MEL Train derailed by buck-passing and vested interests

[Hvr]

It is in the news again, the missing train link between MEL AP and the city.

Next Thursday marks 40 years since Melbourne Airport opened, ushering in a modern age of international jet travel to an increasingly cosmopolitan city.
But thanks to decades of buck-passing and pandering to vested interests by successive state and federal governments, Melbourne - unlike so many other cities of its size and wealth - does not have a railway line to its airport.

And the reason why there will be a huge fight to ever get a rail line.

SkyBus managing director Simon Cowen expects patronage to double to 4 million by 2013. His family-controlled company made a $5 million profit last financial year, and paid $1.1. million to the government (payments escalate with earnings).


''A lot of people don't care if they get a bus or a train, and that's a reason a bus is a great solution,'' says Cowen, who believes a rail line is not inevitable. ''There has to be more and more capacity in public transport service. It can be a six-carriage train or a monorail.'' Or, he says, it can be a bus line.

The follow up in today's paper:

MELBOURNE would fall behind other international cities unless planning began now on an airport rail link, lord mayor Robert Doyle said yesterday.
His comment comes as the head of Melbourne Airport says the state government is considering widening the Tullamarine Freeway again, from four to six lanes between the Western Ring Road and the airport.

I cannot see Doyle ever doing anything but talking loudly, he was a member of the Kennett state government which tried to close and rip up most rail lines.

 

[anat0l]

They could do what they normally do in other capital cities.

They could build the train line over time and over budget, then charge prices that are so high that the most savvy people will go back to using the Skybus (as well as take advantage of the free city hotel transfers at Spencer Street Station).

Not only that, but the train service would be leased to a private company, hard for the government control, but would utilise existing rolling stock on existing lines, so there's always a good chance that there will be delays or cancellations, not to mention that it would not be impervious to any existing problems on the existing stock.

 

[notzac]

Seriously -- why do we need to have a rail link to the airport? Skybus works exceptionally well. I don't see why the gov't should spend a stack of cash trying to fix something that isn't broken to begin with..

 

[munitalP]

Seriously -- why do we need to have a rail link to the airport? Skybus works exceptionally well. I don't see why the gov't should spend a stack of cash trying to fix something that isn't broken to begin with..

I disagree...

One issue on the tulla freeway and your skybus will be gridlocked and you will miss your flight or meeting if you have not allowed an increased travel time contingency.

Melbourne airport needs a train to the city.

munitalP

 

[danielc]

Seriously -- why do we need to have a rail link to the airport? Skybus works exceptionally well. I don't see why the gov't should spend a stack of cash trying to fix something that isn't broken to begin with..

+1

With few exceptions, I have always used SKYBUS to get to/from the airport. I find it to be a very efficient and reasonably-priced service that leaves the Metro train service far behind in terms of reliability. I think the taxpayer dollars would be better spent on getting MYKI working properly for all Melbournians and leave the airport transport to SKYBUS.

 

[docjames]

One issue on the tulla freeway and your skybus will be gridlocked and you will miss your flight or meeting if you have not allowed an increased travel time contingency.

Melbourne airport needs a train to the city.

+1 and with traffic growth at airport / on tulla / growth of city as a whole, it needs to happen.

I guess an 11 lane each way tulla would be another option....

 

[UP4014]

I disagree...

One issue on the tulla freeway and your skybus will be gridlocked and you will miss your flight or meeting if you have not allowed an increased travel time contingency.

Melbourne airport needs a train to the city.

munitalP

It does indeed need a rail link.

 

[serfty]

They have good communication the Skybus drivers and do re-route when necessary. At various times I've had the Skybus use:

• Inbound: Exit onto Western ring Road, via Pasco Vale road - rejoining Citylink at Bell St.
• Outbound: Continued along Calder Fwy and used Kielor Pk Drive and South Centre Road
• Outbound: Use Mt. Alexander Rd, rejoining at Bulla Road.

Not to mention frequently taking the Mercer Drive early exit and going past the Express (Tiger) terminal.

 

[notzac]

One issue on the tulla freeway and your skybus will be gridlocked and you will miss your flight or meeting if you have not allowed an increased travel time contingency.

..and an accident on one of the rail crossings, or perhaps a train breakdown, would end up causing the same problems -- probably moreso, because trains can't exactly take a different route if there's a problem on that line. I've been on the Skybus a couple times where there'd been an accident on the Tulla, and the driver got us off the freeway and used other roads to get us to the airport with only a short delay to the arrival time.

 

[browski]

+1 and with traffic growth at airport / on tulla / growth of city as a whole, it needs to happen.

I guess an 11 lane each way tulla would be another option....

Why can't we have a high speed boat service? We should investigate this so that we have another excuse/delay/distraction from introducing the rail service.
Really 4 hours in the short term carpark, costs $50 - who could possibly think that is not reasonable. :shock:
Let then eat cake......

 

[docjames]

..and an accident on one of the rail crossings, or perhaps a train breakdown, would end up causing the same problems -- probably moreso, because trains can't exactly take a different route if there's a problem on that line. I've been on the Skybus a couple times where there'd been an accident on the Tulla, and the driver got us off the freeway and used other roads to get us to the airport with only a short delay to the arrival time.

Frequency of rail crossing accidents vs tulla delays?

 

[munitalP]

..and an accident on one of the rail crossings, or perhaps a train breakdown, would end up causing the same problems -- probably moreso, because trains can't exactly take a different route if there's a problem on that line. I've been on the Skybus a couple times where there'd been an accident on the Tulla, and the driver got us off the freeway and used other roads to get us to the airport with only a short delay to the arrival time.

I agree with your reasoning however would point out that there are multiple accidents on a daily basis on the tulla and WRR - infrequently do we see issues on the rail links as much as the media would like us to believe there are more.

Consider also, if there was a rail link, a high probability would be it would be underground. Very little chance of accidents.

Train services in a few airports I have been in and actually used them are all good with the exception of Sydney where the state government and rail corp have a gun to your head every time you us their rail link and force the extra fee upon you. When travelling in a group of 3 or 4, this fee outweighs the cost of a cab!

munitalP

 

[notzac]

Frequency of rail crossing accidents vs tulla delays?

Point - but then again, I've only been delayed once going out to MEL, and I usually take the Skybus at an in-theory bad time to do so (somewhere between 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM weekdays). I still stand by my statement of if it ain't broke don't fix it.

If they do actually build a rail link, I certainly hope it's priced appropriately and not just whatever the market will bear.

 

[browski]

If they do actually build a rail link, I certainly hope it's priced appropriately and not just whatever the market will bear.

I cannot think of the last example where something was priced appropriately. Maybe a gold FF subscription.........

 

[UP4014]

I agree with your reasoning however would point out that there are multiple accidents on a daily basis on the tulla and WRR - infrequently do we see issues on the rail links as much as the media would like us to believe there are more.

Consider also, if there was a rail link, a high probability would be it would be underground. Very little chance of accidents.

Train services in a few airports I have been in and actually used them are all good with the exception of Sydney where the state government and rail corp have a gun to your head every time you us their rail link and force the extra fee upon you. When travelling in a group of 3 or 4, this fee outweighs the cost of a cab!

munitalP

It's actually not Railcorp or the Govt, the New Southern Railway (the correct name for the airport line) was built to open up the Green Square Mascot area, the airport stations were a by-product and are private with the ticket sales and train operation outsourced to CityRail (RailCorp).

The fee could be dropped at any time by the private airport owners if they wanted to the regular $4.80 which is the bit that goes to Railcorp.

In fact Railcorp is required to pay compensation to the airport owners if there are less than the prescribed number of trains. The users and suppliers are over a barrell to the private airports people yet again.:evil:

 

[docjames]

Point - but then again, I've only been delayed once going out to MEL, and I usually take the Skybus at an in-theory bad time to do so (somewhere between 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM weekdays). I still stand by my statement of if it ain't broke don't fix it.

If they do actually build a rail link, I certainly hope it's priced appropriately and not just whatever the market will bear.

The problem with "aint broke dont fix" is allowing for future growth (in areas i've mentioned in a prior post).

The skybus may work with little delay currently, but there is a risk of that delay increasing as time passes. Rail to me is a better solution. YMMV.

 

[anat0l]

The problem with "aint broke dont fix" is allowing for future growth (in areas i've mentioned in a prior post).

The skybus may work with little delay currently, but there is a risk of that delay increasing as time passes. Rail to me is a better solution. YMMV.

That of course depends on the expected growth of both the airport and the areas around the airport.

Personally I think developing the area around Tullamarine for residential is a dumb idea (we'll end up with another case like SYD/Mascot). If it were to become a much more vibrant commercial/industrial area then we may have a case for extra transportation (because after all not all people can be expected to drive there, right?)

For MEL Tulla Airport itself, from the most quickly resourced statistics I could find, passenger movements in MEL are about 20-30% lower than that of SYD. MEL could probably expand to fill that void and then it will be a test as to whether Skybus alone remains a robust means of airport transportation. Not sure at the moment whether MEL Airport will be targeting that kind of growth in the medium term.

As I said, I don't expect an efficient business model or a decent price for a rail journey between the airport and city if it does happen. Someone also mentioned recovery from downtime for the rail service - that is not to be underestimated at all. (Although probably much to the same degree of considering recovery from road traffic incidents between the city and airport with Skybus).


WARNING: Posted whilst slightly tired. May contain illogical information.

 

[Hvr]

That of course depends on the expected growth of both the airport and the areas around the airport.

Personally I think developing the area around Tullamarine for residential is a dumb idea (we'll end up with another case like SYD/Mascot). If it were to become a much more vibrant commercial/industrial area then we may have a case for extra transportation (because after all not all people can be expected to drive there, right?)

...

As I said, I don't expect an efficient business model or a decent price for a rail journey between the airport and city if it does happen. Someone also mentioned recovery from downtime for the rail service - that is not to be underestimated at all. (Although probably much to the same degree of considering recovery from road traffic incidents between the city and airport with Skybus).


...

There are already residential areas between the city and the AP, a quick train stopping one or two times at major stations would service those areas as well as the AP. Also if we stop thinking of the AP as a mid point to get onto a plane and think of it as a destination like a shopping centre then the usage of public transport would be higher and it would drive the prices down for both the journey and the goods at the AP.

If it was a proposed new freeway the government would toss millions at a private company and say make it happen and soon.

Why can't private companies build railways as quickly and efficiently as a they build roads? My guess is they can't be bothered.

 

[nlagalle]

As much as I'd love to see a rail link to the airport, I can't see it being effective for this reason:

sheer cost would make it expensive. It would cost billions to make a new line from Southern Cross to the Airport.. Now many of you probably ask why don't we use existing rail line to Broadmeadows? Well there is already congestion on that line, V/Line trains already get jammed up with Metro trains stopping all stations closer to the city where all the western lines merge. So in the mornings, the train could well be slower than the skybus. My mate works at Metro and we spoke about it at length one night.

I've caught the skybus on peak times and I have never been held up. It's been 20 minutes


On another note about the tulla freeway. One of my old cab drivers used to work for a building company who put in a tender for the Tulla freeway. And American firm. 8 lanes - each way was the original concept, but got knocked back..

my 2c worth!

 

[munitalP]

As much as I'd love to see a rail link to the airport, I can't see it being effective for this reason:

sheer cost would make it expensive. It would cost billions to make a new line from Southern Cross to the Airport.. Now many of you probably ask why don't we use existing rail line to Broadmeadows? Well there is already congestion on that line, V/Line trains already get jammed up with Metro trains stopping all stations closer to the city where all the western lines merge. So in the mornings, the train could well be slower than the skybus. My mate works at Metro and we spoke about it at length one night.

I've caught the skybus on peak times and I have never been held up. It's been 20 minutes


On another note about the tulla freeway. One of my old cab drivers used to work for a building company who put in a tender for the Tulla freeway. And American firm. 8 lanes - each way was the original concept, but got knocked back..

my 2c worth!

If I was designing the line, it would be a spur line coming from the Bendigo V-Line track. It would be silly to place a high speed connection from city to AP on a commuter line - too many risks of hold up (as was mentioned by Notzac earlier)

Also @ HVR - rail lines participially underground can be built with rocket speeds now days - just look at the development (continuous) of most Asian cities... Our state Governments choose not to take these options - less backhanders maybe? :shock:

munitalP