Article: Airport road won't cope with demand, study shows

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Airport road won't cope with demand, study shows

Airport road won't cope with demand, study shows
CLAY LUCAS
March 1, 2010

TRAFFIC could grind to a halt on the freeway to Melbourne Airport in the next two decades unless dramatic action is taken, modelling commissioned by the government shows.

Despite this, Public Transport Minister Martin Pakula has said the state government will not resurrect Labor's ditched 1999 promise to build a rail line to the airport.

For the past nine months, the government has been again studying traffic to the airport.

The Melbourne Airport Transport Requirements Study, completed by consultants IMIS, predicts traffic to the airport will slow to a crawl by 2021 unless major changes are made.

In 2007, 22.5 million passengers passed through Melbourne Airport. By 2028, this is predicted to rise to 50 million a year.

The study has tested the potential take-up of an airport rail link, a project promised several times since the airport opened at Tullamarine in 1970.

In its brief to IMIS, the Department of Transport specified it must measure the likely popularity of the train line based on a $16 one-way fare (the cost of the existing SkyBus).

It found few people who now drive to the airport would be convinced to use the rail line, and it would instead take passengers off existing bus services and taxis.

It also found an airport rail link would ruin the taxi industry, which relies on 7000 trips a day to the airport. The report is believed to have concluded that a train line would not be needed until well after 2021 if existing transit lanes on the CityLink and Tullamarine motorways were enforced.

There is land set aside for an airport rail line, partly using the Sydenham line and an existing freight link through Albion.

Existing roads already struggle to cope with the 96,500 vehicle movements to and from the airport each weekday.

CityLink's contract says a passenger rail link can be built without the tollroad operator receiving compensation.

An airport rail line made ''perfect sense'' and should be built, Public Transport Users Association president Daniel Bowen said.

But powerful industry lobbies - including taxi, bus and airport companies - say it is not needed.

The government has sided with these groups, arguing the SkyBus from Southern Cross - which takes 20-30 minutes - is good enough.

SkyBus managing director Simon Cowen said there was no pressing need for the rail line. ''[A bus] is going to be a viable option for a long time to come.''

Victoria Taxi Association policy officer David Samuel said congestion was not yet bad enough to warrant a rail line.

''We wouldn't say that a rail link is necessary. It [the airport] is such a valuable, easy earner for taxi drivers, they are always going to be inclined to want to go there,'' Mr Samuel said.

Also keen to see a rail line deferred is Melbourne Airport, which last financial year earned $90 million from parking. Melbourne Airport chief executive Chris Woodruff recently said that it did ''not make economic sense to have a rail link''.

Sydney and Brisbane have airport rail lines, as well as many smaller international cities with far smaller airports.

Former transport minister Peter Batchelor dumped Labor's 1999 election promise to build an airport rail line in 2002, saying the bus was good enough.

He argued that building the rail link would be too expensive and would not be sufficiently popular.

In November, Roads Minister Tim Pallas repeated this argument, saying SkyBus ''successfully fulfils the need for public transport to the airport''.

A lot vested self interest here, the interests of the community and the environment overall is pushed to obscurity ...  sound familiar?

[Jon Bryant]

If it would be so unpopoular why would it kill the taxi industry?  Sounds like the spin doctors sat around and thought up some excuses not to build it over afternoon tea.

[#Metro]

It also found an airport rail link would ruin the taxi industry, which relies on 7000 trips a day to the airport. The report is believed to have concluded that a train line would not be needed until well after 2021 if existing transit lanes on the CityLink and Tullamarine motorways were enforced.

This is downright wrong. Did it kill the taxi industry in Brisbane or Sydney or Adelaide? Not at all- people who want to use a door to door service can still do. The bus service is good but it simply does not have the capacity.

These industries have no prior right to protection by legislation or lack thereof. In most decisions, it isn't possible to devise a situation with only winners, someone will see a bit of a loss. The community and its needs should be placed first, not that of self-interested existing operators.

If state funding is an issue, a situation like Brisbane could be considered where a private company is granted a concession and builds the scheme and then hands it back. This would cost the government a very smaller sum to do. It may or may not require subsidy.

Alternatively there is a second-best option: extension of tram route 59 Airport West (Suburb name) which would only require a short extension to reach Melbourne Airport and the major shopping outlet DFO.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24385018-3122,00.html

[somebody]

And "killing" the taxi industry is a bad thing?  Last I checked, a taxi with one driver and one passenger caused just as much congestion as a car with a single driver.

Must say I do agree with the idea of enforcing transit lanes, but how many of cars on the road wouldn't be entitled to use it anyway?  Anyone dropping off two people would get into a T3 lane.  Maybe upgrade to a bus lane. 

Last time I used the skybus, which was about a decade ago, it only came every half an hour, so a frequency upgrade would be much more important than a rail line IMO.  When the bus is coming every 5 mins, it might start to make sense to think about a rail line.

[Otto]

I used the SkyBus from Southern Cross to the airport last time I was in Melbourne... Was a very unpleasant experience.. It was a full standing load with luggage overflowing from the luggage area.. I was standing up at the front trying not to trip over peoples luggage and also had to get out so people could unload luggage at the first airport stop. I was going to the last stop but ended up walking with my luggage to the Qantas terminal (last stop) from the first airport stop..

[Dean Quick]

The very same backward and narrow minded pressure from these despotic industry lobby groups is the  reason we are in the current congestion mess. What makes this even harder to fathom is that the gov't seems to actually agree with these whingers. The "let them ride buses and drive on our toll roads brigade" are unfortunately still out to hijack any chance of moving towards a more sustainable transport solution.       

[somebody]

I used the SkyBus from Southern Cross to the airport last time I was in Melbourne... Was a very unpleasant experience.. It was a full standing load with luggage overflowing from the luggage area.. I was standing up at the front trying not to trip over peoples luggage and also had to get out so people could unload luggage at the first airport stop. I was going to the last stop but ended up walking with my luggage to the Qantas terminal (last stop) from the first airport stop..

Just checked the timetable, and it's now a 10 minute frequency 6am-8:30pm.  So, given the $16 fare and the demand, why's it not a better frequency with an artic?  The demand seems to definitely justify it.

[ozbob]

Some of the buses used are artics, and chock a block at that as well ..

[#Metro]

...Well if someone approached the Victorian Government and said, "we'll build and operate a rail line for 35 years at no cost to you and then hand it back when we're done"...

...I'd say go for it..

[Jon Bryant]

But no one will because their main competion is always given an unfair advantage.  If it was a greenfield situation and the planned roads only catered for 30-40% of trips then they would be lining up.  Unfortunately rail is needed in brownfield situations where road capacity can cater for almost 100% of trips in a 2 hour peak period.  This is like a corner store being asked to set up next to a Coles or Woolies without access to their car park.  It ain't going to happen until the balance is shifted.

[#Metro]

Rail (whether LRT on an extended tram line, or heavy rail) will have a massive advantage once the concrete is set and poured.
You can transport huge numbers of people, very quickly and cheaply. Directly to Flinders St/Southern Cross.
And the major ongoing cost is just maintainence and electricity to run the train.

[somebody]

Rail (whether LRT on an extended tram line, or heavy rail) will have a massive advantage once the concrete is set and poured.
You can transport huge numbers of people, very quickly and cheaply. Directly to Flinders St/Southern Cross.
And the major ongoing cost is just maintainence and electricity to run the train.

"Just" maintenance?  That's substantial.  Not only that, you are ignoring financing costs, crewing, train ownership costs, etc, etc.

Who actually pays for the bus?  Is it a profit making venture of private industry?  A profit making venture of government, or a subsidised service?

[#Metro]

Well I did say major.
Airtrain doesn't own any trains...
Works here, should work there.

[somebody]

Well I did say major.
Airtrain doesn't own any trains...
Works here, should work there.

No.  They effectively wet lease them from QR.  There's still ownership and crewing costs built into the charges that QR levy Airtrain for the services that are run.

[#Metro]

This is true, but they would me a fraction of the cost of buying or crewing you own fleet, as both the trains and the crew are redeployed on other parts of the network.