Thanks to a reader who emailed me to alert me of this article, I learned that there is supposedly a plan to turn Rushall Crescent in North Fitzroy into a 6 lane major arterial road. Looking at the map, it makes no sense. It doesn’t go anywhere or connect to other major roads at both ends. I suspect that this issue has been manufactured as a political stunt, but I have no trust in the state government. Given that the Old Colonists’ retirement village on Rushall Crescent is heritage protected, I just can’t see how this plan is possible, let alone plausible.


View Larger Map

the future of Rushall Crescent

9 thoughts on “the future of Rushall Crescent

  • 21 October 2010 at 3:03 pm
    Permalink

    I’m hoping you’re right *shudder* there’s been too many heritage listings ignored/denied in recent years.

    Reply
  • 21 October 2010 at 4:35 pm
    Permalink

    I’m not sure that this is so much a “Greens propaganda blunder” – the irony of it all is that The Age were the ones who originally published the map.

    Since it’s original publication by The Age the state government and by extension VicRoads have done their best to run from the published map as fast as they possibly can. But surely local residents deserve to be kept in the loop even if it is just an idea.

    Vic Roads and the govt have a long history of going ahead with projects even after vigorously denying they were on the table. For a few examples check out: http://www.ycat.org.au/?p=151

    Nonetheless, I wonder if we’ll ever get to see their secret public transport plans – if they even exist…

    Reply
    • 21 October 2010 at 5:21 pm
      Permalink

      It seems however that the Greens deliberately misinterpreted the map to create a fear campaign against the ALP. Pathetic.

      Reply
  • 21 October 2010 at 5:36 pm
    Permalink

    Not true that it doesn’t go anywhere. If you look at the VicRoads map, the point of the Rushall 6 lane highway is to join Hoddle St with St George’sRd and Brunswick Rd through a widened Holden St. Typical VicRoads “missing link” thinking- insane but with a long pedigree.

    Check out http://www.ycat.org.au for more background on how the roads lobby works in Melbourne and previous ALP ‘never ever’ denials of roads now in the pipeline.

    Go the Greens for bringing this to everyone’s attention and batting for proper public transport!!!

    Reply
  • 21 October 2010 at 6:29 pm
    Permalink

    Hi, Kathleen Maltzahn here, Greens candidate for Richmond.

    We distributed about 200 fliers about the VicRoads map on the day The Age ran the article (Monday October 11).

    In summary, we said that The Age had printed a 2040 map from VicRoads that included things such as a 6-plus lane down Rushall Crescent (and three other roads), said ‘Imagine if planning for public transport was taken as seriously as freeways’, and then talked about the Greens PT policy.

    (If you want to check for yourself, the text of the flier is at http://vic.greens.org.au/content/text-flier-letterboxed-rushall-crescent-last-week.)

    The Age later published an article with a quote from VicRoads saying:
    “This speculative map was the result of a VicRoads brainstorming workshop. Workshops are part of prudent, on-going business planning aimed at improving transport solutions for Melbourne’s growing population. This map has not been elevated for approval or review within VicRoads or Government.”

    VicRoads has a history of proposing freeways and major roads that are initially denied and later built. The quote itself says that the map arose from a workshop that is part of ‘prudent on-going business planning’.

    Local transport group Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport (YCAT) has outlined this in more detail on their website (http://www.ycat.org.au/).

    VicRoads has too much power. Public transport has suffered.

    The Greens are not the only group who believes this. It’s worth mentioning that in the survey the Greens did on Tuesday morning of over 250 public transport passengers, 58% of people surveyed said the government favoured roads and freeways over public transport; only 14% said the government favoured PT over freeways (10% said they were balanced; 18% didn’t know).

    Our flier described the map, and asked people to imagine what the city would be like if public transport was given as much attention as roads.

    VicRoads is a powerful and unaccountable body; we need a powerful and accountable public transport authority to rival VicRoads, and make sure we have the public transport we need, not freeways we don’t want.

    Reply
  • 21 October 2010 at 10:11 pm
    Permalink

    Hi Brian,
    You could be right in saying that this might not be anything more than a beat up and on balance it is probably a more prudent approach is to treat these sorts of claims with a high degree of skepticism.

    On the other hand it might be worth noting that a couple of years ago there was quite a lot of furore regarding the Eddlington Report. Community groups in the Clifton Hill / Fitzroy North area were worried about the potential impact of the proposed tunnel as on of it’s exits was to carry traffic to/from Queens Parade.

    http://www.melbourne2030.info/no_tunnel1

    This all gets a little more interesting when you also consider that one could almost run a straight line along Rushall Crescent across Park Street Fitzroy North, through to Princess Hill and all the way to the Citylink.

    I distinctly remember a period during the mid 90’s when there were concerns raised by community groups regarding the possible extension of the Eastern Fwy beyond Springvale Rd. As I recall at the time, there were strong denials being made either by Kennet govt. (and/or a govt. department) which responded by saying that there were no fwy extension proposals being considered. Whilst all the denials were being issued I was working for an aerial survey group which was being contracted by the state govt to survey the very same path that freeway was to take. So in effect all the govt. rebuttals at that time were complete bullshit and the freeway now exists.

    Reply
  • 6 April 2012 at 11:10 am
    Permalink

    Judging by this new article in ‘The Age’, that the Baillieu govt. is also considering this proposal. New options now include:

    “…options for part of it to be built above ground along Alexandra Parade in Clifton Hill to save money.”

    Reply
  • 15 July 2013 at 4:12 pm
    Permalink

    Looks as if we are getting closer to knowing where the path for the tunnel will be. There is an article on the ABC titled

    ‘Residents living in the pathway of proposed East West Link fear compulsory acquisitions’

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *