Validated Base 2046 MM2 Load Standard 2021 MM2 Load Standard 2008 Load Standard Page 22 of 42

Page 23 of 42 2021 MM2 Load Standard 2008 Load Standard 2021 Base Constrained 2008 Base 2046 MM2 Load Standard 2046 MM2 Constrained 2021 MM2 Constrained 2046 Base Constrained Cranbourne East Cranbourne Merinda Park Lynbrook Pakenham Cardinia Officer Beaconsfield Berwick Narre Warren Hallam Dandenong Yarraman Noble Park Sandown Park Springvale Westall Clayton Huntingdale Oakleigh Hughesdale Murrumbeena Carnegie Caulfield Malvern Armadale Toorak Hawksburn South Yarra Underground Domain Interchange Flinders St Underground Melbourne Central (RMIT) Parkville (Melb Uni) West Melbourne South Kensington Footscray Middle Footscray West Footscray Tottenham Sunshine 0 10,000 20,000 Passengers per 2 hours 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Figure 4.2: AM peak line loads in (westbound) constrained MM2 and Base Albion Ginifer St Albans Keilor Plains Watergardens Diggers Rest Sunbury Ardeer Deer Park Caroline Springs Rockbank Melton

Public transport network crowding The crowding levels on the rail network are presented in Figures 4.5 and 4.6, which show the 2008 and 2031 base case as well as the 2031 MM1 project case. It is clear that the MM1 project reduces crowding, particularly on the Sunbury Line, but also on the rest of the north-west rail services. Based on these forecasts, however additional capacity in the future will still be required to meet load standards, specifically on the Werribee and Craigieburn Lines. This is in comparison with the 2031 base case which shows all rail lines over capacity. The 2008 base shows that all rail lines are approaching capacity, the Caulfield Line in particular has high crowding levels, which the MM Full Scheme helps to address. It should be considered that these figures show crowding levels over two hours and that crowding levels are higher in the peak hour, which the existing load breaches demonstrate. The crowding levels are based on volume capacity ratios i.e. the volume of demand in the AM peak 2 hours compared with the load standard capacity. Further details on the load standards are provided in Appendix D. It should be noted that crowding in the City Loop is not shown as modelling assumptions necessary to analyse inbound and outbound loading overestimates the capacity on this section of the rail network. As the analysis focuses on the metropolitan network, the Melton Line is not shown in the base or MM1 project case. It should be noted that bandwidths for inbound and outbound services are shown however the inbound loading dominates. Figures 4.7 and 4.8 similarly show the crowding levels on the tram network for the 2008 and 2031 base case as well as the 2031 MM1 project case. The most significant change is reduced crowding at the approaches to the CBD on Swanston Street and St Kilda Road (the road section through the CBD is obscured by other tram routes). As was shown in Table 4.1 there is a reduction in tram boardings with the MM1 project. This may allow for additional growth being generated by the Integrated Transit Corridor Development Project (when rolled out to other corridors) to travel to the CBD. MM1 would also allow some of the tram fleet to be redeployed elsewhere on the network, or enable some trams which are not DDA-compliant to be retired. Page 24 of 42

Figure 4.4 2008 AM peak base metropolitan rail crowding levels (left) 2031 AM peak base rail crowding levels (right) relative to load standards The City Loop is excluded as modelling assumptions necessary to analyse inbound and outbound loadings overestimate the capacity in the City Loop Figure 4.5: AM 2 hour peak metropolitan rail crowding levels with MM1 Constrained relative to load standards The City Loop is excluded as modelling assumptions necessary to analyse inbound and outbound loading overestimate the capacity in the City Loop Page 25 of 42

Figure 4.6: 2008 AM 2 hour peak base tram crowding levels (left) 2031 AM peak constrained base tram crowding levels (right) relative to load standards Figure 4.7: AM 2 hour peak tram crowding levels with MM1 constrained Page 26 of 42

Patronage forecasts at inner stations Analysis of patronage demand at Melbourne s inner city stations indicates: the level of benefits provided by Melbourne Metro through improved connectivity capacity requirements for Metro stations interaction between existing and future stations further confidence in the modelling results. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 show the variation in patronage levels for existing City Loop and MM stations between the base and the project cases, and between different years for MM1. The graphs are based on alightings in the AM 2 hour peak. The general trends appear reasonable, firstly that patronage steadily increases between 2021, 2031 and 2046 at these stations and secondly that patronage increases at relevant MM stations and generally decreases at existing stations with each increment of the project. Parliament Station is the exception, with patronage approximately constant between MM1 and the MM Full Scheme. The compound annual growth rates (CAGR) for these stations are around 1-3% over the 25 years, with the exception of Arden which has a CAGR of 5%, reflecting the surrounding changes in land use. The largest increases between 2021 and 2046 occur at Flinders Street and CBD South, with 20,000 and 11.000 more alightings in the two hour AM peak respectively. Alightings in the AM peak at Flinders Street for the Base Case in 2031 are reduced by 10,000 with MM1, and by over 30,000 with the MM Full Scheme. The Melbourne Metro relieves some of the base level patronage growth at Flinders Street but new movement patterns due to transfers with Melbourne Metro will also change the usage of the station. Figure 4.10 shows the inner station daily egress modes for MM1 in 2031. It indicates a high percentage of passengers egressing the inner stations by walking, as well as the importance of the tram network. The graphs highlight the interaction between the existing rail and the Melbourne Metro at the interchange stations of Footscray, CBD South/Flinders Street, CBD North/Melbourne Central and Caulfield, with comparatively less interchange at South Yarra. Arden is principally accessed by walking but this could change with future development of the public transport network in this area. Figure 4.8: Inner Station project alightings AM peak constrained 2031 100,000 90,000 Base MM1 MM2 80,000 Passengers per 2 hours 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - Caulfield metro South Yarra metro Domain CBD South CBD North Parkville Arden Parliament Melbourne Central Flagstaff Southern Cross Flinders Street Figure 4.9: Inner Station alightings MM1 AM peak Constrained 2021, 2031 and 2046 Page 27 of 42

Passengers per 2 hours 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2021 2031 2046 Domain CBD South CBD North Parkville Arden Parliament Melbourne Central Flagstaff Southern Cross Flinders Street Figure 4.10: Inner Station egress modes MM1 Daily peak Constrained 2031 Daily patronage 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 ToBus ToTram ToMetro ToRegionalTrain ToTrain CarOut WalkOut 50,000 0 Domain CBD South CBD North Parkville Arden Footscray Metro Parliament Melbourne Central Flagstaff Southern Cross Flinders Street Footscray Ex Note: Footscray Ex and Footscray metro have been separated for the modelling results but in reality the two components will be integrated at Footscray Stn Tables 4.4 and 4.5 provide a summary of daily and AM peak statistics on inner station boardings and alightings for MM1 in 2031 and the Full Scheme in 2046. For comparison estimated current weekday exits (excluding transfers) at city loop stations are: Flinders Street 79,000; Parliament 36,200; and Page 28 of 42

Flagstaff 18,500. In 2031, Parkville is estimated to approach the numbers egressing Parliament station observed today. Table 4.4: Inner Station boarding and alightings MM1 Constrained 2031 2 hour AM patronage Daily patronage Stop Name Boarding Alighting Total Boarding Alighting Total Domain 2,883 9,715 12,598 22,732 24,613 47,346 CBD South 7,723 16,689 24,412 44,646 54,433 99,079 CBD North 7,342 10,650 17,993 41,959 30,142 72,101 Parkville 2,348 11,146 13,494 26,528 29,682 56,210 Arden 805 4,330 5,135 11,526 12,432 23,958 Footscray Metro 12,916 8,219 21,135 40,277 37,475 77,752 Caulfield Ex 8,619 8,439 17,058 30,607 29,970 60,577 South Yarra Ex 7,714 8,596 16,311 31,584 33,551 65,134 Parliament 10,597 39,990 50,588 93,353 117,237 210,590 Melbourne Central 7,261 38,180 45,441 84,373 112,931 197,304 Flagstaff 6,727 23,902 30,629 49,909 60,905 110,814 Southern Cross 19,144 43,349 62,494 161,321 151,916 313,237 Flinders Street 32,534 80,542 113,075 270,867 223,665 494,533 Footscray Ex 9,116 11,343 20,459 30,529 30,306 60,835 Table 4.5: Inner Station boarding and alightings MM Full Scheme Constrained 2046 2 hour AM patronage Daily patronage Stop Name Boarding Alighting Total Boarding Alighting Total Caulfield metro 11,468 8,110 19,557 33,905 34,323 68,228 South Yarra metro 3,051 3,413 6,465 11,693 11,528 23,221 Domain 4,009 17,601 21,610 39,078 43,336 82,414 CBD South 12,320 48,367 60,687 108,251 116,372 224,623 CBD North 9,498 25,203 34,701 74,260 64,669 138,928 Parkville 3,744 17,072 20,816 40,934 45,418 86,352 Arden 1,684 9,472 11,156 23,386 25,064 48,449 Footscray Metro 18,690 14,811 33,501 58,733 53,994 112,727 Caulfield Ex 6,769 9,765 16,534 27,271 27,894 55,164 South Yarra Ex 6,893 6,844 13,737 26,063 27,474 53,538 Parliament 11,193 38,586 49,779 95,533 116,684 212,217 Melbourne Central 12,894 34,514 47,408 92,180 114,417 206,597 Flagstaff 7,404 25,069 32,472 51,367 64,259 115,625 Southern Cross 18,798 45,373 64,171 169,492 158,800 328,292 Flinders Street 36,310 68,193 104,503 226,831 188,275 415,107 Footscray Ex 13,394 15,770 29,164 41,758 43,721 85,479 Page 29 of 42

5 Sensitivity tests Sensitivity tests were carried out to identify the impact of benchmarking the four step model patronage forecasts against the PTD forecast model (as previously discussed) and the exclusion of Westlink, a major road infrastructure proposal. The sensitivity test for Westlink was undertaken in the unconstrained public transport scenario to isolate the impact of the road project. Table 5.1 demonstrates that the exclusion of Westlink does not have a big impact on the project case, with approximately 430 trips in the morning peak across the whole network switching from public transport to private vehicle. Table 5.1 Forecasts with and without Westlink for 2031 unconstrained public transport AM Peak Unconstrained 2031 Full scheme Full scheme & Westlink Difference Total person car trips 2,667,260 2,667,695 435 0.0% Total car trips 1,871,206 1,871,588 382 0.0% Total public transport trips 666,375 665,946-430 -0.1% Total PT boardings 1,070,607 1,069,595-1,012-0.1% Rail boardings (met&v/line) 646,017 645,147-870 -0.1% Tram boardings 187,650 187,513-136 -0.1% Bus boardings 236,941 236,935-6 0.0% Note: totals includes regional statistics The sensitivity test with regard to the use of the PTD forecast in the four step modelling process was undertaken in the constrained public transport scenario. The exclusion of the PTD forecasts has a significant impact with an approximate 6% increase in private vehicle trips and 22% reduction in public transport trips. Figure 5.1 shows the difference in public transport boardings. In the scenario without the PTD forecasts the increase in rail boardings is proportional to the reduction in tram boardings. Figure 5.1 Public transport boardings with and without uplift for 2031 constrained PT AM Peak 700,000 600,000 43,898 Difference in boardings with full scheme 500,000 18,583 Base boardings Patronage per 2 hours 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 - -100,000 Rail Rail wo PTD forecast Tram -6,650 Tram wo PTD forecast -20,838-1,141 Bus Bus wo PTD forecast -3,777 Page 30 of 42

The PTD forecasts were used because the traditional four-step modelling was under representing the demand for public transport. The Figure above demonstrates the scale of this impact. However this should be considered in terms of the expectations for the overall network. Table 5.2 identifies the mode share for motorised people trips within metropolitan Melbourne (the Zenith results were adjusted to remove regional trips). Without the PTD forecasts the public transport mode share is relatively consistent with the 2007 VISTA data. With the PTD forecast the mode share reaches 20% in the AM peak and increases the daily mode share by approximately 5%. Table 5.2: Forecast weekday mode share (motorised person trips) with and without PTD forecast for 2031 constrained PT for Metropolitan Melbourne 2007 VISTA 2031 Base 2031 MM1 2031 MM2 2031 Base No PTD forecast 2031 MM2 No PTD forecast AM 16.5 20.0% 20.2% 20.5% 15.5% 15.8% PM 7.5 13.4% 13.5% 13.6% 8.9% 9.0% Off peak 15.6 18.1% 18.2% 18.5% 13.1% 13.3% All day 10.8% 15.3% 15.5% 15.6% 10.7% 10.9% Comparison between MITM and Zenith As previously identified, two four-step models (MITM and Zenith) were developed for the Melbourne Metro patronage forecasting. Both models were found to suitable for this task and although the project team determined that Zenith would be used as the primary model for the business case, limited runs were also undertaken with MITM. This brought both models up-to-date with the Melbourne Metro Business Case, provided a back-up model in case of any issues, and also provided a cross-check for the patronage forecasts. Figure 5.2 and 5.3 provide a comparison between MITM and Zenith patronage forecasts for 2031 based on total public transport boardings and inner station alightings. Figure 5.2 highlight that Zenith forecasts for public transport boardings are consistently higher than MITM, despite similar base year forecasts (shown for rail). It should be noted in general that comparisons between MITM and Zenith global statistics should be made carefully, as Zenith includes key regional areas. Regional train trips have been excluded from the graphs below. It would be anticipated that the two models would provide different results as they both have different parameters and different philosophies within the four-step framework. For example, Zenith trip distributions are fixed with base year demand, thus iterations for forecasting involve only mode choice and assignment whereas the MITM iterations also include the trip distribution stage. Despite these differences, it is noted that the change between the base and project cases for both models are of a similar order. Figure 5.3 shows that the MITM and Zenith forecasts are of a similar order for many inner city stations, however the MITM forecasts are significantly higher at Southern Cross. This difference is observable in the base year, with MITM higher across all modes, particularly rail interchanges at Southern Cross. It should be noted that when the forecasts for CBD South and Flinders Street Stations are combined, the results are similar. MITM also has relatively higher patronage forecasts at Arden Station. Page 31 of 42

Figure 5.2 public transport boardings AM peak comparison of MITM and Zenith results 700000 600000 500000 Diference in boardings with MM1 Base PT boardings patronage per 2 hours 400000 300000 200000 100000 0-100000 2008 Train MITM 2008 Train Zenith 2031 Train MITM 2031 Train Zenith 2031 Bus MITM 2031 Bus Zenith 2031 Tram MITM 2031 Tram Zenith Figure 5.3 Inner station alighting AM Peak comparison of MITM and Zenith 90,000 80,000 70,000 2031 MM1 Constrained MITM 2031 MM1 Constrained Zenith patronage per 2 hours 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Arden Parkville CBD Nth CBD Sth Domain Parliament Melbourne Central Flagstaff Southern Cross Flinders Page 32 of 42

6 Project impacts Using the patronage modelling outputs it is possible to demonstrate some of the impact from the Melbourne Metro, including: improved employment and tertiary accessibility improved accessibility surrounding new stations such as Parkville and Domain reduced traffic congestion through increased public transport usage. Accessibility at Parkville and Domain New rail stations proposed as part of the Melbourne Metro project will provide improved accessibility by public transport for the surrounding areas. In the case of Parkville the surrounding area includes an employment and education precinct whereas Domain covers an employment and high density residential area. Figures 6.1-6.4 demonstrates the impact of the Melbourne Metro on these areas. Figures 6.1 and 6.3 illustrate the public transport egress modes from the relevant stations with MM1, whereas Figures 6.2 and 6.4 shows the final egress mode by public transport for the surrounding areas. Figure 6.1: Destination and egress mode from Parkville Station AM Peak 2 hours MM1 2031 Figure 6.2: Final egress mode and destination in Parkville area AM Peak 2 hours MM1 2031 Page 33 of 42

Figure 6.3: Destination and egress mode from Domain Station AM Peak 2 hours MM1 2031 Figure 6.4: Final PT egress mode and destination in Domain area AM Peak 2 hours MM1 2031 Page 34 of 42

Employment and tertiary accessibility One of the key drivers for the Melbourne Metro Project is the need to link the growing population in the west to employment. Figure 6.5 shows the employment accessibility by public transport with MM1 in the 2031 AM peak based on the number of jobs within 60 minutes by public transport, including walking (using a weighted average of travel choices). The impact of the project however is more discernable in Figure 6.6 which clearly shows the improvements for employment accessibility for the west between the base and MM1. Figure 6.7 shows further improvements for employment accessibility for the west as well improvements for the south east with the Full Scheme in comparison with the base. It should be noted that there is reduced accessibility shown on the Craigieburn Line to the north this is despite an overall increase in Craigieburn services (including Essendon short starters). The reduced accessibility is due to the removal of direct trains to Flinders Street which are assumed in the base. In the project case all the Craigieburn services travel via the loop which reduces travel choices. This does have the benefit of providing a consistent service but this benefit is not captured. There is also a notionally reduced accessibility at Southern Cross Station, with more trains travelling via the loop. There are some other small random areas with reduced accessibility, which are adjacent to improved areas. Accessibility may have been improved, just not within the 60 minute limit. Figure 6.8 shows the change in travel time in minutes to Parkville between the constrained base and MM1 for 2031 (using a weighted average of travel choices). Parkville is a critical location due to its concentration of eduction, heath services and employment. There is an overwhelming improvement in the travel times by public transport across the network for access to Parkville. Some areas with increased travel time do exist however, with the most significant being in the north east. This area coincides with the Route 86 tram. In the project case some tram passengers opt to travel by the Metro, despite longer trip times, due to improved amenities which may come from reduced crowding levels or station facilities. These benefits are not captured in this particular figure. Figure 6.5: Employment accessibility by public transport between Base and MM1 2031 AM peak constrained (based on jobs within 60 mins by public transport incl. walking Page 35 of 42

Figure 6.6: Difference in employment accessibility by public transport between Base and MM1 2031 AM peak Constrained (based on jobs within 60 mins by public transport incl. walking Figure 6.7: Difference in employment accessibility by PT between Base and Full Scheme 2031 AM peak Constrained (based on jobs within 60 mins by public transport incl. walking) Page 36 of 42

Figure 6.8: Change in travel time in minutes to Parkville between Base and MM1 constrained 2031 Congestion relief The shift in demand to rail from road results in reduced traffic congestion. Figure 6.9 illustrates the distribution of congestion relief with the MM1 project, which reduces car trips across the metropolitan area by almost 6,000 in the 2031 AM peak. The most significant impact is reduced volumes on the West Gate Freeway, as well as Francis Street, Footscray Road and the Calder Freeway. Figure 6.9: Change in total traffic volumes 2031 AM 2 hour peak between base and MM1 The most significant levels of relief occur on the key east-west routes, which is illustrated by the Maribyrnong/Yarra River screen line. This line bisects the routes into the CBD from the west and provides a convenient assessment of traffic network impacts. Table 6.1 compares the traffic volumes Page 37 of 42

crossing the Maribyrnong River in the base and project cases. The results demonstrate a reduction in overall east and westbound traffic with both project cases. There is a reduction of almost 4,000 vehicles in the AM peak with MM1. This increases to over 5,000 for the Full Scheme. (A typical freeway lane carries approximately 2000 veh/lane/hr). Table 6.1: AM peak traffic volumes on Maribyrnong-Yarra River screenline Traffic Volume (2 hrs) Traffic reduction compared to Base Base MM1 Full scheme MM1 Full scheme Eastbound 74,992 71,305 69,755-3,687-5,237 Westbound 50,581 50,301 49,832-281 - 749 The transport modelling assumes demand for rail can continue above crush capacity and the major effect of the project is to reduce this level of crowding to more acceptable levels. It is reasonable to assume the effect of service overcrowding would in fact divert a greater number of trips to the road network under the base case. In this event, the project case would provide a greater reduction in traffic volumes compared to the base, but a lesser impact on reduced crowding levels. The reduction in traffic caused by the project is naturally linked to the increase in public transport trips, with about 8,000 additional trips in the AM peak with MM1 and 18,000 with the Full Scheme. Figure 6.10 and 6.11 show the areas where these additional public transport trips are being produced for MM1 and the Full Scheme, respectively. Page 38 of 42

Figure 6.10: Change in public transport trips produced in AM 2 hour peak between constrained base and MM1 Figure 6.10: Change in public transport trips produced in 2031 AM 2 hour peak between constrained base and Full Scheme Page 39 of 42

7 Conclusions Public transport patronage modelling has demonstrated significant improvements to public transport capacity and improved connectivity from the Melbourne Metro, including: employment and tertiary accessibility improved accessibility surrounding new stations such as Parkville and Domain reduced traffic congestion through increased public transport usage. It should be recognised however that there are changes which may disadvantage some trips, such as the operation of all Craigieburn services through the City Loop and the rerouting of the Pakenham/Cranbourne services through the MM Tunnel rather than via Richmond Station (which has interchange options for the Burnley Line). Both of these changes also have corresponding benefits, providing consistent services on the Craigieburn Line as well as more direct services into the city for the Pakenham/Cranbourne Line. The MM project will relieve some pressure on existing stations with alightings in the AM peak at Flinders Street reduced by 10,000 with MM1, and by over 30,000 with the MM Full Scheme. New movement patterns due to transfers with Melbourne Metro however will also change the usage of interchange stations. In addition to reduced crowding levels on rail services the project also produces reduced demand on the tram network which may allow for additional growth being generated by urban densification and allow some of the tram fleet to be redeployed elsewhere on the network, or enable some trams which are not DDA-compliant to be retired. Sensitivity tests were carried out to identify the impact on patronage forecasts of the PTD forecasts and the exclusion of Westlink, a major road infrastructure proposal. Although Westlink does not have a major impact the inclusion of PTD forecasting is significant. The PTD forecast model was adopted because the traditional four-step modelling was under representing the demand for public transport. The uplift represents public transport mode share growth which is consistent with government policy and recognises attitudinal changes towards public transport, which have been demonstrated and documented in Melbourne. Two four-step models (MITM and Zenith) were developed for the Melbourne Metro patronage forecasting. Both models were found to suitable for this task and although it was decided that Zenith would be used as the primary model for the business case, limited runs were also undertaken with MITM. This brought both models up-to-date with the Melbourne Metro Business Case, provided a back-up model in case of any issues, and also provided a cross-check for the patronage forecasts. Analysis shows both similarities and differences between the model results. Differences are a result of variations in the validation process, as well as the use of different parameters and different philosophies within the four-step framework. Despite these differences, it is noted that changes between the base and project cases for both models are of a similar order. Some of the key statistics from the Zenith modelling are summarised below. Table 7.1: Public transport weekday mode share for metropolitan motorised vehicle trips with MM1 Time Period VISTA 2007 2021 2031 2046 AM 16.5 18.6% 20.2% 20.4% Daily 10.8% 14.2% 15.5% 15.4% Page 40 of 42

Table 7.2: Network statistics for Base, MM1 and Full Scheme Constrained AM 2 hour peak 2031 Constrained AM 2 hr Base MM1 Full scheme Total person trips 3,838,546 3,838,546 3,838,546 Total person private veh trips 2,719,694 2,712,931 2,703,213 Total car trips 1,915,533 1,909,724 1,901,288 Total PT trips 609,838 617,459 627,571 Total PT boardings 988,151 1,014,145 1,024,259 Metropolitan rail boardings 550,121 585,718 601,230 V/Line rail boardings 31,926 31,433 24,716 Total rail boardings 582,048 617,151 625,946 Tram boardings 188,040 180,297 181,390 Bus boardings 218,064 216,697 216,923 Table7.3: Inner Station boarding and alightings MM1 Constrained 2031 2 hour AM patronage Daily patronage Stop Name Boarding Alighting Total Boarding Alighting Total Domain 2,883 9,715 12,598 22,732 24,613 47,346 CBD South 7,723 16,689 24,412 44,646 54,433 99,079 CBD North 7,342 10,650 17,993 41,959 30,142 72,101 Parkville 2,348 11,146 13,494 26,528 29,682 56,210 Arden 805 4,330 5,135 11,526 12,432 23,958 Footscray Metro 12,916 8,219 21,135 40,277 37,475 77,752 Caulfield Ex 8,619 8,439 17,058 30,607 29,970 60,577 South Yarra Ex 7,714 8,596 16,311 31,584 33,551 65,134 Parliament 10,597 39,990 50,588 93,353 117,237 210,590 Melbourne Central 7,261 38,180 45,441 84,373 112,931 197,304 Flagstaff 6,727 23,902 30,629 49,909 60,905 110,814 Southern Cross 19,144 43,349 62,494 161,321 151,916 313,237 Flinders Street 32,534 80,542 113,075 270,867 223,665 494,533 Footscray Ex 9,116 11,343 20,459 30,529 30,306 60,835 Page 41 of 42