Author: Alex Ivanov

Letter to Daniel Andrews re Seaford Road Crossing

Dear Daniel Andrews,
It has been clearly established the LXRA is only the propaganda face of the Crossing Removal project and makes no decisions. I maintain that it is up to you Daniel Andrews to respond to the questions the Seaford Community are asking regarding the elevated rail at Seaford Road, ludicrously labelled as a “Hybrid solution”. As our elected Premier, charged to represent your constituents it is up to you to have the courage to face the community of Seaford to answer our challenges.
Many of the members of our community have been referred to the AECOM Report as an answer to their emails requesting data. The AECOM report we are referred to notes that it is “incomplete.” The LXRA allegedly has another report that supposedly proves that Rail under Road cannot be achieved, however as told to the Frankston City Council the LXRA does not want to release this report because “only six people in Australia would understand it”. The community challenges you to release this report as we have our engineers and indeed the Frankston City Council has their engineers waiting to study and comment. Until that is released and should it actually prove anything that you have released is not sufficient and does not prove anything that you claim. The fact remains that the entire area of the crossing was originally harvested for its sand (which is why the Football Oval is 3 metres lower than the existing line) and any clay you claim to have located was all imported as part of filling as Seaford was developed. Therefore this clay has no bearing on your claims as it is not “natural” to the environment.
When the subject of an EES is raised by us we are told it is “not meeting triggers by lowering the road by 1.5 metres” the community raises the question of the need for an EES based on your elevation process. At the crossing (based on 5 metres elevation from current) the elevated rail line will see trains including diesel at approximately 9 metres in the air (plus wires and gantries higher.) At the rear of some properties either side of the rail corridor, the elevation remains the same from the natural ground as the existing line is approximately 1.9 metres elevated (on a mound) so even on a decline the infrastructure remains at a similar height relative to ground level. The community raises the following questions re elevation:
Air quality- elevated rail will reduce air quality as the carcinogenic particles will be distributed at height and left to be distributed by prevailing winds over residential properties.
Energy consumption eg: The increased use of diesel fuel to go up then down. Rail under Road design will use less fuel.
Additional greenhouse gas emissions eg. Carcinogenic emissions from diesel trains.
The integrity of built structures. eg: The weight of the freight trains. Each truck carries two coils weighing approximately 30 tonnes each, usually at least 30 trucks with two diesel engines to pull it.
Over 100 different species of birds can regularly be seen at Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands. Seventeen species of migratory birds from the northern hemisphere visit the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands. Most of them are protected by international treaties. All of these species could be negatively impacted by elevated rail.
The Edithvale–Seaford Wetlands are a unique habitat for a diverse range of waterbirds with seventy-five native waterbird species being recorded at the Ramsar site between 1989–2007.
Of particular note, the Seaford Ramsar site regularly supports more than 1 percent of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway population of sharp-tailed sandpiper, a waterbird species of international importance listed under both JAMBA and CAMBA. The East Asian-Australasian Flyway extends southwards from Alaska and Russia’s far-east, through East Asia and South-East Asia, to Australia and New Zealand. The wetlands provide suitable habitat for the sharp-tailed sandpiper as they prefer shallow, freshwater, ephemeral wetlands. Large numbers gather at the Ramsar site as the wetlands dry out.
The ability of the wetlands to regularly support more than 1 percent of the flyway population of sharp-tailed sandpipers enabled the site to satisfy Ramsar Criterion Six at the time of listingThe Edithvale–Seaford Ramsar site also provides suitable habitat for the regularly recorded Australasian bittern, a waterbird species of international significance. The Australasian Bittern is listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The south-east Australian population of Australasian bitterns, supported by Edithvale–Seaford Wetlands, is one of four remaining in the world.
All of these listed bird species could be negatively impacted by elevated rail.

 

The negative aspects of elevated rail on the community are as follows. Social structure and networks eg: antisocial behaviour and graffiti on the pylons under the elevated rail, the embankments and pylons will be a big divide right through the community.
Residential amenity & social well-being eg: Overshadowing causing diminished sunlight into residential properties a known cause of depression and lack of the feeling of well being.
Social vulnerability and differential effects on parts of the communities. Security risk on residential properties bounded by the rail reserve re increased access to the back of houses
Housing and social infrastructure needs eg: Predominantly low rise housing
Perceptions of aesthetic, recreational and other social values of landscape or locality eg: Out of character with our seaside community, airborne pollution next to a sporting ground, a visual blight on the community.
As an additional consideration, you are also proposing a bike/pedestrian path along the rail line within the reserve. The existing reserve is rarely used, by introducing this path you also expose all properties to new security concerns by inviting public direct access to the rear of properties. Again should your plan proceed it will be your responsibility to ensure security protection for all residences?
Attitudes to the proposed development. 97.1 percent of the community want rail under road
The references to noise and air quality are interesting as given that you have already committed to your design, I would have thought that all of these issues would have been included into your engineering and costing not still “up in the air”. This lack of investigation is indicative of the acknowledged failures in your non-consultative process with the community. All of this information should already be available and clearly communicated with the community, not made up afterwards. The whole “Community Consultation” has proven to be flawed and farcical.
I do see a positive in that the trains will no longer be blowing their horn as it approaches the removed crossing (the same for Rail under Road) however I am sure that the train will still be blowing its horn to scare those that may be climbing on the infrastructure which will be totally accessible to all.
Once again, Mr Andrews, I remind you, you are the elected Premier of the State. You are elected by the people for the people not for your own desires. Your plan is directly against the wishes of 97.1% of Seaford residents. It is my will as it is the will of the community of Seaford that you stand up, divulge the currently withheld data, properly consult with and understand the impact you propose on our suburb. As has been said before no matter what the circumstance this would never happen in Hampton or Brighton, you can build a road under sea water at Safety Beach, you can build a tunnel under the Yarra, you have clearly indicated that no matter what the environmental implications you will build the Western Distributor however in Seaford the most obvious crossing you refuse to build Rail under Road. Do it once and do it right! It is time for you to stand up and protect this community !!

We await your challenge acceptance

Regards……………….

Letter to the MP’s re Projects at Seaford

Dear Minister X,

I support the removal of the Level Crossings. However, I have an issue with the way it is to be done. The proposed “Hybrid Solution”  at Seaford Road (which is an elevated solution) I consider substandard.

On Sunday 23rd July we held a Rally in Seaford, with more than 300 people protesting against elevated rail. The rally has been mentioned in Herald Sun and covered by 7 News. Two of the rally speakers were Frankston City Councilors, supporting the community.

Rail under Road at Seaford Road is possible. No Skyrail Frankston Line (NSRFL) have designs that prove Rail under Road (such as Bentleigh, Ormond, and McKinnon) is viable without impacting the Seaford Edithvale Wetlands. Water table issues can be dealt with using some smart engineering (eg. road tunnel at Safety Beach.) The Seaford Edithvale wetlands and Kananook Creek are currently being artificially managed.The engineering is already in place to mitigate against any impact.

 

Why has there been no feasibility study of a rail under road solution at Seaford Rd? Why has there been no investigation of the health impact from the spreading of carcinogenic diesel particulates and metal dust from raised railways? These particulates will become airborne and spread across the wider community.

 

The overshadowing simulations show the elevated rail will cast shadows for hundreds of metres in the morning and in the afternoon. Lack of sunlight is linked to depression. It limits the harvest of solar power from peoples roofs. It robs the community of a basic amenity, sunlight.

 

The noise will be heard for many kilometres. The ineffectual sound barriers will add height over and above the track.

 

Property prices will plummet, which will in effect cut council rates. No funding arrangement has been presented for the maintenance of the embankments and the inevitable graffiti removal.

 

I also have an issue with the railway storage facility that is planned to be moved from Carrum to Seaford. It is unnecessary with plans for the electrification of the line to Baxter in the future.Do it once and do it right and have the railway storage facility placed on now empty land in Baxter. A railway storage facility in Seaford would displace seven businesses and cost our community over 100 jobs. Most of these businesses have been there for over forty years. Page Brothers alone have been there for fifty years and employ fifty people. Imagine how many jobs these businesses have provided over the years. Where is the loyalty? How much recompense will these businesses get for capital expenditures?

 

The site is much bigger than the railway storage facility currently in Carrum. Are the residents to expect train after the train travelling to the storage facility late at night as the services wind down? Then the shunting after they arrive at the storage facility, late into the night.

 

The closure of Eel Race Road (ERR) will cause traffic chaos in Armstrongs Road, McLeod Road, and Nepean Hwy. There is no dispute that this level crossing should be removed, by rail under road. Closing this crossing will create the very traffic congestion that this project was meant to decrease. Patterson Lakes Secondary College and various primary schools in this area are accessed via ERR crossing. Replace it with rail under road. Do it once, do it right.

I look forward to your response

 

Visual bulk and impact

You don’t need many words to describe Skyrail or “Hybrid Solution”. It’s huge, enormous. It’s out of proportion. It’s height will dwarf the entire neighbourhood. The ugly, massive concrete pylons aren’t pretty and will inevitably be covered with graffiti.
There is a document, issued from the “Office of Victorian Government Architect”  called  “Level Crossing Removals – Lessons Learned” – Click here to view. The document states: “An elevated road or rail structure will have a significant physical presence and impact on a place and is typically not a preferred solution. New elevated structures, including ramps and retaining walls, can impact on visual amenity, permeability, the viability of activity areas, the value of land and appetite for future private development. They often provide a cheaper solution but a poorer outcome and therefore a false economy.”

So the government admits Skyrail is not a preferred solution. So why push it on Seaford and Carrum? We know rail under road can be built here.

Hybrid skyrail

Letter to The Planning Minister Hon Richard William Wynne

My email letter to The Planning Minister Hon Richard William Wynne

Dear Minister,

As you are aware, Skyrail in Melbourne is widely opposed by all communities across the city. This Sunday 23rd July our group “No Skyrail Frankston Line” http://noskyrailfrankstonline.org/ held a community rally in Seaford, gathering well over 300 people and covered by Herald Sun and 7 news. The city of Frankston was represented by speakers Glenn Aitken & Quinn McCormack, supporting rail under road option.
LXRA claims rail under road is not possible in Seaford, but our engineering group has clearly demonstrated on our website this is not true – refer http://noskyrailfrankstonline.org/why-possible/
Dear Minister, hundreds of people spend countless hours fighting against SkyRail. Why would the government spend a lot of money for something everyone hates with a passion? Isn’t it better to spend just a bit more and provide first class infrastructure for our beautiful Seaford, for generations to enjoy?

Dear Minister, planning request for Seaford will be on your table soon. Please, consider the voice of Frankston City Council, consider the voice of community for this milestone project.

Yours sincerely,
Alex Ivanov
http://noskyrailfrankstonline.org/

Why Rail Under Road is possible at Seaford

The Seaford technical report (available at http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media-library/publications/frankston-publications/reports/seaford-technical-report) states:

LXRA Myth… When considering the best way to remove the Seaford Road level crossing, environmental factors are particularly challenging in terms of groundwater flows, flooding and potential impacts to the nearby Edithvale-Seaford wetlands and Kananook Creek.

These environmental problems ruled out the building of a trench at this site. This image shows the underground conditions at Seaford. In Seaford, there are clay layers that are close to the surface.

A trench structure, combined with the clay, would change groundwater flow, as water would need to divert around the trench. This means that water levels on the inland side could rise, causing potential impacts to the wetlands. Water levels on the coastal side could fall, which would in turn affect the environmental values of Kananook Creek.


Image from LXRA technical report

More details about “hybrid solution” – see at LXRASeafordReport

Edithvale_Seaford_Wetlands_Ecological_Character_Description (2) (1)

We have 3 points to consider here:

1. Groundwater issues have been successfully tackled on many sites on Mornington Peninsula, and everywhere else in the world.

Groundwater obstacles can be overcome at the Seaford Rd site just like any other site. A number of train stations have ground water pumps. A more challenging example is of Martha Cove road tunnel under the water channel, close to the shore.

Road tunnel under water at Safety Beach – Martha Cove

2. Seaford Wetlands has own engineering controls for water levels

Seaford Wetlands are now largely Artificial and Actively managed with current engineering controls that regulate the hydrological operations controlling the water coming in and out from the various sources. Water levels are regulated through the various cells and then in turn the water is released to storm water drains or the Kananook creek via further engineering controls.

There would be no change to water levels at the Seaford Wetlands with the Rail under solution, due to the current engineering controls designed to regulate the hydro-logical operation of the area.

In an effort to fast track the Seaford Rd level crossing removal the LXRA have skipped detailed technical investigations at the Seaford Rd site. They have not looked into the current engineering controls at the Seaford wetlands, which could manage the water levels of the Seaford wetlands with a rail under road solution

3. The proposed train trench is short and shallow

 The proposed solution, based on surveying and 3D modelling data demonstrates that the actual trench would be a maximum of around 180 meters either side of the level crossing before it is back at the current level of the RF Miles Reserve 1.5 AHD. Any embankments above and beyond this would be soft planted ones to match the current landscape.

The Health Impact of Elevated Rail on Bayside Communities

The Health Impact of Elevated Rail on Bayside Communities

The academic literature shows that proposed elevated rail bridges negatively impact the health of
individuals and communities. The World Health Organisation recommends ‘health in all policies’ which includes consideration of the health impacts of large infrastructure projects on populations (Leppo, Ollila,Pena, Wismar, & Cook, 2013.)

Elevated rail adjacent to residential areas increases noise and vibration, reduces natural light,
reduces property values, increases air pollution, impacts green space and clashes with local amenity. It also attracts crime, compromises safety and impacts the social determinants of health. All of these factors negatively impact health. A ‘rail under road‘ or ‘rail trench option’ will not have these deleterious effects on health.

Noise and Vibration
The literature indicates that noise and vibration increases significantly and travels greater distances
with elevated rail. Xia et al. (2009) reports noise concerns and vibration impacts on the environment and people near elevated rail. Research shows a link to sleep disturbance resulting in fatigue, impaired judgement, poor decision-making and an increased risk of occupational and road accidents. (Killgore, Balkin & Wesensten, 2006; Lamond et al; 2004.) Stickgold, Hobson, Fosse & Fosse (2001) state good quality sleep is a public health issue, essential for optimal health. Insufficient sleep is linked to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity and depression (Unruh et al. 2008; Babisch, 2006.) Passchier-Vermeer and Passchier (2000) associate noise with decreased school performance. The negative health impact associated with noise pollution from rail bridges will impact thousands of homes and community facilities such as schools, kindergartens, churches and aged care homes.

Mental Health
Elevated rail bridges will significantly overshadow homes. The impact of reduced sunlight on mental
health is well supported in the literature (Halpern, 2013.) Multiple studies assert that a lack of natural light increases the risk of mental health issues including depression and anxiety (Edwards & Torcellini, 2002.)
The Office of the Victorian Government Architects (OVGA) reported on lessons learned with level
crossing removals (2014.) They state that an elevated rail structure will have a significant impact on a place and is typically not a preferred solution. Elevated rail is often a cheaper solution but offers a poorer outcome for the community. Rail bridges also impact negatively on visual amenity, permeability, viability of activity areas and the value of land. Close proximity to rail infrastructure (particularly heavy diesel) reduces property values due to noise, visual intrusion and the perception of crime (Diaz, 1999.) These factors would be exacerbated by elevated rail. On the Dandenong line it is predicted that elevated rail sections are likely to reduce property values by 20-25% and negatively affect the revenue of small businesses (Zhou & Robb, 2016, Ferguson, 2014.) Uncertainty about income is proven to induce emotional strain, anger, anxiety and depression (Schonfeld & Mazzola, 2015.) In other contexts mortgage stress and financial strain is a risk factor for conflict, mental illness and domestic violence (Pattavina, Socia & Zuber, 2015.)

Air Pollution
Elevated rail carrying diesel trains is likely to increase the amount and distance travelled of airborne
pollution because height facilitates greater drift. Diesel exhaust emissions contain hundreds of chemical compounds that are associated with irritation of the eye and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems (Balmes, 2011.) The long term effects of exposure to exhaust and brake particulate matter are poorly understood and therefore best avoided. (Morawska, Moore & Ristovski, 2004, Stenfors et al., 2004; Abbasi, Jansson, Sellgren & Olofsson, 2013.) The International Agency for Research on Cancer has recognised diesel exhaust soot as a carcinogen (Abbasi et al., 2013.)

Green Space and Amenity
Elevated rail bridges will negatively impact green space and clash with amenity in the Bayside
suburbs. This area along the line includes 40 km of beachfront, the Edithvale/Seaford ‘Ramsar Convention’ listed wetlands and a 2,070 hectare ‘green wedge’ in the city of Kingston alone. The positive link between green space and health is well documented and most apparent in the elderly and people of lower socioeconomic status, both already vulnerable sub-populations. (Maas, Verhiej, Groenewegen, De Vries & Spreeunwenberg, 2006; Mitchell & Popham 2008.) The visible and audible elevated rail will significantly reduce the health benefits of this green space.

Crime and Safety
Graffiti is a visible form of crime and considered a sign of social decline, representing a threat to
safety and quality of life (Morgan & Louis, 2009; Lorenc et al., 2013.) Elevated railway bridges and pylons attract graffiti because they are prominent, visible and easy to reach with limited surveillance. Controlling and removing graffiti in Australia costs $1.5 billion annually (Morgan and Louis, 2009.)This cost is expected to be borne by local councils along the Frankston line, creating further stress to residents. Railway bridges also attract anti-social behaviour such as dumping, drug use and loitering due to reduced lighting and limited surveillance. This impacts community safety and livability. Under-road stations are easier to illuminate and monitor and are less appealing for anti-social behaviour.
Social determinants of health (SDH)
The SDH will be negatively impacted by elevated rail. A Lancet Commission found that factors which
have the greatest impact on health are social and include community engagement, social inclusion and early life (Marmot, Friel, Bell, Houweling & Taylor, 2008.) Liveable communities create conditions that optimise health and well being outcomes by improving neighbourhood walk-ability, public open space and social facilities (Giles-Corti, Badland, Mavoa, Turrell & Bull, 2014.) An elevated concrete construction will divide communities and impinge on these conditions, negatively impacting the health and well being of the community.

We often assume that what is, has to be. In reality, virtually everything in our built environment is
the way it is because someone designed it that way. Researchers agree that the design of the built
environment holds tremendous potential to address health concerns including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma, depression, violence and social inequity. In short, we have the capacity to build future communities that promote, rather than reduce, physical and mental health (Jackson, 2003.) The OVGA states that lowering a section of the rail corridor is the most supportable solution in most circumstances, is more discrete, has the least impact on the urban environment and improves social and economic outcomes (2014.)
The academic evidence portrays a strong case against elevated rail. A rail trench is the preferred
option for the Bayside suburbs on the Frankston line.

No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
October 27th 2016

Reference List
● Abbasi, S., Jansson, A., Sellgren, U. and Olofsson, U. (2013.)Particle emissions from rail traffic: A
literature review. Environmental Science and Technology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2012.685348
● Babisch, W. (2006) Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk: Updated Review and synthesis of
epidemiological studies indicate that the evidence has increased. Noise Health, 8, 1-29
● Balmes, J.R (2011) How does diesel exhaust impact asthma? Thorax, 66(1), 4-6.
● Diaz, RB (1999) Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values. Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. McLean VA
● Edwards L. & Torcellini P (2002) A literature review of the effects of natural light on building occupants. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
● Ferguson, I. (2014.) Compensating for Economic Loss Caused By New Projects. Australia and New
Zealand Property Journal, June 589- 592.
● Giles-Corti, B., Badland, H.M., Mavoa, S., Turrell, G. & Bull, F. (2014.) Reconnecting urban planning with health: a protocol for the development and validation of national liveability indicators associations with noncommunicable disease risk behaviours and health outcomes. Public Health Research Practice, 25(1), 1-5.
● Groenewegen, P., van den Berg, A.E., de Vries, S. & Verheij, R.A. (2006) Vitamin G: effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health, 23(2), 109-123.
● Halpern, D. (2013>)Mental Health and the Built Environment. Routledge, London.
● Jackson, R.J (2003) The impact of the built environment on health: An emerging field. Editorial.
American Journal of Public Health, 93(9.)
● Killgore, W.D.S., Balkin, T.J., & Wesensten, N.J. (2006) Impaired decision making following 49h of sleep deprivation. Journal of Sleep Research, 15(1), 7-13.
● Lamond, N., Dorrian, J., Burgess, H.J., Holmes, A.L., Roach, G.D., McCulloch, K., Fletcher, A. & Dawson, D.
(2004) Adaptation of performance during a week of simulated night work. Ergonomics, 47(2), 154-165.
● Leppo, K., Ollila, K., Pena, S., Wismar, M. & Cook, S. (2013) Health in all policies – seizing opportunities,implementing policies. WHO.
● Lorenc T., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., Neary, D., Clayton, S., Wright, K., Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A., Renton, A. (2013) Fear of crime and the environment: systematic review of the UK
qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health, 2013, 13, 496.
● Office of Victorian Government Architects (2014) Level crossing removals lessons learned.
http://www.ovga.vic.gov.au/news/100-lessons-learned-level-crossing-removals.html
● Maas J, Verhiej R.A., Groenewegen P.P., De Vries S. & Spreeunwenberg P. (2006) Green space, urbanity and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(7), 587-592.
● Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A. J. & Taylor, S. (2008) Closing the gap in generation:
health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet, 372(9650), 1661-1669.
● Mitchell, R & Popham F. (2008) Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an
observational population study. Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660.
● Morawska, L., Moore, M.R. & Ristovski, Z.D. (2004) Health Impacts of Ultrafine Particles: Desktop
Literature Review and Analysis. Australian Government; Department of Environment and Heritage.
● Morgan, A. & Louis, E. (2009) Key Issues in Graffiti. Research in Practice. Australian Institute of
Criminology, No. 6
● Passchier-Vermeer, W. & Passchier, W.F. (2000) Noise exposure and public health. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 108(1), 123-131.
● Pattavina, A., Socia, K.M. & Zuber, M.J. (2016) Economic Stress and Domestic Violence: Examining the Impact of Mortgage Foreclosures on Incidents Reported to the Police. Justice Research and Policy, December 16, 147-164.
● Schonfeld, I.S. & Mazzola, J.J. (2015) A qualitative study of stress in individuals self-employed in solo businesses. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol 20(4), 501-513.
● Stenfors., Nordenhall, C., Salvi, S.S., Mudway, I., Sorderberg, M., Blonberg, A., … Sandstrom, T. (2004) Different airway inflammatory responses in asthmatic and healthy humans exposed to diesel. European Respiratory Journal, 23, 82-86.
● Stickgold, R., Hobson, J., Fosse, R. & Fosse, M. (2001) Sleep, learning and dreams: off line memory reprocessing. Science, 294(5544), 1052.
● Unruh, M.L., Redline, S., Ming-Wen, A., Buysse, D.J., Nieto, F.J., Yeh, J. & Newman, A. (2008) Subjective and objective sleep quality and ageing in the sleep heart health study. Journal for the American Geriatrics Society, 56(7), 1218-1227.
● Xia, H., Gao, F., Wu, X., Zhang, N., De Roeck, G. & Degrande, G. (2009) Running train induced vibrations and noises of elevated railway structures and their influences on the environment. Frontier Architecture Civil Engineering China, 3(1), 9-17.
● Zhou, C., Robb, K. (2016) Melbourne Skyrail and railway crossing removal impact property prices.
http://www.domain.com.au/news/melbourne-sky-rail-and-railway-crossing-removal-impact-propertyprices-20160219-gmwpfb/

Geodetic survey of Seaford crossing

Please see the recent surveying results taken from Railway Pde, RF Miles Reserve and the Railway line in Seaford.

The surveying has shown what we already know, a rail-under solution is perfectly feasible at Seaford Rd and what you have been led to believe by the LXRA has been blown far out of proportion to justify the second rate solution they are trying to impose on our Suburb.

From this surveying data we have been able to create a 3D model of the landscape with the RF Miles Reserve, Railway Pde, Seaford Rd and the Train-line all included.

We can now see that the kilometre long bath tub analogy they have beaten like a dead horse is a complete lie, see for yourself.

Its no wonder LXRA would never provide any of the designs in section view as it would be plain as day the basis of their arguments were not factual but in fact just propaganda

This information has been given to the LXRA at a meeting with the NSRFL committee, they have agreed to review it, we will be actively seeking a follow up meeting to discuss the outcome of this review.

We have not given up on Seaford and are still fighting this, more to come in the following weeks. Don’t give up people, stay strong. This is far to important.It’s not over until it is under.

Based on this data, please see proposed solution for Seaford

AHD = “Australian Height Datum”

a standard point of reference that all surveying data is related back to, all LXRA documentation regarding Seaford Rd is referenced from the AHD as-well

Overshadowing

Elevated rail bridges will significantly overshadow homes. The impact of reduced sunlight on mental
health is well supported in the literature (Halpern, 2013). Multiple studies assert that a lack of natural light increases the risk of mental health issues including depression and anxiety (Edwards & Torcellini, 2002.) Overshadowing of homes and a reduction of open sky reduces our sense of space, access to natural light and enjoyment of our outdoor environment.

Please find a simulation of the shadow cast by a single 11 m high pole at the crossing Seaford Road. You need to mentally move the shadow along the train line, to see how much of Seaford will be in shadow earlier.

The simulation is based on an 11 meter structure which would be the Skyrail and the train but doesn’t include the additional over head infrastructure.

The 11m tall Skyrail would cast a minimum 212 meter long shadow at 4:45 pm on 23rd June 2017, please follow the link below and check this for yourselves.

https://www.suncalc.org/#/-38.1105,145.1304,17/2017.06.23/16:45/11/0

Graffiti and crime

Graffiti is a visible form of crime and considered a sign of social decline, representing a threat to safety and quality of life.

Graffiti at Beach St.in Frankston

Graffiti is a visible form of crime and considered a sign of social decline, representing a threat to
safety and quality of life (Morgan & Louis, 2009; Lorenc et al., 2013.) Controlling and removing graffiti in Australia costs $1.5 billion annually (Morgan and Louis, 2009.) This cost is expected to be borne by local councils along the Frankston line, creating further stress to residents. Railway bridges also attract anti-social behaviour such as dumping, drug use and loitering due to reduced lighting and limited surveillance. This impacts community safety and liveability. Under-road stations are easier to illuminate and monitor and are less appealing for anti-social behaviour.

 Elevated rail bridges and pylons would likely attract graffiti because they are prominent, visible, easy to reach and may have limited surveillance.
• Railway bridges may attract other antisocial behaviour such as dumping, drug use and loitering due to reduced lighting and limited surveillance.
• Fear for safety impacts mental health, outdoor exercise and community access and engagement.

• Reduced community participation is linked to obesity, mental illness, cardiovascular and respiratory disease and diabetes.

Graffiti along a train line in Melbourne

Rail under road options require patrolled, well lit stations and therefore limit areas for antisocial behaviour.
Rail under road options maintain social inclusion, walk-ability and amenity.