Vic How would you rate Daniel Andrews' performance as Victorian Premier? - Part 7

[Mofra]

there is actually a lot of people that would use the airport rail

skybus and taxi don't want it for a reason

I still had a lot of sympathy for the monorail idea. Less compulsory acquisition required, no disruption to freeway traffic as infrastructure is built.

Most cities around the world have a rail link to their major airport and they are very well used.

 

[Hornberger]

there is actually a lot of people that would use the airport rail

skybus and taxi don't want it for a reason

People will use airport rail if it offers convenient and hassle-free option.

This will primarily be interstate or international visitors whose destination is the CBD, or people living between Sunshine and Pakenham / Cranbourne. May be a reasonable option for people living on either the Frankston or Sandringham Lines.

No one is going to get the airport rail from Heidelberg or Reservoir, more convenient to get an uber and cheaper to get the bus.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

airport rail is great - i used it all the time when in sydney

and i currently use skybus, so it will be an improvement on that

The only issue in Sydney is the gate access fee. 15 bucks just to use the station is stupid. Charging a premium for a non premium service.
It's a mistake many have made around the world

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The only issue in Sydney is the gate access fee. 15 bucks just to use the station is stupid. Charging a premium for a non premium service.
It's a mistake many have made around the world

Paid for a cab to the CBD?

 

[Brad Goodman]

People get the tube from Heathrow to Central London, they’ll take the train between Melbourne airport and the CBD.

 

[Saint]

The only issue in Sydney is the gate access fee. 15 bucks just to use the station is stupid. Charging a premium for a non premium service.
It's a mistake many have made around the world

That's to pay for the infrastructure. $10b is a lot for people to sporadically use a rail service. Melbourne Metro 2 would double the capacity of the metro network through the CBD and cost about the same.

(Nobody was a stretch, but compared to the heavy rail alternative projects, it's just staggeringly poor return).

Brisbane and Sydney Rail Links both went bankrupt. Melbourne won't because taxpayers are subsidising air travellers (who don't need the subsidy, btw).

Mel Airport has 19m passengers per year. If they get 10% share (very high), that's 38m passengers over 20 years. at $10b (very low), that's $263 per trip. (Lots of discounting etc to be done, but this is the basics and very favourable)

The fee they'll be charged will barely cover operational costs (probably won't if they run lots of off-peak services).

So it'd be cheaper for the State and Federal Govts to give those people wishing to use the rail a taxi voucher.

 

[Saint]

People get the tube from Heathrow to Central London, they’ll take the train between Melbourne airport and the CBD.

Who though? Think about your trips to the airport. What % would you change to rail from Southern Cross or Sunshine to the airport? How often will you do it, compared to how many trips you do for your ordinary commute (where the money could also be invested).

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Who though? Think about your trips to the airport. What % would you change to rail from Southern Cross or Sunshine to the airport? How often will you do it, compared to how many trips you do for your ordinary commute (where the money could also be invested).

The airport line won't go near Southern Cross. It's going through the Metro Tunnel and out to Cranbourne and Pakenham.

Plans for Airport rail (and Geelong line upgrades) announced

So finally there's a a firm plan for airport rail, thanks to combined State and Federal funding just announced. Age: Melbourne Airport trains will run through the Metro tunnel every 10 minutesHerald Sun: A deal has finally been struck for Victoria’s airport rail link - here’s how it’ll work In...

www.danielbowen.com

 

[Saint]

The airport line won't go near Southern Cross. It's going through the Metro Tunnel and out to Cranbourne and Pakenham.

Plans for Airport rail (and Geelong line upgrades) announced

So finally there's a a firm plan for airport rail, thanks to combined State and Federal funding just announced. Age: Melbourne Airport trains will run through the Metro tunnel every 10 minutesHerald Sun: A deal has finally been struck for Victoria’s airport rail link - here’s how it’ll work In...

www.danielbowen.com

So you get off at town hall, take two escalators up to Flinders Street, change trains then get off at your local station which are all totally DDA compliant and dont need upgrades which $10b would go a long way towards.

 

[Kwality]

There's a huge land use planning element which restricts the ability of most Australian cities from providing efficient PT. It's the size of houses/land. We have low population densities in most areas. That makes it harder to service with PT.

The collective fundamentals of cost per km travelled and catchment per km travelled are just bad for low-density areas.

The individual cost evaluation for low densities also means a car is necessary (2 for families) in most cases and PT just doesn't stack up against cars in those areas for time/cost.

I like to call the dreamers the Northcote Transport Planners. They make grandiose statements about bike lanes and PT which might be relevant in Northcote, but if they spent a week living in Tarneit or Cranbourne, they'd keep their traps shut in future.

 

[Hornberger]

Mel Airport has 19m passengers per year. If they get 10% share (very high), that's 38m passengers over 20 years. at $10b (very low), that's $263 per trip. (Lots of discounting etc to be done, but this is the basics and very favourable)

Are you just making up numbers?

Melbourne Airport had over 35 million passengers in 2019, forecast to grow to over 50 million.

Where did you get the 10% rail mode share as being a very high estimate?

Where did you get the cost of $10bn from? The scope of the project hasn't been decided and no formal costing has been done.

How do you know the project won't provide broader benefits to the network (e.g upgrade to Sunshine Station) that needed to be factored into the cost-benefit analysis?

 

[Magnum27]

Paid for a cab to the CBD?

Was in Sydney a couple of weekends, no way would i get in a cab 15 bucks to the city is cheap at half the price.

 

[Romeoh1]

NOBODY is going to use the Airport Rail Link. EVERYONE is thinking other people will use it, to free up congestion so that THEY can use the road.

I'd have a lobotomy before I tried to get the kids to/from an airport, with luggage, via train. And if work are paying for an 8am flight, I'm definitely not catching a suburban train to Southern Cross at 5:30am, to be able to connect to the airport.

Can anybody say they're actually going to catch a train from Southern Cross to the airport? If there's 2 people, a taxi would be cheaper.

It’ll get heaps of use-it’s fantastic.

 

[Magnum27]

It will depend on where you live that will decide if you use the airport rail link.

Currently living in Tarneit, i would not even consider it catching into the city, then transhipping to another train, when i can drive there just as quick and easy.

Now if i lived South East it would be the only way i would go to the airport would be via rail if it was an option.

 

[Brad Goodman]

It will depend on where you live that will decide if you use the airport rail link.

Currently living in Tarneit, i would not even consider it catching into the city, then transhipping to another train, when i can drive there just as quick and easy.

Now if i lived South East it would be the only way i would go to the airport would be via rail if it was an option.

Heh, can tell you work in ocean logistics

 

[QuietB]

There's a huge land use planning element which restricts the ability of most Australian cities from providing efficient PT. It's the size of houses/land. We have low population densities in most areas. That makes it harder to service with PT.

The collective fundamentals of cost per km travelled and catchment per km travelled are just bad for low-density areas.

The individual cost evaluation for low densities also means a car is necessary (2 for families) in most cases and PT just doesn't stack up against cars in those areas for time/cost.

I like to call the dreamers the Northcote Transport Planners. They make grandiose statements about bike lanes and PT which might be relevant in Northcote, but if they spent a week living in Tarneit or Cranbourne, they'd keep their traps shut in future.

Population density by city;

Paris = 20,515
Hong Kong = 17,311
New York City = 11,313
Singapore = 8,358
Tokyo = 6,158
London = 5,701

Melbourne = 516

We are a sprawling mess. But let's chop up more prime farm land for McMansions

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Who though? Think about your trips to the airport. What % would you change to rail from Southern Cross or Sunshine to the airport? How often will you do it, compared to how many trips you do for your ordinary commute (where the money could also be invested).

So you're solution to every transit problem is more cars?

 

[Gralin]

So you're solution to every transit problem is more cars?

We've found the big car shill

 

[Gralin]

Some people have no choice other than PT, you'd be surprised at the length of journies people make on public transport daily

 

[Hornberger]

Population density by city;

Paris = 20,515
Hong Kong = 17,311
New York City = 11,313
Singapore = 8,358
Tokyo = 6,158
London = 5,701

Melbourne = 516

You need to be careful when comparing population density for cities

The value for Paris is for city proper, while for Tokyo and Singapore it is the greater metropolitan area. The above numbers suggest that Paris is significantly more densely populated than Tokyo or Singapore, when the exact opposite is true.

For a more relevant comparison, the population density for the greater Paris metropolitan region is 690. But even that is not a perfect comparison as cities tend to have a significant amount of rural land included in the metropolitan boundaries on the suburban - rural (for Melbourne that is the Yarra Ranges and the Mornington Peninsula). To make a truely meaningful comparison, you need to measure the contiguous urban boundary for each city, and only include people living within that area in your calculation.

 

[QuietB]

You need to be careful when comparing population density for cities

The value for Paris is for city proper, while for Tokyo and Singapore it is the greater metropolitan area. The above numbers suggest that Paris is significantly more densely populated than Tokyo or Singapore, when the exact opposite is true.

For a more relevant comparison, the population density for the greater Paris metropolitan region is 690. But even that is not a perfect comparison as cities tend to have a significant amount of rural land included in the metropolitan boundaries on the suburban - rural (for Melbourne that is the Yarra Ranges and the Mornington Peninsula). To make a truely meaningful comparison, you need to measure the contiguous urban boundary for each city, and only include people living within that area in your calculation.

Fine, but the point stands. Melbourne's population density is very low by any standard and Melbourne is a sprawling city designed around and for the motor vehicle.

 

[Saint]

So you're solution to every transit problem is more cars?

Not at all. I think the money for Airport Rail should be spent on Melbourne Metro 2 (as I previously stated) and the city loop reconfiguration. Both projects would have massive boosts to PT and reductions in vehicular traffic.

There are plenty of bus reforms which should be done as well (replacing old circuitous routes with on-demand services for example). But when they're pouring money down the drain on airport rail, it means these much more valuable projects are overlooked and under-funded.

I wish they were more focused on providing good services than cutting ribbons on big projects.

It's not a Liberal or Labor thing. Libs do nothing, Labor do the big ticket items.

 

[Saint]

Are you just making up numbers?

Melbourne Airport had over 35 million passengers in 2019, forecast to grow to over 50 million.

Where did you get the 10% rail mode share as being a very high estimate?

Where did you get the cost of $10bn from? The scope of the project hasn't been decided and no formal costing has been done.

How do you know the project won't provide broader benefits to the network (e.g upgrade to Sunshine Station) that needed to be factored into the cost-benefit analysis?

Grabbed the wrong airport numbers (thought it was FY ending 19, but it was FY starting 19). It's still a subsidy because the ticket prices are barely going to cover opex.

The cost is going to be more than $10bn. There's already $10bn committed by state and feds. ($10bn is $1,400 for each of the 7 million Victorians) and doesn't include operating costs. I go to the airport more than most (~20 times per year), including using Skybus, but I'd still rather keep (or have it spent better) the $1,400 and i'll keep making my own way to the airport.

The latest plans for Sunshine station were to reconfigure existing platforms, so the airport train project reduces capacity (by taking it up) and displacing future commuter services.

There's a real paralysis amongst PT advocates about being critical of inefficient new PT Infrastructure. They're more than happy to point out the problems with Road projects, but they're never honest about wasteful PT projects.

 

[tandino]

This is an interesting read on the merits of airport rail.

TLDR very bullish on the projected performance but still raises an eyebrow at the business case for the $10B cost.

Melbourne Airport Rail: a patronage discussion

When Melbourne Airport Rail opens, and even if air travel resumes its pre-COVID growth, the trains could be less than half-full at the busiest time of day. SkyBus and airport trains together could …

wmcdougall.com

Also not a fan at all of the business case for NE Link.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not at all. I think the money for Airport Rail should be spent on Melbourne Metro 2 (as I previously stated) and the city loop reconfiguration. Both projects would have massive boosts to PT and reductions in vehicular traffic.

There are plenty of bus reforms which should be done as well (replacing old circuitous routes with on-demand services for example). But when they're pouring money down the drain on airport rail, it means these much more valuable projects are overlooked and under-funded.

I wish they were more focused on providing good services than cutting ribbons on big projects.

It's not a Liberal or Labor thing. Libs do nothing, Labor do the big ticket items.

Those things you want are already happening