infrastructure victoria second container port advice · 2019. 4. 10. · report v2.5.docx jacobs...

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice

Port Strategic Transport Modelling

Final | 2.5

4 April 2017

Todd Road / Cook Street / Webb Dock Drive / Westgate Freeway


i

Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice

Project No: IS175000

Document Title: Port Strategic Transport Modelling

Document No.: Final

Revision: V2.5

Date: 4 April 2017

Client Name:

Client No:

Project Manager: John Richardson

Author: John Richardson

File Name: J:\IE\Projects\03_Southern\IS175000\06 Technical\IV Ports Advice VITM Modelling

Report V2.5.docx

Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited

ABN 37 001 024 095

Floor 11, 452 Flinders Street

Melbourne VIC 3000

PO Box 312, Flinders Lane

Melbourne VIC 8009 Australia

T +61 3 8668 3000

F +61 3 8668 3001

www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2017 Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs.

Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the

provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance

upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

1 31/01/2017 Limited to a list of model inputs for the purpose of

confirming all inputs.

J Richardson

2 10/03/2017 Modelling outputs added J Richardson A Newman

3 27/03/2017 Updated with Deloitte comments J Richardson A Newman

4 04/04/2017 Updated with IV comments J Richardson A Newman


ii

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Task............................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Inputs to be updated .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Infrastructure upgrades ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Demographic updates ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1.3 Freight Movement Model updates ............................................................................................................... 9

3. Summary of results ................................................................................................................................. 13

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 18


3

Important note about your report

The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Jacobs for Infrastructure Victoria (IV)

is to undertake strategic transport modelling of various port scenarios in Melbourne to provide inputs to the

economic modelling being undertaken by Deloitte.

In preparing this report, Jacobs has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or confirmation of the

absence thereof) provided by IV and/or from other sources. Except as otherwise stated in the report, Jacobs

has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. If the information is

subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that our observations and

conclusions as expressed in this report may change.

Jacobs derived the data in this report from information sourced from IV (if any), the Department of Economic

Development, Jobs Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) and/or available in the public domain at the time or

times outlined in this report. The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events

may require further examination of the project and subsequent data analysis, and re-evaluation of the data,

findings, observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Jacobs has prepared this report in accordance

with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession, for the sole purpose described above and by

reference to applicable standards, guidelines, procedures and practices at the date of issue of this report. For

the reasons outlined above, however, no other warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied, is made

as to the data, observations and findings expressed in this report, to the extent permitted by law.

This report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the findings. No

responsibility is accepted by Jacobs for use of any part of this report in any other context.

This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of IV and Deloitte, and is subject to, and

issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs, Deloitte and IV. Jacobs accepts no

liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third

party.


4

1. Introduction

The scope of modelling works covered in this report is constrained to network wide modelling, for details on the

port landside capacity analysis, refer to the Jacobs report “Port Landside Transport Modelling”. A summary of

both pieces of work is listed below.

Network wide modelling

Strategic transport modelling of current and alternate port locations. Modelling covers the entire Melbourne

metropolitan network, using the Victorian Integrated Transport Model (VITM). Outputs to be used for economic

modelling by Deloitte.

Landside capacity analysis

Modelling of the intersections immediately outside of the port gates (Port of Melbourne) to inform the GHD

capacity analysis report and Deloitte economic assessment.


5

2. Task

To compare the operation of the transport network assuming different port locations.

Provide inputs to the economic modelling being undertaken by Deloitte

Limitations: VITM currently only has reference case setup for 2021, 2031 and 2046.

The scenarios modelled with VITM are listed in Table 2-1. Scenario A1 models continued operation at Port of

Melbourne in 2031, all other scenarios are at 2046. Scenarios B1 and B2 model overflow situations with some

trade remaining at Port of Melbourne and a portion of the container trade moved to either Hastings or Bay West.

Scenarios C1, C2 and C3 model all container trade at a single location. Within these scenarios are three

sensitivity tests, B2 and C2 assume no new rail infrastructure at Hastings, thus reducing the rail mode share to

the available capacity on the Stony Point line via Frankston. Scenario C1a includes a new road (referred to as

Freight Link) to provide additional landside capacity at Webb Dock.

Table 2-1: Scenarios to be modelled

ID Year TEU (million) – International + Bass Strait Automotive &

Bulk trade

Rail mode share

Swanson

Dock

Webb

Dock

Hastings Bay

West

Total

A1 2031 3.0 2.0 + 0.4 0.0 0.0 5.4 As is 15% SD

B1 2046 1.0 4.0 + 0.6 0.0 4.0 9.6 SD 10% SD, 20% BW

B2 2046 1.0 4.0 + 0.6 4.0 0.0 9.6 SD 10% SD, 25% PoH

B2a 2046 1.0 4.0 + 0.6 4.0 0.0 9.6 SD 10% SD, 5% PoH1

C1 2046 1.0 + 0.6 8.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 SD 15% SD, 10% WD

C1a 2046 1.0 + 0.6 8.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 SD 15% SD, 10% WD

C2 2046 0.0 0.0 + 0.6 9.0 0.0 9.6 As is 20% PoH

C2a 2046 0.0 0.0 + 0.6 9.0 0.0 9.6 As is 3% PoH2

C3 2046 0.0 0.0 + 0.6 0.0 9.0 9.6 As is 15% BW

2.1 Inputs to be updated

The following relate to inputs that are different to the DEDJTR reference case inputs:

1. Transport Network

a. Road and Public Transport Network as per IV model Y2031_IV_PC_NEL_v1606103 and

Y2046_IV_CMB_2RD_3RL_v1609064

b. Port connections as per Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2.

2. Demographics – updated to allow for Fishermans Bend developments (see section 2.2), port

employment updated as per Table 2-3.

1 Using existing rail infrastructure via the Frankston Line 2 Using existing rail infrastructure via the Frankston Line 3 North East Link is included in this scenario 4 This scenario includes OMR, North East Link, Melbourne Metro 2, City Loop Reconfiguration and Melbourne Airport Rail Link.


6

3. Freight Movement Model Parameters

a. OD movement of containers as per Deloitte specification (see Table 2-6)

b. Vehicle types as per intersection modelling (see Table 2-4)

c. Time of day travel: based on intersection capacity analysis (see Table 2-5)

2.1.1 Infrastructure upgrades

Bay West requires new road and rail infrastructure in order to connect it into the surrounding transport network.

Based on work by GHD (see Figure 2-1), the VITM network has been updated with two new 4-lane road

connections between Princes Freeway and Bay West. One road connects virtually directly into the Outer

Metropolitan Ring Road (OMR) and Princes Freeway interchange (for north and westbound traffic). The second

road connects to the Princes Freeway at the existing Ison Road interchange (for inner west / city bound traffic).

Figure 2-1: Bay West transport connections (source: GHD)

Scenarios that include international containers at Hastings trigger the upgrade to the Western Port Highway to

four lanes. Connections closer to the port are shown in Figure 2-2.


7

Figure 2-2: Hastings transport connections

Scenario C1 requires additional landside capacity to be provided at Webb Dock, to enable this an indicative

alignment has been coded for Freight Link. This is a dedicated freight road and rail corridor linking Webb Dock

to the Western Distributor and Tullamarine Freeway via an elevated corridor across Fishermans Bend and a

new crossing of the Yarra alongside the Bolte Bridge. It has been coded such that it can only be used for port-

related traffic only and is not tolled. C1 has been modelled with and without freight link.

2.1.2 Demographic updates

The VITM reference case land use assumptions include residential and commercial development at Fishermans

Bend, however we have revised these upwards in line with current projection published by the Fishermans

Bend Taskforce5. Table 2-2 shows the revised land use inputs, broken down by precinct. The definition of the

precincts is shown in Figure 2-3.

In addition to the numbers in Table 2-2, we have assumed that Fishermans Bend will have:

- The same age profile as the Docklands

- The same job type profile as the Docklands

5 http://haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/fishermans-bend and Fishermans Bend Demographic Profiling (Places Victoria_June 2013)

http://haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/fishermans-bend

http://haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/fishermans-bend/documents/40178/download


8

- Full build out by 2046

- Partial build out at 2031, equivalent to 70% of the projected population and 60% of projected jobs

Table 2-2: Fishermans Bend demographic assumptions (full build out)

Precinct Population Employment School enrolments

Wirraway 20,624 5,841 Primary 1000

Sandridge 26,379 16,010 Secondary 1000

Montague 20,048 5,697

Lorimer 12,950 3,606

Employment Precinct 0 28,846

Total 80,000 60,000

Original VITM 2046 reference case 51,702 50,821

Figure 2-3: Fishermans Bend Precincts

Port related employment has been reviewed as this determines the volume of non-freight traffic in and out of the

port precincts. Table 2-3 lists the values that will be adopted along with some commentary on how they were

derived and how they vary from the VITM reference case assumptions.


9

Table 2-3: Port related employment updates

Port / staging area Year Employees VITM Zone VITM details

Webb Dock 2031

2046

1500

1500

62 & 2921 1500 is based on an analysis of all companies

forecast to be operating at Webb Dock. VITM

2016 reference case has 968 employees.

Swanson Dock 2031

2046

3500

3500

39 & 45 VITM reference case assumes 3425 employees

in 2016. Efficiency gains will mean additional

employees are not required to handle more TEU.

Bay West 2046 1500 314 Based on Webb Dock estimates.

Hastings 2046 1500 3049 Based on Webb Dock estimates.

Hastings staging 2046 500 969 Based on VITM estimates of other staging areas

Bay West staging 2046 500 1982 Based on VITM estimates of other staging areas

Dynon precinct 2031

2046

4000

5000

32, 2902 &

2903

VITM reference case assumes a growth of

10,000 jobs between 2016 and 2046. Without

any development or renewal plan in place for this

area this growth is seen as speculative and has

been revised downwards to more moderate

growth.

2.1.3 Freight Movement Model updates

The type of vehicles assumed to be carrying containers at each port is based around observed vehicles types at

Swanson Dock, shown in Table 2-4, these are consistent with the intersection capacity analysis at Port of

Melbourne. Vehicle loadings (average TEU’s per truck) are assumed to be 1.3 at Swanson Dock, this assumes

a slight efficiency gain from the historic trend of 1.2. All new ports, including an expanded Webb Dock, are

assumed to operate more efficiently at 1.5 TEU’s per truck.

Table 2-4: Vehicle types (2031 and 2046)

Port Rigid Articulated BDouble HPFV

All 15% 23% 62% 0%

Port related truck traffic by time of day is shown in Table 2-5, the proportions are based on current Swanson

Dock proportions with a small shift towards overnight movements to avoid increasing congestion during the

peak periods.

Table 2-5: Time of day (2031 and 2046)

Port AM (7-9) IP (9am-3pm) PM (3-6pm) OP (6pm-7am)

All 15% 35% 20% 30%

Reference case assumptions about bulk freight required updating for scenarios B1, B2, B2a, C1 and C1a where

it is assumed that the automotive trade is shifted from Webb Dock to Swanson Dock to accommodate the large

growth in international containers. The bulk freight volumes for all other industry classes are consistent with the

VITM reference case inputs.


10

The origin-destination distribution of port related containers has been updated to be consistent with the

assumptions in the Deloitte report “Supply chain assessment methodology”, refer to Appendix B. They are

summarised in Table 2-6 to Table 2-11. A map showing each region as it relates to VITM is shown in Figure 2-4.

Table 2-6: Supply chain assumptions – Port of Melbourne Imports

O / D Not Staged Staged nearby Staged outer west

From Port 29% 50% 21%

To DC / Importer Locations

Me

lbo

urn

e Outer West 26% 26% 26%

Outer North 18% 18% 18%

South East 34% 34% 34%

Inner West 9% 9% 9%

Regional / Interstate 13% 13% 13%

Table 2-7: Supply chain assumptions – Port of Melbourne Exports


To Port 56% 15% 29%

From DC / Exporter Locations

Me

lbo

urn




Inner West 13% 13% 0%


Table 2-8: Supply chain assumptions – Hastings Imports


From Port 20% 60% 20%


Me

lbo

urn







11

Table 2-9: Supply chain assumptions – Hastings Exports


To Port 20% 70% 10%


Me

lbo

urn






Table 2-10: Supply chain assumptions – Bay West Imports


From Port 50% 20% 30%


Me

lbo

urn






Table 2-11: Supply chain assumptions – Bay West Exports


To Port 30% 60% 10%


Me

lbo

urn







12

Figure 2-4: VITM staging areas

Northern Freight Node = Outer North, Western Freight Node = Outer West, South Eastern Freight Node = South East


13

3. Summary of results

A summary of key modelling outputs is provided in the following tables and graphs. Between 2031 and 2046

population is projected to increase by 22.6% in metropolitan Melbourne, car and LCV trips increase at a slower

rate (18.5% and 16.6%) indicating a move toward public transport, likely due to road congestion and worsening

travel times. HCV and Port Container movements however are forecast to increase at a much faster rate at

49.1% and 57.7% respectively as shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Headline demand inputs and trip making between 2031 and 2046

A1 (2031 all at PoM)

C1 (2046 all at PoM,

no Freight Link)

Growth

Population 5,904,616 7,240,585 22.6%

Households 2,296,892 2,873,498 25.1%

Employment 3,066,392 3,887,116 26.7%

Total Car 9,945,772 11,781,822 18.5%

Total LCV 1,697,953 1,980,071 16.6%

Total HCV 404,178 602,668 49.1%

Port Container Trips 20,106 31,703 57.7%

Looking at the VKT and VHT for port container trips only (see Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2), there are significant

differences between the scenarios. Excluding the lone 2031 scenario (A1), C1 is the clearly the best performing

network as it minimises both time and distance for port related container trucks. Bay West performs better than

Hastings, primarily as it is better connected to uncongested freeways. Hastings relies on the Monash Freeway

which is highly congested in 2046. The inclusion of Freight Link leads to an overall improved road network,

although it leads to marginally worse travel times for port related container movements in favour of other vehicle

types. A specific study into Freight Link would be required to understand its merits as an infrastructure project.

Figure 3-1: VKT of port container trips


14

Figure 3-2: VHT of port container trips

Table 3-2 provides detailed outputs on port container movements, it shows how many port related TEU are

moved per scenario and how many on-road movements this task generates (allowing for staging). Port

container trucks are a small proportion (5-7%) of total HCV movements. In summary, Port of Melbourne

minimises travel time and distance per TEU movement, Bay West results in longer travel distances but only

slightly longer travel times, Hastings on the other hand almost doubles travel times and distances.

Table 3-2: Vehicle kilometres travelled by vehicle type (average weekday)

A1: 5m at

PoM

B1: 9m,

Bay West

overflow

B2: 9m

Hastings

overflow

C1: 9m

all at

PoM

C1a: 9m

all at

PoM, inc

Freight

Link

C2: 9m

all at

Hastings

C3: all at

Bay West

B2a:

Hastings

overflow,

no new

rail

B2a: All

at

Hastings,

no new

rail

Total Daily TEU (road) 15,968 28,065 27,419 27,613 27,613 25,161 26,613 30,000 30,097

On-road container movements

20,106

33,862

34,599

31,703

31,703

36,212

34,319

38,386

43,456

Port

container %

of HCVs 5.0% 5.6% 5.7% 5.3% 5.3% 6.0% 5.7% 6.3% 7.1%

VKT 541,011 1,098,155 1,241,046 888,756 884,904 1,674,436 1,331,989 1,420,876 2,020,142

VHT 10,540 20,393 23,532 18,505 18,921 29,028 21,878 26,665 35,166

KM per TEU 33.9 39.1 45.3 32.2 32.0 66.5 50.1 47.4 67.1

Minutes per TEU 39.6 43.6 51.5 40.2 41.1 69.2 49.3 53.3 70.1


15

Table 3-2 presents the key economic outputs for the Metropolitan Melbourne road network performance and

Table 3-3 shows the percentage change between scenarios, whilst port trips are a small component of the

overall network trips they do have flow on impacts to cars, LCV’s and non-port HCVs.

Table 3-3: Annual economic outputs, 2046 scenario

B1: 9m,

Bay West

overflow

B2: 9m

Hastings

overflow

C1: 9m all

at PoM

C1a: 9m all

at PoM, inc

Freight Link

C2: 9m

all at

Hastings

C3: all at

Bay West

B2a:

Hastings

overflow,

no new rail

B2a: All at

Hastings,

no new

rail

Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT)

Car / LCV 48.03 B 48.01 B 48.03 B 48.00 B 47.97 B 48.03 B 47.98 B 47.94 B

Trucks 6.77 B 6.82 B 6.71 B 6.70 B 6.96 B 6.85 B 6.88 B 7.07 B

Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT)

Car / LCV 1.181 B 1.181 B 1.181 B 1.180 B 1.181 B 1.182 B 1.182 B 1.184 B

Trucks 145 M 147 M 145 M 145 M 149 M 145 M 148 M 152 M

Trips

Car / LCV 4.542 B 4.541 B 4.541 B 4.541 B 4.541 B 4.543 B 4.541 B 4.540 B

Trucks 200 M 200 M 199 M 199 M 200 M 200 M 201 M 203 M

Table 3-4: Change from Scenario C1 (all at PoM, no Freight Link)

B1: 9m,

Bay West

overflow

B2: 9m

Hastings

overflow

C1a: 9m

all at

PoM, inc

Freight

Link

C2: 9m

all at

Hastings

C3: all at

Bay West

B2a:

Hastings

overflow,

no new

rail

B2a: All

at

Hastings,

no new

rail

Car / LCV impacts

Car/LCV Trips 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Car/LCV Daily VKT 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1%

Car/LCV Daily VHT 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3%

Car/LCV Daily VKT - Freeways 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.3% 0.0% -0.2% -0.5%

HCV Impacts

Total HCV Trips 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 1.1% 1.9%

Total HCV Daily VKT 1.0% 1.7% -0.1% 3.8% 2.1% 2.5% 5.4%

Total HCV Daily VHT 0.3% 1.3% 0.0% 2.8% 0.3% 2.2% 4.7%

HCV VKT on Local Roads 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.9% -0.3% 0.9% 1.7%

HCV’s through the Inner City -2.3% -0.2% -0.1% -1.1% -6.5% 0.7% 0.7%

Port Container impacts

Port Container Trips 6.8% 9.1% 0.0% 14.2% 8.3% 21.1% 37.1%

Port container trips Daily VKT 23.6% 39.6% -0.4% 88.4% 49.9% 59.9% 127.3%

Port container trips Daily VHT 10.2% 27.2% 2.2% 56.9% 18.2% 44.1% 90.0%


16

Moving the location of the port to either Hastings or Bay West causes a significant change in the travel patterns

of port related container trucks across metropolitan Melbourne. Figure 3-3 shows the change in travel patterns

with all container trade moved to Hastings. The largest increase in volumes is on Western Port Highway and the

Monash Freeway, but as the Monash is heavily congested in 2046, volumes also increase on parallel routes

such as Peninsula Link, Dandenong Road and Nepean Highway. Some of these routes pass through the Inner

City to reach destinations in the west of Melbourne.

Figure 3-4 shows the change in travel patterns with all container trade moved to Bay West, it highlights that Bay

West is well connected to the freeway network with good access to the Princess Highway and Outer

Metropolitan Ring Road, both of which have spare capacity in 2046. This helps to distribute the load better

across multiple roads, relative to the Hastings alternative. A Bay West location also removes a substantial

portion of HCV trips (6.5%) out of the Inner City.

Figure 3-3: Change in HCV distribution by moving to Hastings (C2 compared to C1)


17

Figure 3-4: Change in HCV distribution by moving to Bay West (C3 compared to C1)


18

4. Conclusion

Table 4-1 provides a ranking of the VITM scenarios modelled at 2046, the overall ranking (where one is the

best) is based on the overall network performance metrics such as vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) and

vehicle hours travelled (VHT). The best performing option is C1 where all international containers continue to

come through the Port of Melbourne.

For each scenario a summary of the key positive and negative impacts are provided, in general each scenario is

compared against C1 (all at PoM, no Freight Link).

The road network with Freight Link performs the best, although in balancing the needs of the entire metropolitan

transport network, port related container trucks end up marginally worse. More detailed modelling of Freight

Link would be required to understand its full benefits - for information on why additional landside capacity is

required to enable Webb Dock to handle more than 3.0 - 4.0m TEU refer to the Jacobs report ‘Port Landside

Transport Modelling’.

Table 4-1: Final ranking of VITM scenarios based on overall network performance

Rank Scenario Positives Negatives

1 C1a – 9m at PoM (8m at Webb Dock) inc Freight Link

Minimises overall VKT and VHT across the network

A slight worsening for port related container trucks (VHT up by 2.2%)

2 C1 – 9m at PoM (8m at Webb Dock) without Freight Link

Overall VKT and VHT only marginally worse than the scenario with Freight Link

Has the highest portion of trucks in the inner city, aside from reduced rail mode share options B2a and C2a

3 B1 - 9m split between PoM and BW

Smallest increase in average travel time and distance per TEU Reduces HCVs through the inner city by 2.3% Smallest increase in HCV VKT 1% Equal smallest increase in HCV VHT 0.3%

4 C3 - 9m at Bay West

Reduces HCVs through the inner city by 6.4% High use of freeways leads to increased VKT (2.1%) but minimal increase in VHT (0.3%) Only option that reduces HCV VKT on local roads (0.3%)

Average travel time and distance per TEU is more than options B1 and B2.

5 B2 - 9m split between PoM and Hastings

Second smallest increase in average travel time and distance per TEU

Minimal removal (0.2%) of HCVs through the inner city

6 B2a - 9m split between PoM and Hastings with no new rail

More complex staging and reduced rail share results in 21.1% more port container trips on the network

7 C2 - 9m at Hastings More complex staging results in 14.2% more port container trips on the network. Small portion (0.3%) of cars forced off the Freeways to accommodate HCVs


19

Rank Scenario Positives Negatives

8 C2a - 9m at Hastings with no new rail

More complex staging and reduced rail share results in 37.1% more port container trips on the network Small proportion (0.5%) of cars forced off freeways to accommodate HCVs

infrastructure victoria second container port advice · 2019. 4. 10. · report v2.5.docx jacobs...

Documents