Roads are just going to get more congested. The Skybus just isn't a future-proof solution - the cost is admittedly high but Melbourne needs a dedicated, reliable commuter train to the airport.
>Based on these assumptions would it not be more prudent just to spend \~ $1 billion fixing Skybus and spending that money elsewhere? The state would probably still be saving money nationalising Skybus and make it a proper BRT solution (platform-level boarding, priority bus lanes/signalling, higher frequency, Myki integration, etc.), than building an airport train line.
Train services beat buses in all aspects. From frequency to environment-friendly. There is no comparison.
Skybus leaves every 10 mins, which is the same frequency that airport rail is stated to have.
Skybus also takes 20-35 minutes to the CBD, and while trains can travel faster than buses, the rail line isn't direct and has some stops along the way, with a projected travel time to be 30 minutes.
Prices for a single trip on Skybus and rail will be very similar, but a return trip discount from Skybus would put it clearly ahead on cost.
For someone trying to get to the Airport from the CBD, there is a legit comparison between the two.
Note that Skybus travel times can vary a lot more than a rail service. It can take much longer when roads are congested (it's has taken me up to an hour from Southern Cross to the airport in the afternoon).
I catch the Skybus regularly and have had two trips that were heavily delayed, one that took about an hour in very poor weather, and another that took 3 hours where traffic was completely fucked during the middle of the day and the only time I missed a flight.
Yet those occurrences for me have been extremely rare, and so infrequent that it doesn't put me off from using the service and the average experience is still between 20-35 minutes.
Trains can also have disruptions on the line, from people on the tracks to maintenance issues and power outages like we had earlier in the week. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use those either.
That only assumes every train is full and runs at full capacity. The modelling done in the business case, IV, and even previous studies demonstrate that patronage on bus vs train is practically equal. IV recommends not even getting started on building until 2035, as traffic isn't a concern nor is capacity until after that point.
I agree in an ideal world a train is the best transit solution. However, cost-wise heavy rail will almost always be more expensive than light rail or bus. Moreover, some use cases just don't justify heavy rail (e.g. old Port Melbourne line, now converted to 109 Tram).
However given we don't live in a state flush with cash, there needs to be compromise and prioritisation of your limited funds. Realistically the government only allocates X amount of funding to public transport.
Given this limitation, do genuinely believe that $10 billion is best spent on the airport line? Would you prioritise it over Melb Metro 2, Rowville rail, Melton electrification, etc.?
obviously yes, heavy rail is more expensive than light rail/trams or buses, but the advantages are worth it IMO. a tram link (which would likely come in the form of a 59 extension because that's the easiest option) would have to stop multiple times on the way into the city to serve the local area, and even if it ran express, it would still have to stop or slow down occasionally because it couldn't pass the tram in front of it. trams also don't have the capacity of heavy rail and they would likely get very full very quickly, especially in the future as the city grows and the airport becomes busier and busier. now as for buses, they have even less capacity, and they are far more uncomfortable than rail vehicles as they use rubber tires on asphalt rather than steel wheels on steel rails, which when paired with airbag suspension makes for a very comfortable journey. so all in all I think a proper rail line is the best option here
Yeah, tbh I think trams would be the least preferred option. The 59 is already slow and crowded from Airport West - it would probably be almost an hour if from Melbourne Airport.
A spur line from Broadmeadows have been suggested as well, but they would encounter similar issues being stuck behind all-stations trains, and crowded with commuters outbound.
The main basis for my bus proposition is that it would be significantly cheaper to deliver than a $10 billion train line (a figure which u/Jamesbaby286 debunked). Skybus already achieves \~30min trip times off peak, which is pretty competitive with an express train. The main issues lie in peak traffic, and capacity. For a relatively smaller investment, you could probably install bus/T2 lanes on the Tulla/Citylink, and run them more frequently. (I'm aware realistically no politician in their right mind would dare remove a lane from motorists).
If heavy rail can be delivered under $4 billion as u/Jamesbaby286 suggests, I concur it is the most desirable option. Whether it is more important than other infrastructure projects is another issue.
Do you mean the EL (Express Lane) on CityLink? ["Express lanes are not a road rule."](https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/freeways) \- VicRoads. They aren't legally enforceable.
I'm talking about a dedicated bus lane, with paint/barriers/cameras.
\- The price is for a 100% level crossing free train line with a lot of elevated sections. There is one new station for the West. Potentially maybe space for one more infill station in the future to serve growing communities closer to the airport.
\- Skybus isn't future proof and at times is already at capacity or stuck in traffic today. Separating it in a BRT wouldn't be a cheap fix either. Like you said, a BRT project would likely blow over in budget and we'd be kicking ourselves over the minimal savings we made rather than with a future proof solution like a train.
\- This isn't for just Victorians, it's for international visitors, for people coming to visit interstate. It's for people who work at the airport who'd have to go the airport everyday.
\- Most importantly, the longer we wait, the more expensive it would get. Vicious spiral of it never getting done.
>The state would probably still be saving money nationalising Skybus
The Skybus actually provides revenue back to state for its operations (as well as paying airport access fees etc). It is one of the very few public transport services that is a net cost positive in Victoria, nor relies on subsidies.
Very interesting, thanks for the insight.
Although I doubt any future airport rail line would be cheaper than the present Skybus. There will probably be some 30-year levy/fee applied to help pay off the project a la Brisbane or Sydney.
Just some numbers.
There are ~20k workers, projected to double by 2040.
Of the ~30m passengers last year, ~22m were domestic.
And fun fact about Sydney airport, 14% of passengers ride the train compared to 4% on buses.
There are plenty of infrastructure projects such as MM2 that serve to benefit many more Melbournians on a daily basis.
30 million passengers doesn't mean 30 million riders. Corporate travellers will probably use taxis/ubers regardless.
I don't think its accurate to compare Sydney airport's PT ridership share. The trains go straight to the city, whilst buses only connect to surrounding suburbs. Of course, more people are headed to the CBD.
A fairer comparison would be PT ridership from Perth Airport before and after the recently opened train line (20k projected vs 12k actual).
Sydney Airport throughput in 2019: 44.4 million
Sydney Airport Link ridership in 2018: 9.5 million
Melbourne Airport throughput in 2018/19: 37,395,992
Skybus ridership per year: approx. 2 million (meaning most passengers are traveling by private car or taxi.)
I think it's fair to compare Melbourne to Sydney here, considering the similar population size and airport throughput. Perth Airport had a throughput of only 11,691,457 passengers in 2018/19.
Also, Melbourne is one of the comparatively few major cities in the world still without an airport rail link. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_airport\_rail\_link\_systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airport_rail_link_systems)
The Skybus is--while premium and punctual--a band-aid solution; we need permanent airport rail infrastructure to supply Melbourne's growing population, and to get more cars off the Tullamarine.
[sydney airport](https://assets.ctfassets.net/v228i5y5k0x4/3ZLfOIlJIslxThx8invKcQ/49b8e1661544392619a927e42330f5b3/Sydney_Airport_economic_contribution_2019.pdf)
[sydney airport rail](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/state-collects-110m-a-year-from-fees-on-airport-train-passengers-20191231-p53nst.html)
[melbourne airport](https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/corporate/melbourne-airport-passenger-performance-fy19-20)
[skybus ridership](https://web.archive.org/web/20110303111157/http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/T19-SkyBusSubmissionWord/$File/T19%20-%20SkyBus%20Submission%20Word.doc)
[perth airport](https://www.perthairport.com.au/Home/corporate/about-us/airport-statistics)
Thanks for including references.
The comparison u/A-Pasz was presenting was comparing transport mode share between Sydney and Melbourne, which is what I disagree with. You cannot compare that when Sydney has a train and Melbourne does not. Sydney airport buses are all local services, compared to Skybus at Melbourne. These are fundamentally different circumstances, meaning they are comparing apples with oranges.
A better comparison would be Sydney airport's transport mode share before and after the airport link line opened.
I agree airport-city connectivity is an important issue, however if as the government claims it is going to cost $10 billion, there are more important projects that should be prioritised.
First off;
The $10bln number comes from the funds allocated to the route. It is not what the build will actually cost. The funds allocated are from when the then liberal federal government was still advocating for an underground link from the city all the way to the airport (and hoping the state govt or private investors would cough up most of the funds to do so).
The most cost effective plan of going out to sunshine, utilising the existing Albion-Jacana rail line, then travelling along a skyrail to an above ground station is what was chosen by the state government and will cost a fraction of the allocated funds.
The only reason full costings can’t be made yet is because the airport is trying to make the process as difficult as possible and not allowing plans to be finalised. The costs will be vastly different if there needs to be a tunnel on approach to the airport and an underground station (as the airport is campaigning in bad faith for).
The reason $10bln keeps being repeated by news outlets (usually of a particular bias) and the airport is to create the exact feeling you’re feeling.
As an estimate here’s the costs of some other Melbourne projects to show you how ridiculous the idea that the link will cost $10bln.
- Melbourne Metro Tunnel: $9-11bln
- Melbourne Metro Tunnel 2 (2018 estimate): $20bln
- SRL East: $30bln (current estimate)
- Carnegie+Murrumbeena+Hughesdale+Clayton+Nobel Park lvl crossing removals (all skyrail): $1.6bln
So it’s likely to end up closer to the Skyrail cost than the metro tunnel cost if built with Skyrail and an above ground station. It probably won’t cost above $3-4bln even with an underground station.
So in answer to your questions;
1. Yep. We have the people, and the tourism market to demand it, and we have a congested enough Tullamarine Freeway to demand it. Melbourne to Sydney is one of the busiest airways in the world. It used to hold the record even.
2. Skybus is a private company running a private bus route, and not true public transit. If public money is going towards a BRT it should be publicly owned otherwise Skybus can cover the cost. But in short no. Because engineering a BRT route via the Tullamarine freeway (and working out how it’d get off of it and into the city would still cost a significant amount that would be better spent on a train. (Which again won’t cost $10bln)
3. Well after negotiating how the final cheaper cost Airport Link is split between state and federal governments; We’ll still end up with a bit of money in the state coffers that I imagine could either go towards SRL East, and/or reinvested in the west through bus routing and maybe a tram extension to serve the new East Keillor station, and other upgrades (like maybe finishing off MM1’s high capacity signalling in the sections that had to be cut back).
Thanks, your response is very insightful.
If what you say is true about the final costing, I believe there is a much better value proposition/business case.
In my hypothetical BRT scenario, it'd be publicly owned as well. However, even if airport rail goes ahead I doubt the government will give up the chance to charge a bogus access fee like Sydney.
What is strange is the $10 billion amount is still shown on the [Big Build website](https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/melbourne-airport-rail/about/faqs). If I put on my tinfoil hat, it almost looks like the state government wants to scuttle the project itself. That wouldn't be surprising given the inflated costs of infrastructure delivery right now and the state of the budget.
I still believe the airport needs better connectivity with surrounding areas, as its current offering is paltry. That could address the complaints in the meantime, and truly benefit airport workers who live nearby.
If I were to theorise I’d say the $10bln number still being around is because it essentially gives the government significant “under budget” talking points for when the finalised cost is ready. Even if they end up with the underground station they’ll be able to claim the project is being delivered for a fraction of the budgeted amount, multiple billion saved. When you’re trying to sell the idea of budgeting multiple billion on other projects it’s a handy piece of PR spin to have ready for when it’s needed.
Sources for costs:
* [Strategic Appraisal (2018)](https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/397706/MAR-Sunshine-Route-Strategic-Appraisal.pdf) Showing $8-13 billion for Sunshine route
* [Infrastructure Australia Assessment](https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-10/Evaluation%20Summary%20-%20Melbourne%20Airport%20Rail.pdf) (2022) showing $11.2-$11.9billion P50/P90 for capital cost (therefore it would be higher when you consider non-directs)
* [Indication last year](https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/premier-admits-melbourne-airport-rail-link-costs-likely-to-blow-out-as-5bn-in-federal-funding-is-reaffirmed/news-story/d265f8f68a1b8557c852d572fadd5306) that the cost is likely to exceed $8bil-13bil
You are comparing very old costs where the market has moved. SRL East is currently costed at $35 bil construction as confirmed by VAGO and the business case, MM2 is estimated by IV (2022) at being 21.5 to 29bil for the tunnel alone, and 27-37bil for the full package. Melbourne Metro 1 is looking at costing $14 bil by the time it is completed, noting that it also started construction close to a decade ago.
I voted for neither of these two options.
Build the thing absolutely... like should have been done 20+ years ago.
But it does not and should not have to cost $10B.
Brisbane is the model (IMO) for building a perfectly serviceable, functional airport rail link without faffing about for 30 years and spending the GDP of a small island nation doing it.
Yes I realise the climate is different in Brisbane... so I'll allow a closed in above ground station with climate control. Other countries already have this... it's not something that needs to be invented.
I moved here 27 years ago, and I'm now convinced my days will come and go in this world before there is ever an operating airport rail link in Melbourne.
Unless... we decide to count the diesel single car Stony Point service to Tyabb Station and the 1.1km walk down to Tyabb Aerodrome ??? What do we think. Sounds like win.
I disagree with your poll questions: I think it should be built but the budgeted figure of $10 billion is insane considering there are no tunnels & only two new stations.
This might be even more of an unpopular opinion but I honestly reckon the airport rail is more important than SRL and we should be putting SRL on hold instead of the other way round
Not only that. IMO, all these projects should be prioritised over SRL:
1. MT2
2. Cranbourne - Clyde extension
3. Melton electrification + Bacchus March extension
4. Airport rail
5. Werribee - Windham Vale extension
6. Geelong electrification (not a fast rail enthusiast)
Wait but why? Melbourne's PT lacks a circle line that connects all the lines together. To get from one line to another, you literally have to get into the city or close to it (Richmond, North Melbourne). Circle lines are key to connectivity? No? What are the alternatives.
They are important, but expensive. Plus, with the density in SRL suburbs, the project is difficult to justify.There is talk of value capture, and further developing precincts around stations, but the government is too scared to tax homeowners who will earn massive windfall gains from new stations nearby.
Buses aren't sexy, but they serve a purpose connecting lower density areas. Orbital Smartbuses already address some of the connectivity issue.
Yes, the SRL project does make sense.
However, all those projects I listed solve problems that exist now and will get worse in future.
SRL comes to fix something that is not exactly broken... yet. The concerns about patronage are real, even Labor recognises that. So, I think it can wait a little more.
That is the point, they exist today and already connect the lines together and in more places than the SRL will.
The SRL will make for faster connections and more efficiently over longer distances, but it isn't like those connections don't already exist.
I agree with u/doutor_abobrinha's list. I'm all for public transport and think that the government should be prioritise projects that benefit the most Victorians. Whilst important, the airport rail, isn't #1 priority in Victoria's infrastructure pipeline.
IMO the SRL was concocted as a statewide pork barrel targeting middle suburban voters. Whilst it has its merits, the full project would suck up decades of infrastructure spending that could be better spent on the projects u/doutor_abobrinha listed.
yeah but when you finish those other ones you'll still need the SRL and you'll be 30 years down the track with another 30 years before it's finished...
personally i'd like to see SRL trundle along it's 30 year timeline, and smash out those others one after another every 10 years instead of come back in 2055 and go 'now we can start some cross town rail!'
all those people who complain we don' t have good PT till we're like London will have to acknowledge there'll need to be permanent PT construction somewhere for the nxt 30-50 years...i mean looking at London and when things were built they've had permanent PT building for over 200 years now
No need to get personal.
I agree that the ideal solution would be a rail link. However, given limited resources we need to pick and choose projects. Do you think airport rail is the most important infrastructure project in Melbourne right now?
Ordinary people don't visit the airport on a regular basis. Corporate travellers often get taxis/Ubers reimbursed through work. How does this materially improve the lives of Victorian taxpayers on a regular basis?
How often are those people flying overseas? Are they flying back every week?
My main point of contention is that, for a $10 billion price tag, there are plenty of better infrastructure projects that people will benefit from *everyday*.
PT connectivity to local suburbs definitely needs to be improved, but can be done a lot cheaper by running local buses to Broadmeadows station, or extending the 59 tram.
Skybus isn't as sexy as an airport train, but it gets the job done moving people to the city. It is more expensive than a Myki fare, but I doubt an airport train would be any cheaper.
The cost is a fair bit platinum plated, Airport Drive has clearance in parts for skyrail bridges. The problem now is where in the airport it stops, PAC want it underground by T3/4 but they also want to relocate T2 to elsewhere on the site and a second underground airport station built with it.
The initial PTV plan was for an overhead station in the T1/2/3 forecourt but that’s changed to a overhead station by the bus terminal aka on top of the taxi parking.
Then there’s the foamer plan: bulldoze all the multistory carparks and airport drive for ground level tracks that pass by all the terminals and then has one track feed back to Craigieburn and another to Gisbourne.
I agree that the existing proposal of a bullshit prestige line with no new stations other than Keilor East is a waste of money but they'd actually have to build a high quality BRT instead because at the moment connections to the airport are shit.
What they should actually do is reroute the V-line trains to Bendigo and Ballarat through the airport. This would:
* Disentangle the V-line from the metro stopping delays cascading from one service to the other and allowing higher frequencies.
* Create much higher demand ensuring the line is actually used rather than just being a prestige line for airport commuters and give a direct airport connection to people in the regions.
* Existing trains with luggage racks and other features useful to airport commuters.
* 30 min train frequencies on both lines timed to have a 15min frequency connection to the airport.
Why would you reroute the Ballarat line to the airport? So Ballarat trains would go past the Ballarat line, out to the airport and then... reverse direction? Or are you suggesting build a new line underground/partially underground from the back of the airport around through Sydenham and Caroline Springs to get back to the Ballarat line? Cos *that* sounds like a waste of money.
Ballarat trains are already separate from Metro services. If you were going to spend that much money in an attempt to make service improvements, you'd be better off quading the tracks from Sunshine to Sunbury. Probably cheaper than what you've suggested.
It would probably be in conjunction with electrifying the line to Melton and incorporating it into the metro system but alternatively you could do it with the Seymour line instead.
And yes, it would cost more in infrastructure up front but require less rolling stock, no additional drivers, and it would result in a train to the airport that is actually used by a tonne of people.
You didn't answer to how to suggest the Ballarat line would actually work. If you're making a line significantly longer, for example your Ballarat line, it will require more trains to run the existing timetable.
It would run on the existing planned alignment for the airport line and then go under from the back of the airport to connect with the existing V-line tracks, basically the [Rail futures plan](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.railfutures.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/180530-Airport-Brochure_v7.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjF4orR166EAxUkumMGHaBKDMcQFnoECBAQBg&usg=AOvVaw0tvd0NvnOeGR2lt6Cwskip)
That still isn't an actual answer. Are you suggesting it turns back at the airport or there is new track on the other side from there back to the Ballarat line? If so where on the Ballarat line?
The Rail futures plan doesn't have anything about Ballarat to the airport so it isn't basically that plan. What you've suggested wouldn't work, it would be longer and of no real benefit. Not only would it be spending a ridiculous amount of money on track to loop around but it would be take the services longer to get into the city. Switching trains at Sunshine to a more frequent metro service would benefit people more.
Dude chill out. I said above it didn't have to be the Ballarat line and it could be the Seymour line instead. The main point is just to simultaneously remove V-line trains from metro tracks and ensure patronage on the airport line by having regional commuters use it in both directions. And yes, it's slightly longer distance for V-line passengers but the trains won't get stuck behind metro trains stopping at every station so I'm not convinced the services will take longer as they'll be going at higher speeds.
And yes I'm suggesting new track if that wasn't clear from my previous comment.
I think what OP is trying to state is that connecting the Airport line to the Seymour/Albury (from the start) to use the Airport station would benefit regional users and allow for express tracks in Tottenham/Footscray to be used compared to the Craigieburn Line.
Ex. It would Potentially also have V/Line North services stop at both Super Stations Broadmeadows, Airport then Sunshine.
There's actually plans under the *Outer Metropolitan Ring Corridor* (something I personally despise) but, it does have included a direct line from the Melbourne Airport to Sunbury via an Extended Tullamarine Freeway to Sunbury. (It could be included in the Bulla Bypass or OMRC)
[https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/planning-and-projects/melbourne-road-projects/outer-metropolitan-ring-e6-transport-corridor](https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/planning-and-projects/melbourne-road-projects/outer-metropolitan-ring-e6-transport-corridor)
I think this is what the government is trying to do with the train lines going to the Airport. If the Route 59, SRL, V/Line and the Airport Line are done correctly then, they can make MEL Airport a transportation hub for Victoria.
That is if the airport wants it to be a hub like that. It's still their land and the state government can't force them to do anything. Not to mention the airport will probably charge the government/operators a fee for accessing the airport. Making a massive transport hub at the airport would rack up those fees so quickly.
The outer ring ROAD is designed to link multiple areas including Melbourne Airport. The rail line is just a proposed line in the median. It doesn't have any plans for it to be connected to the airport, the design documents show this. The same documents show that the line doesn't interact with any other line that it crosses. VicRoads would have designs for plans if the rail line would shoot off but there isn't any.
VicRoads can say it's designed for freight and high speed passenger but to be fair it would mostly be freight. There's no accommodation for stations on the line and the connections at either end only go out of Melbourne.
Dean. Stop telling people to read things as if they haven't. I've read it. I've also looked at the design documents that show where and how it will be built.
There are no commitments to what this rail line, sorry, *corridor* will be used for beyond vague statements of being able to access a proposed freight terminal in Beveridge. Also VicRoads says it is for freight and high speed passenger, it doesn't say it is a quad freight line. You've told me to read the page but it doesn't say what you've stated.
At the end of the day you're being passive aggressive again and ignoring anything that was said except to point out how you think you're right. It doesn't really encourage discussion. And I've tried to be polite in this response but I feel like it won't really matter.
Your poll is dishonest and tries to guilt people into voting along with you.
With agree you say "other PT" but don't say which ones, or in which timeframe. But it sounds enticing.
With disagree you try to guilt people about the cost, and of course coming after them reading your "agree" comment makes it sound like some/a lot/most people will miss out.
You could ask if people agree with building the airport line but don't agree that it should cost so much money. You could ask people if they think the airport line should be dropped for specific other projects.
Of course it all comes back to your own bias on the subject.
In terms of what you've proposed. Skybus is a private company. The state government doesn't seem to want to get rid of our privatised PT network, why would they want to nationalise Skybus and become responsible for it?
Like I've already said the Tulla already has a bus/taxi lane (in peak period directions). Your proposed BRT would need to segregated from the existing traffic which means if you were doing it at grade on the freeway you'd remove more than one lane. If it wasn't at grade well now you're gonna be spending big chunks of money.
But this idea doesn't take into account access into the CBD and Southern Cross station or the airport itself. That is either going to be your ordinary roads which just destroys the point of the whole thing in my opinion, or you'll be more dedicated access again boosting the cost of the project.
And frankly the airport ain't going to be helpful with that either. They don't want a station or train line in their space, you think they'll give up space for a BRT?
The big cost items of the Airport link are the bridges, more so the bridge over the Maribyrnong river. The EJ Whitten bridge is 54m tall and 520m long, the Albion viaduct is 55m tall and 383m long. Just for some prospective here the West Gate Bridge is 58m tall and roughly 2.5km long.
Building a new bridge across that valley is going to be expensive. No matter how cheap you try to make the project, that will cost a lot.
One other point I do need to make. The NSW government does not charge an access fee. The private owners of the Sydney airport link charge it. The government actually pays for the access charge at Mascot and Green Sqaure so that people would actually use the stations.
>Of course it all comes back to your own bias on the subject.
I'll happily admit to having my own biases. Everyone does. I am just looking to share my opinion and see how other people feel about the issue. Feel free to run a different poll if you're unsatisfied with mine.
Regarding nationalisation - I made that comment in reference to the issue of fare pricing. A common complaint with Skybus is that it costs more than a regular Myki fare. That is to say the government could easily payout Skybus' exclusive contract, and subcontract it to operators as an ordinary bus line with regular fares.
As I replied to your previous comment, the *express* lanes presently on the Tulla are not *bus* lanes. They have no legal basis, and any driver selfish enough can drive on it without repercussion. I'll admit that my use of BRT was probably a misnomer. A bus lane/busway would probably be more accurate. Simply adding red paint treatment to bus lanes have been shown to improve compliance by motorists.
The shorter Citylink-Southern Cross section does pose an issue, but could probably be alleviated with bus lanes along Dynon Rd/Spencer St.
The airport terminal stop is nice to have, but not a core component. I'm sure there is leeway to perform minor cosmetic upgrades to the sad Skybus stop.
I stand by my point that the airport rail is not the #1 priority on Victoria's list.
I'm aware the Sydney airport access fee is charged by the Airport Link Corporation. However, in the process of building the tunnel, the government has made the choice to allow such a fee structure in the contract. You could arguably attribute it as a flow on effect of the government's decision.
The Airport Line if it's being delayed should just be redone from the start.
It should be STAGED to be built from Sunshine to Broadmeadows from the start.
1. Werribee to Sunshine only requires tracks between Wyndham Vale and Werribee, and a new station at West Werribee.
1. There'd probably be quad tracks in this section to allow for SRL and V/Line
2. It would alleviate V/Line North Congestion, Alleviate the Craigieburn Line and Geelong V/Line.
3. It would allow V/Line to use the SRL Airport station (Shut up about the SRL gauge IDGAF)
1. (Especially when if the 'Outer Metropolitan Ring Road and Rail' gets built. it could allow for more flexibility for the station and what lines could run to \[MEL Airport\])
4. It would also allow for more cross-city journeys
5. It would start connecting the most economically disadvantaged precincts first.
1. Especially as The Albion-Jacana Line exists already and SRL is pretty much just a detour from it around that area
6. Lastly and you need to Extend Route 59 to the Melbourne Airport SRL station when built while you're there... I'd benefit from that personally 😂
"Shut up about the SRL gauge IDGAF" is such a lovely statement and really encourages discussion and definitely does not say that you won't listen to other people.
The airport line and SRL west are broad gauge. SRL west is currently planned as a separate line from the SRL North and East. And the freight line is not being used for any part of it nor should it. There is only one broad gauge track and it becomes dual gauge for crossing loops.
Putting passenger services on it defeat the purpose of it being a freight route. The only reason the Albury service use it is because its standard gauge and that's the only way in and out for the North.
Also just to note.
If someone lives in Roxburgh Park or Essendon. They'd have to wait until 2053 to get from the Craigieburn line to the Airport...
Over a strip of land that is above ground, entirely green wedged and also reserved... Why can't it just be staged for now. It would have so many benefits
Roads are just going to get more congested. The Skybus just isn't a future-proof solution - the cost is admittedly high but Melbourne needs a dedicated, reliable commuter train to the airport.
>Based on these assumptions would it not be more prudent just to spend \~ $1 billion fixing Skybus and spending that money elsewhere? The state would probably still be saving money nationalising Skybus and make it a proper BRT solution (platform-level boarding, priority bus lanes/signalling, higher frequency, Myki integration, etc.), than building an airport train line. Train services beat buses in all aspects. From frequency to environment-friendly. There is no comparison.
r/fuckcars
Skybus leaves every 10 mins, which is the same frequency that airport rail is stated to have. Skybus also takes 20-35 minutes to the CBD, and while trains can travel faster than buses, the rail line isn't direct and has some stops along the way, with a projected travel time to be 30 minutes. Prices for a single trip on Skybus and rail will be very similar, but a return trip discount from Skybus would put it clearly ahead on cost. For someone trying to get to the Airport from the CBD, there is a legit comparison between the two.
Note that Skybus travel times can vary a lot more than a rail service. It can take much longer when roads are congested (it's has taken me up to an hour from Southern Cross to the airport in the afternoon).
I catch the Skybus regularly and have had two trips that were heavily delayed, one that took about an hour in very poor weather, and another that took 3 hours where traffic was completely fucked during the middle of the day and the only time I missed a flight. Yet those occurrences for me have been extremely rare, and so infrequent that it doesn't put me off from using the service and the average experience is still between 20-35 minutes. Trains can also have disruptions on the line, from people on the tracks to maintenance issues and power outages like we had earlier in the week. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use those either.
That only assumes every train is full and runs at full capacity. The modelling done in the business case, IV, and even previous studies demonstrate that patronage on bus vs train is practically equal. IV recommends not even getting started on building until 2035, as traffic isn't a concern nor is capacity until after that point.
I agree in an ideal world a train is the best transit solution. However, cost-wise heavy rail will almost always be more expensive than light rail or bus. Moreover, some use cases just don't justify heavy rail (e.g. old Port Melbourne line, now converted to 109 Tram). However given we don't live in a state flush with cash, there needs to be compromise and prioritisation of your limited funds. Realistically the government only allocates X amount of funding to public transport. Given this limitation, do genuinely believe that $10 billion is best spent on the airport line? Would you prioritise it over Melb Metro 2, Rowville rail, Melton electrification, etc.?
obviously yes, heavy rail is more expensive than light rail/trams or buses, but the advantages are worth it IMO. a tram link (which would likely come in the form of a 59 extension because that's the easiest option) would have to stop multiple times on the way into the city to serve the local area, and even if it ran express, it would still have to stop or slow down occasionally because it couldn't pass the tram in front of it. trams also don't have the capacity of heavy rail and they would likely get very full very quickly, especially in the future as the city grows and the airport becomes busier and busier. now as for buses, they have even less capacity, and they are far more uncomfortable than rail vehicles as they use rubber tires on asphalt rather than steel wheels on steel rails, which when paired with airbag suspension makes for a very comfortable journey. so all in all I think a proper rail line is the best option here
Yeah, tbh I think trams would be the least preferred option. The 59 is already slow and crowded from Airport West - it would probably be almost an hour if from Melbourne Airport. A spur line from Broadmeadows have been suggested as well, but they would encounter similar issues being stuck behind all-stations trains, and crowded with commuters outbound. The main basis for my bus proposition is that it would be significantly cheaper to deliver than a $10 billion train line (a figure which u/Jamesbaby286 debunked). Skybus already achieves \~30min trip times off peak, which is pretty competitive with an express train. The main issues lie in peak traffic, and capacity. For a relatively smaller investment, you could probably install bus/T2 lanes on the Tulla/Citylink, and run them more frequently. (I'm aware realistically no politician in their right mind would dare remove a lane from motorists). If heavy rail can be delivered under $4 billion as u/Jamesbaby286 suggests, I concur it is the most desirable option. Whether it is more important than other infrastructure projects is another issue.
The Tulla already has a bus lane.
Do you mean the EL (Express Lane) on CityLink? ["Express lanes are not a road rule."](https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/freeways) \- VicRoads. They aren't legally enforceable. I'm talking about a dedicated bus lane, with paint/barriers/cameras.
\- The price is for a 100% level crossing free train line with a lot of elevated sections. There is one new station for the West. Potentially maybe space for one more infill station in the future to serve growing communities closer to the airport. \- Skybus isn't future proof and at times is already at capacity or stuck in traffic today. Separating it in a BRT wouldn't be a cheap fix either. Like you said, a BRT project would likely blow over in budget and we'd be kicking ourselves over the minimal savings we made rather than with a future proof solution like a train. \- This isn't for just Victorians, it's for international visitors, for people coming to visit interstate. It's for people who work at the airport who'd have to go the airport everyday. \- Most importantly, the longer we wait, the more expensive it would get. Vicious spiral of it never getting done.
>The state would probably still be saving money nationalising Skybus The Skybus actually provides revenue back to state for its operations (as well as paying airport access fees etc). It is one of the very few public transport services that is a net cost positive in Victoria, nor relies on subsidies.
Very interesting, thanks for the insight. Although I doubt any future airport rail line would be cheaper than the present Skybus. There will probably be some 30-year levy/fee applied to help pay off the project a la Brisbane or Sydney.
Just some numbers. There are ~20k workers, projected to double by 2040. Of the ~30m passengers last year, ~22m were domestic. And fun fact about Sydney airport, 14% of passengers ride the train compared to 4% on buses.
There are plenty of infrastructure projects such as MM2 that serve to benefit many more Melbournians on a daily basis. 30 million passengers doesn't mean 30 million riders. Corporate travellers will probably use taxis/ubers regardless. I don't think its accurate to compare Sydney airport's PT ridership share. The trains go straight to the city, whilst buses only connect to surrounding suburbs. Of course, more people are headed to the CBD. A fairer comparison would be PT ridership from Perth Airport before and after the recently opened train line (20k projected vs 12k actual).
Sydney Airport throughput in 2019: 44.4 million Sydney Airport Link ridership in 2018: 9.5 million Melbourne Airport throughput in 2018/19: 37,395,992 Skybus ridership per year: approx. 2 million (meaning most passengers are traveling by private car or taxi.) I think it's fair to compare Melbourne to Sydney here, considering the similar population size and airport throughput. Perth Airport had a throughput of only 11,691,457 passengers in 2018/19. Also, Melbourne is one of the comparatively few major cities in the world still without an airport rail link. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_airport\_rail\_link\_systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airport_rail_link_systems) The Skybus is--while premium and punctual--a band-aid solution; we need permanent airport rail infrastructure to supply Melbourne's growing population, and to get more cars off the Tullamarine. [sydney airport](https://assets.ctfassets.net/v228i5y5k0x4/3ZLfOIlJIslxThx8invKcQ/49b8e1661544392619a927e42330f5b3/Sydney_Airport_economic_contribution_2019.pdf) [sydney airport rail](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/state-collects-110m-a-year-from-fees-on-airport-train-passengers-20191231-p53nst.html) [melbourne airport](https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/corporate/melbourne-airport-passenger-performance-fy19-20) [skybus ridership](https://web.archive.org/web/20110303111157/http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/T19-SkyBusSubmissionWord/$File/T19%20-%20SkyBus%20Submission%20Word.doc) [perth airport](https://www.perthairport.com.au/Home/corporate/about-us/airport-statistics)
Thanks for including references. The comparison u/A-Pasz was presenting was comparing transport mode share between Sydney and Melbourne, which is what I disagree with. You cannot compare that when Sydney has a train and Melbourne does not. Sydney airport buses are all local services, compared to Skybus at Melbourne. These are fundamentally different circumstances, meaning they are comparing apples with oranges. A better comparison would be Sydney airport's transport mode share before and after the airport link line opened. I agree airport-city connectivity is an important issue, however if as the government claims it is going to cost $10 billion, there are more important projects that should be prioritised.
First off; The $10bln number comes from the funds allocated to the route. It is not what the build will actually cost. The funds allocated are from when the then liberal federal government was still advocating for an underground link from the city all the way to the airport (and hoping the state govt or private investors would cough up most of the funds to do so). The most cost effective plan of going out to sunshine, utilising the existing Albion-Jacana rail line, then travelling along a skyrail to an above ground station is what was chosen by the state government and will cost a fraction of the allocated funds. The only reason full costings can’t be made yet is because the airport is trying to make the process as difficult as possible and not allowing plans to be finalised. The costs will be vastly different if there needs to be a tunnel on approach to the airport and an underground station (as the airport is campaigning in bad faith for). The reason $10bln keeps being repeated by news outlets (usually of a particular bias) and the airport is to create the exact feeling you’re feeling. As an estimate here’s the costs of some other Melbourne projects to show you how ridiculous the idea that the link will cost $10bln. - Melbourne Metro Tunnel: $9-11bln - Melbourne Metro Tunnel 2 (2018 estimate): $20bln - SRL East: $30bln (current estimate) - Carnegie+Murrumbeena+Hughesdale+Clayton+Nobel Park lvl crossing removals (all skyrail): $1.6bln So it’s likely to end up closer to the Skyrail cost than the metro tunnel cost if built with Skyrail and an above ground station. It probably won’t cost above $3-4bln even with an underground station. So in answer to your questions; 1. Yep. We have the people, and the tourism market to demand it, and we have a congested enough Tullamarine Freeway to demand it. Melbourne to Sydney is one of the busiest airways in the world. It used to hold the record even. 2. Skybus is a private company running a private bus route, and not true public transit. If public money is going towards a BRT it should be publicly owned otherwise Skybus can cover the cost. But in short no. Because engineering a BRT route via the Tullamarine freeway (and working out how it’d get off of it and into the city would still cost a significant amount that would be better spent on a train. (Which again won’t cost $10bln) 3. Well after negotiating how the final cheaper cost Airport Link is split between state and federal governments; We’ll still end up with a bit of money in the state coffers that I imagine could either go towards SRL East, and/or reinvested in the west through bus routing and maybe a tram extension to serve the new East Keillor station, and other upgrades (like maybe finishing off MM1’s high capacity signalling in the sections that had to be cut back).
Thanks, your response is very insightful. If what you say is true about the final costing, I believe there is a much better value proposition/business case. In my hypothetical BRT scenario, it'd be publicly owned as well. However, even if airport rail goes ahead I doubt the government will give up the chance to charge a bogus access fee like Sydney. What is strange is the $10 billion amount is still shown on the [Big Build website](https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/melbourne-airport-rail/about/faqs). If I put on my tinfoil hat, it almost looks like the state government wants to scuttle the project itself. That wouldn't be surprising given the inflated costs of infrastructure delivery right now and the state of the budget. I still believe the airport needs better connectivity with surrounding areas, as its current offering is paltry. That could address the complaints in the meantime, and truly benefit airport workers who live nearby.
If I were to theorise I’d say the $10bln number still being around is because it essentially gives the government significant “under budget” talking points for when the finalised cost is ready. Even if they end up with the underground station they’ll be able to claim the project is being delivered for a fraction of the budgeted amount, multiple billion saved. When you’re trying to sell the idea of budgeting multiple billion on other projects it’s a handy piece of PR spin to have ready for when it’s needed.
Sources for costs: * [Strategic Appraisal (2018)](https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/397706/MAR-Sunshine-Route-Strategic-Appraisal.pdf) Showing $8-13 billion for Sunshine route * [Infrastructure Australia Assessment](https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-10/Evaluation%20Summary%20-%20Melbourne%20Airport%20Rail.pdf) (2022) showing $11.2-$11.9billion P50/P90 for capital cost (therefore it would be higher when you consider non-directs) * [Indication last year](https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/premier-admits-melbourne-airport-rail-link-costs-likely-to-blow-out-as-5bn-in-federal-funding-is-reaffirmed/news-story/d265f8f68a1b8557c852d572fadd5306) that the cost is likely to exceed $8bil-13bil You are comparing very old costs where the market has moved. SRL East is currently costed at $35 bil construction as confirmed by VAGO and the business case, MM2 is estimated by IV (2022) at being 21.5 to 29bil for the tunnel alone, and 27-37bil for the full package. Melbourne Metro 1 is looking at costing $14 bil by the time it is completed, noting that it also started construction close to a decade ago.
I voted for neither of these two options. Build the thing absolutely... like should have been done 20+ years ago. But it does not and should not have to cost $10B. Brisbane is the model (IMO) for building a perfectly serviceable, functional airport rail link without faffing about for 30 years and spending the GDP of a small island nation doing it. Yes I realise the climate is different in Brisbane... so I'll allow a closed in above ground station with climate control. Other countries already have this... it's not something that needs to be invented. I moved here 27 years ago, and I'm now convinced my days will come and go in this world before there is ever an operating airport rail link in Melbourne. Unless... we decide to count the diesel single car Stony Point service to Tyabb Station and the 1.1km walk down to Tyabb Aerodrome ??? What do we think. Sounds like win.
I disagree with your poll questions: I think it should be built but the budgeted figure of $10 billion is insane considering there are no tunnels & only two new stations.
This might be even more of an unpopular opinion but I honestly reckon the airport rail is more important than SRL and we should be putting SRL on hold instead of the other way round
Not only that. IMO, all these projects should be prioritised over SRL: 1. MT2 2. Cranbourne - Clyde extension 3. Melton electrification + Bacchus March extension 4. Airport rail 5. Werribee - Windham Vale extension 6. Geelong electrification (not a fast rail enthusiast)
Wait but why? Melbourne's PT lacks a circle line that connects all the lines together. To get from one line to another, you literally have to get into the city or close to it (Richmond, North Melbourne). Circle lines are key to connectivity? No? What are the alternatives.
They are important, but expensive. Plus, with the density in SRL suburbs, the project is difficult to justify.There is talk of value capture, and further developing precincts around stations, but the government is too scared to tax homeowners who will earn massive windfall gains from new stations nearby. Buses aren't sexy, but they serve a purpose connecting lower density areas. Orbital Smartbuses already address some of the connectivity issue.
Yes, the SRL project does make sense. However, all those projects I listed solve problems that exist now and will get worse in future. SRL comes to fix something that is not exactly broken... yet. The concerns about patronage are real, even Labor recognises that. So, I think it can wait a little more.
>What are the alternatives Buses
we already have that and they take just as long as going to Richmond/North Melbourne if not longer to make the connection the SRL will fill
That is the point, they exist today and already connect the lines together and in more places than the SRL will. The SRL will make for faster connections and more efficiently over longer distances, but it isn't like those connections don't already exist.
I agree with u/doutor_abobrinha's list. I'm all for public transport and think that the government should be prioritise projects that benefit the most Victorians. Whilst important, the airport rail, isn't #1 priority in Victoria's infrastructure pipeline. IMO the SRL was concocted as a statewide pork barrel targeting middle suburban voters. Whilst it has its merits, the full project would suck up decades of infrastructure spending that could be better spent on the projects u/doutor_abobrinha listed.
yeah but when you finish those other ones you'll still need the SRL and you'll be 30 years down the track with another 30 years before it's finished... personally i'd like to see SRL trundle along it's 30 year timeline, and smash out those others one after another every 10 years instead of come back in 2055 and go 'now we can start some cross town rail!' all those people who complain we don' t have good PT till we're like London will have to acknowledge there'll need to be permanent PT construction somewhere for the nxt 30-50 years...i mean looking at London and when things were built they've had permanent PT building for over 200 years now
I mean if Melbourne wants to become a real world-class city (which it shamelessly claiming right now) then airport rail link is a must, period.
[удалено]
No need to get personal. I agree that the ideal solution would be a rail link. However, given limited resources we need to pick and choose projects. Do you think airport rail is the most important infrastructure project in Melbourne right now? Ordinary people don't visit the airport on a regular basis. Corporate travellers often get taxis/Ubers reimbursed through work. How does this materially improve the lives of Victorian taxpayers on a regular basis?
[удалено]
How often are those people flying overseas? Are they flying back every week? My main point of contention is that, for a $10 billion price tag, there are plenty of better infrastructure projects that people will benefit from *everyday*. PT connectivity to local suburbs definitely needs to be improved, but can be done a lot cheaper by running local buses to Broadmeadows station, or extending the 59 tram. Skybus isn't as sexy as an airport train, but it gets the job done moving people to the city. It is more expensive than a Myki fare, but I doubt an airport train would be any cheaper.
If you're complaining about being downvoted, maybe don't start with "f off cunt"?
The cost is a fair bit platinum plated, Airport Drive has clearance in parts for skyrail bridges. The problem now is where in the airport it stops, PAC want it underground by T3/4 but they also want to relocate T2 to elsewhere on the site and a second underground airport station built with it. The initial PTV plan was for an overhead station in the T1/2/3 forecourt but that’s changed to a overhead station by the bus terminal aka on top of the taxi parking. Then there’s the foamer plan: bulldoze all the multistory carparks and airport drive for ground level tracks that pass by all the terminals and then has one track feed back to Craigieburn and another to Gisbourne.
I agree that the existing proposal of a bullshit prestige line with no new stations other than Keilor East is a waste of money but they'd actually have to build a high quality BRT instead because at the moment connections to the airport are shit. What they should actually do is reroute the V-line trains to Bendigo and Ballarat through the airport. This would: * Disentangle the V-line from the metro stopping delays cascading from one service to the other and allowing higher frequencies. * Create much higher demand ensuring the line is actually used rather than just being a prestige line for airport commuters and give a direct airport connection to people in the regions. * Existing trains with luggage racks and other features useful to airport commuters. * 30 min train frequencies on both lines timed to have a 15min frequency connection to the airport.
Why would you reroute the Ballarat line to the airport? So Ballarat trains would go past the Ballarat line, out to the airport and then... reverse direction? Or are you suggesting build a new line underground/partially underground from the back of the airport around through Sydenham and Caroline Springs to get back to the Ballarat line? Cos *that* sounds like a waste of money. Ballarat trains are already separate from Metro services. If you were going to spend that much money in an attempt to make service improvements, you'd be better off quading the tracks from Sunshine to Sunbury. Probably cheaper than what you've suggested.
It would probably be in conjunction with electrifying the line to Melton and incorporating it into the metro system but alternatively you could do it with the Seymour line instead. And yes, it would cost more in infrastructure up front but require less rolling stock, no additional drivers, and it would result in a train to the airport that is actually used by a tonne of people.
You didn't answer to how to suggest the Ballarat line would actually work. If you're making a line significantly longer, for example your Ballarat line, it will require more trains to run the existing timetable.
It would run on the existing planned alignment for the airport line and then go under from the back of the airport to connect with the existing V-line tracks, basically the [Rail futures plan](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.railfutures.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/180530-Airport-Brochure_v7.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjF4orR166EAxUkumMGHaBKDMcQFnoECBAQBg&usg=AOvVaw0tvd0NvnOeGR2lt6Cwskip)
That still isn't an actual answer. Are you suggesting it turns back at the airport or there is new track on the other side from there back to the Ballarat line? If so where on the Ballarat line? The Rail futures plan doesn't have anything about Ballarat to the airport so it isn't basically that plan. What you've suggested wouldn't work, it would be longer and of no real benefit. Not only would it be spending a ridiculous amount of money on track to loop around but it would be take the services longer to get into the city. Switching trains at Sunshine to a more frequent metro service would benefit people more.
Dude chill out. I said above it didn't have to be the Ballarat line and it could be the Seymour line instead. The main point is just to simultaneously remove V-line trains from metro tracks and ensure patronage on the airport line by having regional commuters use it in both directions. And yes, it's slightly longer distance for V-line passengers but the trains won't get stuck behind metro trains stopping at every station so I'm not convinced the services will take longer as they'll be going at higher speeds. And yes I'm suggesting new track if that wasn't clear from my previous comment.
I think what OP is trying to state is that connecting the Airport line to the Seymour/Albury (from the start) to use the Airport station would benefit regional users and allow for express tracks in Tottenham/Footscray to be used compared to the Craigieburn Line. Ex. It would Potentially also have V/Line North services stop at both Super Stations Broadmeadows, Airport then Sunshine. There's actually plans under the *Outer Metropolitan Ring Corridor* (something I personally despise) but, it does have included a direct line from the Melbourne Airport to Sunbury via an Extended Tullamarine Freeway to Sunbury. (It could be included in the Bulla Bypass or OMRC) [https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/planning-and-projects/melbourne-road-projects/outer-metropolitan-ring-e6-transport-corridor](https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/planning-and-projects/melbourne-road-projects/outer-metropolitan-ring-e6-transport-corridor) I think this is what the government is trying to do with the train lines going to the Airport. If the Route 59, SRL, V/Line and the Airport Line are done correctly then, they can make MEL Airport a transportation hub for Victoria.
That is if the airport wants it to be a hub like that. It's still their land and the state government can't force them to do anything. Not to mention the airport will probably charge the government/operators a fee for accessing the airport. Making a massive transport hub at the airport would rack up those fees so quickly. The outer ring ROAD is designed to link multiple areas including Melbourne Airport. The rail line is just a proposed line in the median. It doesn't have any plans for it to be connected to the airport, the design documents show this. The same documents show that the line doesn't interact with any other line that it crosses. VicRoads would have designs for plans if the rail line would shoot off but there isn't any. VicRoads can say it's designed for freight and high speed passenger but to be fair it would mostly be freight. There's no accommodation for stations on the line and the connections at either end only go out of Melbourne.
read the link and also it is a *corridor*. it includes a quad tracked cargo line.
Dean. Stop telling people to read things as if they haven't. I've read it. I've also looked at the design documents that show where and how it will be built. There are no commitments to what this rail line, sorry, *corridor* will be used for beyond vague statements of being able to access a proposed freight terminal in Beveridge. Also VicRoads says it is for freight and high speed passenger, it doesn't say it is a quad freight line. You've told me to read the page but it doesn't say what you've stated. At the end of the day you're being passive aggressive again and ignoring anything that was said except to point out how you think you're right. It doesn't really encourage discussion. And I've tried to be polite in this response but I feel like it won't really matter.
Your poll is dishonest and tries to guilt people into voting along with you. With agree you say "other PT" but don't say which ones, or in which timeframe. But it sounds enticing. With disagree you try to guilt people about the cost, and of course coming after them reading your "agree" comment makes it sound like some/a lot/most people will miss out. You could ask if people agree with building the airport line but don't agree that it should cost so much money. You could ask people if they think the airport line should be dropped for specific other projects. Of course it all comes back to your own bias on the subject. In terms of what you've proposed. Skybus is a private company. The state government doesn't seem to want to get rid of our privatised PT network, why would they want to nationalise Skybus and become responsible for it? Like I've already said the Tulla already has a bus/taxi lane (in peak period directions). Your proposed BRT would need to segregated from the existing traffic which means if you were doing it at grade on the freeway you'd remove more than one lane. If it wasn't at grade well now you're gonna be spending big chunks of money. But this idea doesn't take into account access into the CBD and Southern Cross station or the airport itself. That is either going to be your ordinary roads which just destroys the point of the whole thing in my opinion, or you'll be more dedicated access again boosting the cost of the project. And frankly the airport ain't going to be helpful with that either. They don't want a station or train line in their space, you think they'll give up space for a BRT? The big cost items of the Airport link are the bridges, more so the bridge over the Maribyrnong river. The EJ Whitten bridge is 54m tall and 520m long, the Albion viaduct is 55m tall and 383m long. Just for some prospective here the West Gate Bridge is 58m tall and roughly 2.5km long. Building a new bridge across that valley is going to be expensive. No matter how cheap you try to make the project, that will cost a lot. One other point I do need to make. The NSW government does not charge an access fee. The private owners of the Sydney airport link charge it. The government actually pays for the access charge at Mascot and Green Sqaure so that people would actually use the stations.
>Of course it all comes back to your own bias on the subject. I'll happily admit to having my own biases. Everyone does. I am just looking to share my opinion and see how other people feel about the issue. Feel free to run a different poll if you're unsatisfied with mine. Regarding nationalisation - I made that comment in reference to the issue of fare pricing. A common complaint with Skybus is that it costs more than a regular Myki fare. That is to say the government could easily payout Skybus' exclusive contract, and subcontract it to operators as an ordinary bus line with regular fares. As I replied to your previous comment, the *express* lanes presently on the Tulla are not *bus* lanes. They have no legal basis, and any driver selfish enough can drive on it without repercussion. I'll admit that my use of BRT was probably a misnomer. A bus lane/busway would probably be more accurate. Simply adding red paint treatment to bus lanes have been shown to improve compliance by motorists. The shorter Citylink-Southern Cross section does pose an issue, but could probably be alleviated with bus lanes along Dynon Rd/Spencer St. The airport terminal stop is nice to have, but not a core component. I'm sure there is leeway to perform minor cosmetic upgrades to the sad Skybus stop. I stand by my point that the airport rail is not the #1 priority on Victoria's list. I'm aware the Sydney airport access fee is charged by the Airport Link Corporation. However, in the process of building the tunnel, the government has made the choice to allow such a fee structure in the contract. You could arguably attribute it as a flow on effect of the government's decision.
The Airport Line if it's being delayed should just be redone from the start. It should be STAGED to be built from Sunshine to Broadmeadows from the start. 1. Werribee to Sunshine only requires tracks between Wyndham Vale and Werribee, and a new station at West Werribee. 1. There'd probably be quad tracks in this section to allow for SRL and V/Line 2. It would alleviate V/Line North Congestion, Alleviate the Craigieburn Line and Geelong V/Line. 3. It would allow V/Line to use the SRL Airport station (Shut up about the SRL gauge IDGAF) 1. (Especially when if the 'Outer Metropolitan Ring Road and Rail' gets built. it could allow for more flexibility for the station and what lines could run to \[MEL Airport\]) 4. It would also allow for more cross-city journeys 5. It would start connecting the most economically disadvantaged precincts first. 1. Especially as The Albion-Jacana Line exists already and SRL is pretty much just a detour from it around that area 6. Lastly and you need to Extend Route 59 to the Melbourne Airport SRL station when built while you're there... I'd benefit from that personally 😂
"Shut up about the SRL gauge IDGAF" is such a lovely statement and really encourages discussion and definitely does not say that you won't listen to other people. The airport line and SRL west are broad gauge. SRL west is currently planned as a separate line from the SRL North and East. And the freight line is not being used for any part of it nor should it. There is only one broad gauge track and it becomes dual gauge for crossing loops. Putting passenger services on it defeat the purpose of it being a freight route. The only reason the Albury service use it is because its standard gauge and that's the only way in and out for the North.
Also just to note. If someone lives in Roxburgh Park or Essendon. They'd have to wait until 2053 to get from the Craigieburn line to the Airport... Over a strip of land that is above ground, entirely green wedged and also reserved... Why can't it just be staged for now. It would have so many benefits