Diseño de elementos de concreto armado

Melbourne’s CBD (Figure 6.7). Similar to Port Phillip, transport networks in Yarra were largely developed by the turn of the 20th century

Figure 6.7: Council of Yarra

In early 2009, the Epworth hospital came to Yarra Council with a redevelopment application (Lahey, April 9, 2009; YCC, 8 April 2009, 22 July 2009). Council conditioned the hospital’s redevelopment, based on constructing a DDA compliant tram stop near the hospital. Council was keen to use its influence to get the hospital to pay for a new tram platform stop (Participant 31). As DDA statewide requirements had recently been passed, council staff viewed the redevelopment as an opportunity to get

Melbourne as defined by the 10 kilometre circle around the Melbourne CBD.

a new DDA compliant tram stop. Briefly examining how a new tram platform stop was eventually constructed reveals how multiple road space allocation tensions often conspire to shape road space allocation.

Initially, the conditions set by the council were not agreed to by either VicRoads or DOT. DOT’s guidelines acknowledged that every project site was shaped by different topography or policy statements. Yet, design problems with the hospital site were too complex and challenging from the perspective of state authorities. As such, there was little reason for the council to place a condition on the hospital upgrade that neither VicRoads nor DOT would sign off. From the perspective of Yarra Councillors, they asked: “if you can't have an accessible tram stop outside a hospital, where can you have it?” (Participant 31).

The conflicting views to the project site reflect a larger theme that emerged from interviews with professional transport planners. Several local government transport planners interviewed alluded to a perception that state and local governments engage road space allocation tensions very differently (Participants 24, 31, 32, and 33). For example, council problems were discussed as often being identified by residents or business owners within council boundaries. The geographical proximity to a respective problem reflected it being “close to home”, which subsequently required council staff to

“visually go out and see it, rather than just read it on paper” (Participant 31). In contrast, state transport planners were perceived as geographically removed from local issues, and therefore more heavily reliant on organisational conventions and existing transport planning standards and frameworks.

Disagreement between council staff and VicRoads and DOT staff eventually resulted in the hospital’s development application going to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). At the time, VCAT had a long backlog of cases, and thus resolution through VCAT would delay the project’s completion. The hospital had been classified as a ‘significant state’ project, which had allowed it to secure state and federal funding.

However, the funding was tied to time-sensitive state and national funding cycles.

Thus, any delay might result in the hospital losing its state and federal funding.

Governance, which remains today, empowered the Planning Minister to ‘call in’ any project deemed to be a state-significant project and be reviewed by state officials.

Then acting Planning Minister Justin Madden called in the project. Subsequently, the Planning Minister appointed a senior planner with DPCD to chair a meeting with the different parties involved and report back with a brief. After several meetings, it was

determined to construct a tram stop, as close to as possible, to DDA specifications.

Two conditions eventuated from the different meetings. The first was that by January 2011, the hospital would give 10,000 ($Aus) to DOT to help conduct a feasibility study.

Based on the study’s recommendations, the second condition stipulated that the hospital would provide a further 10,000 ($Aus) to VicRoads and DOT to cover more detailed engineering plans of a modified tram stop. Based on the two conditions, construction was to begin within the next five years. Construction began in January 2013 and has since been completed (YCC, 11 January 2013). The stops are not fully DDA compliant (Figures 6.8 and 6.9). The large glass building (red arrow) in Figure 6.9 is the hospital relative to the tram stop (roughly 50 metres).

Figure 6.8: New Bridge Road tram stop, photo from author

Figure 6.9: Tram stop relative to hospital, photo from author

The final tram stop location and design was the result of a number of meetings between Yarra Council staff, the Bridge Road Traders Association and the Epworth Hospital during the first half of 2011 followed by community consultation during the second half of 2011 (DOT, 28 February 2011). Consequently, the tram platform stop reveals how multiple road space allocation tensions conspire to constrain and constitute transport planning.

Before shifting attention to examining another tram fairway trial, several observations regarding the discussion up to this point can be made in relation to resolution of the capacity tension. Examining the PPTN drew attention to the need for new skills and knowledge to be developed. Continued emphasise by state authorities to implement the PPTN does reflect evidence of greater acceptance of a demand stance. However, questions remain as to the enactment of the stance in professional routines and organisational conventions. Examining projects implemented by Port Phillip council showed that challenges in enacting a demand stance are not limited to state authorities. Comparing the processes used to help construct the tram platform stops in Port Phillip and Yarra Council further highlights the contested nature around adopting a demand stance. Different implementation hurdles were perceived by transport planners in each project. In Port Phillip, the ‘unknown’ nature of the stop was the major hurdle.

In contrast, development of a formalised standard derived from the trial, resulted in the

‘perceived limits’ of the Bridge Road site being the major hurdle. In both instances, a new tram platform stop was constructed, thereby physically altering the road space.

However, the professional route from trialling to practical enactment of a demand stance in professional routines and organisational conventions is less certain. Thus, questions remain as to whether such material changes alone reflect evidence of adopting a demand stance. Practitioners were forced to enact different professional routines, competences and norms associated with disciplinary training (supported by organisational conventions). Yet, materiality in each case appears to have been insufficient to ingrain such changes more deeply at an organisational level.

Consequently, actions and decisions of transport planners were constrained and constituted by organisational conventions and professional norms. Examining even more recent tram priority projects further shows the evolving and contested nature of a demand stance in transport planning for Melbourne.