Melbourne Airport Rail Link- via Tullamarine Freeway Median?

[#Metro]

Our sagas with Airtrain reminded me of Melbourne, and how they have no rail link.
http://www.busvic.asn.au/database/files/BusSolutions3.pdf

I have to say though, there was an Albion option and a Broadmeadows option. But there is a third option- running trains straight
down the Tullamarine Freeway, a la Perth style. It could connect to the existing rail line or be a new line into the Melbourne CBD.

Perth managed to do it for $2 billion or less.

I am a bit surprised that the cost comes in at $2 billion, um, what are they using for rail sleepers, gold bars or something?  
Perth built 70 km of rail for that cost, including tunnels.

[Stillwater]

I wonder whether the oft-quoted economical cost of the Mandurah railway line really includes all costs, such as the price of land.  For much of its length, the line runs in the median of the Kwinana Freeway.  In other words, the land on which it stands – along the freeway at least – cost nothing, as it forms part of the road and its cost was factored into the road improvements before the rail line was built.

Whether this was the case is important in the context of the direct comparisons made here between the cost effectiveness of the Mandurah line and new track proposed for South-east Queensland.  And is it a valid comparison, should it be proven that the Mandurah Line land was 'free', or paid out of that state's roads budget, while the costly CRR for Brisbane obtains its land by hideously expensive tunnelling.  Are we now seeking the legacy of past governments who abandoned and sold off transport corridors that had been preserved in inner-Brisbane and of which the Captain Cook bridge and South-east Freeway remain the best example.

It seems that the Mandurah Line has, or had, its critics:  http://www.australian-news.com.au/railway.htm

Let's hope that the views expressed are not shared by those planning Brisbane's public transport network.

[#Metro]

Well didn't the freeway lanes have to be expanded?
I'm not sure. Certainly the line leaves the freeway median, and there are tunnels, bridges and so on as well as stations.

Our busway is similar. Built in a highway reserve AIUI.

The main thing though, is that if the train line runs in the median of the Tullamarine Freeway, that is a similar circumstance to the Mandurah rail line IMHO, and therefore the comparison is valid.

I don't know where this $2 billion dollar figure came from. What are they using for sleepers? Gold Bullion?
Opal rock ballast? Platinum rail? Diamond encrusted door buttons? For heaven's sake, it is a spur line that is only a few km's from
an existing rail line. Why does it cost so much.

These extremely high costs are giving rail a bad name.

[#Metro]

You could get that train maybe going at 100 km or more down that freeway, easily. Get a spur line just after Strathmore station and into a short tunnel to get it into the median of the Tullamarine Freeway.

And not only that you could add new stations as well and get patronage from people going to work in the CBD as well. The whole thing could be fed at all stations, spaced generously to allow high speed operation. So you don't need special high speed trains. SkyBus is never going to be able to do that.

[#Metro]

For $2bn, let's get more than just a spur line!

MetLink Melbourne journey planner states that it only takes 22 minutes to get to Strathmore (11km from the CBD) from Flinders Street, and that is stopping at all stations. So an all day express service would be faster than that, plus you would also be carrying CBD bound commuters from the stations that the train does stop at.

Stations could be kept to a minimum to ensure high speed operation.

Melbourne Airport
Gladstone Park
Airport West Shopping Centre
Niddrie
EXPRESS
CBD

[Gazza]

I am a bit surprised that the cost comes in at $2 billion, um, what are they using for rail sleepers, gold bars or something?  Coolest
Perth built 70 km of rail for that cost, including tunnels.

The thing to keep in mind with Perth is that a lot of it just goes through areas like this:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=google+maps+wellard&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wellard+Western+Australia&gl=au&ll=-32.278806,115.783448&spn=0.003374,0.008256&t=h&z=18
So in effect its like an interurban railway rather than a suburban one, so it would have been very easy to build, and would offset the cost of that rather short CBD tunnel pretty well.

On the other hand, a Melbourne airport line would be a bit tougher....It doesn't get a wide median to run in till out at Gowanbrae. Prior to that there is no median at all:.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pascoe+vale+rd&aq=&sll=-32.278806,115.783448&sspn=0.003374,0.008256&gl=au&ie=UTF8&hq=pascoe+vale+rd&hnear=&radius=15000&ll=-37.749128,144.934464&spn=0.001525,0.004128&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=-37.749128,144.934464&panoid=hOPe0EMOt2W57Lz5J08VHg&cbp=12,340.89,,0,2.49

[#Metro]

Doesn't the Perth tunnel do a U-bend around the CBD?
(not familiar)

[#Metro]

On the other hand, a Melbourne airport line would be a bit tougher....It doesn't get a wide median to run in till out at Gowanbrae. Prior to that there is no median at all:.

Yes, but you have 4 lanes plus embankments that you can resume.
Take away a lane (shock horror) resume the embankments. It can be done.

It's easy to find reasons to justify "do nothing", I think it is a viable option to consider.
I think they might want to widen the freeway again anyway; If that is the case it could be packaged with those works.

[#Metro]

Planning the Perth – Mandurah Railway

Benefits of Railways in Freeways
* Minimise land take
* Minimise division of Land usage
* Completely separated, dedicated Right of Way
* Contains undue Environmental Impacts between Stations within one corridor
* Capitalises on gradients, grade separation
* Capitalises on feeder capacity of arterial road network into the
freeway system
* Use land at the Freeway Interchanges for station developments – like Park & Rides

That's the thing, the railway can have a dual purpose- Airport plus new train line and feeder buses.
Skybus can't do that unless they want to make a busway and then have that run all the way to the CBD on the tollway.
A train spur could be filling those trains to the brim in peak hour with CBD bound commuters- no Skybus will do that.

The people in Perth are smart. They make good use of existing infrastructure- even if it is not rail!
And that's how they keep a lid on costs. Good on them!  

It is essential that planning is not constrained by existing practices.
Standards and operating procedures must always be open to challenge and review

Absolutely. We must keep an open mind.

http://www.alga.asn.au/policy/transport/congress/2010/ppt/Peter_Martinovich.pdf

[Gazza]

TBH, my preferred solution is to just do the Melbourne Airport rail link in with the MEL-SYD HSR, and have it as a stop en route. That way it would actually be a genuine improvement over Skybus.

Airport plus new train line and feeder buses.

And that's the tough sell for me. The Tullamarine freeway is already close to existing rail lines and tramways. Why does that part of Melbourne need another?

An airport train would be nice, but $2 Bil is a lot of money to throw at something thats not really broken. I think other proposed rail projects in Melbourne would have a higher cost benefit ratio.

[#Metro]

HSR, I can't see coming. I just can't.
I hope the reports prove me wrong.
Why would you send HSR to Melbourne Airport, and wait that long when you can use existing technologies and rollingstock
to fix it up now.

That area is a PT black hole. And isn't that freeway going to reach capacity in the near future with all the traffic on it (hence ideas for widening it again).
The tram is slow. You could extend the tram to the airport, but that wouldn't be fast enough.

The freeway median is a great opportunity.

For the record, $2bn was the figure the Bus Vic flyer put the price at.
Methinks this is a "scare statistic" set unbelievably high, who knows how that cost was arrived at. Where is costing method?
Our rail line cost nowhere near that amount, and its elevated!

An airport train would be nice, but $2 Bil is a lot of money to throw at something thats not really broken. I think other proposed rail projects in Melbourne would have a higher cost benefit ratio.

If you think there are better projects than this, that's fine, but I think it is far too early to judge given that this one has zero detail and consideration on it don't you?

[#Metro]

A train service to the airport would most likely be slower and less frequent than the current SkyBus service.

Depends on the route and service pattern.

Train line would come at a significant cost (some estimates are over $2 billion), which is money which could otherwise be invested in areas of Melbourne that lack high quality public transport.

$2 billion is an excessive amount of money, the method and assumptions behind how this cost was arrived for each option needs to be detailed. The second thing is that this is half an analysis because the benefits side of the equation are not shown. AIUI the more expensive and possibly slower route via Albion has been taken.

The train line is costly because it is Class A right of way- the highest quality (and thus cost).
A Class A busway to the airport would also be costly. If it were cheaper it would probably be because it would run into Class B or Class C (mixed traffic, city roads) for the rest of the way. So it's not exactly the same thing.

While the short term needs of the airport could be met by placing the buses into Class B right of way, this requires taking a lane away for the buses. Constructing a Class B right of way also incurs costs. Does it meet the longer term needs of the city?

later it says

Some road infrastructure works could provide more dedicated bus road space between Southern Cross Station and the Tullamarine Freeway. This could include a dedicated busway along sections of the route.
• The current express lane could be extended and enforced using automated cameras to help buses bypass congestion.
• Bus lanes or even a bus-way could be built between the freeway and airport terminals to enable buses to bypass congestion around the airport terminals.

If you want the benefits of Class A right of way, you are going to have to pay the costs of Class A right of way, whatever vehicle you use. This is conflating the cost with the mode. The cost correlates more with the right-of-way than it does with the mode.

If you have a large capacity of patrons and are going to be running buses every 5 minutes, you should start looking at trains.

SkyBus is already close to achieving the 9% mode share expected of an airport rail line. While a higher share is probably achievable, there will be an upper limit on transit patronage due to the dispersed distribution of metropolitan origins of airport users.

Mode share and the number of trips are two logically separate ideas. If 10 people travel to the airport, half by car and half by bus, that is a mode share of 50% for bus. If 10 million people travel to the airport, half by car and half by bus, that is a mode share of 50%, but represents a far greater transport task and room for growth. The statement conflates mode share with transport task. The dispersal argument is unconvincing- the bus faces the same "dispersal" issues as a train line would, and it even operates out of the train station carpark! No doubt to take transfers from the rail system from "dispersed areas" that have been collected by the rail station at Southern Cross! I know this is the case, because I have done exactly this to use the service!

For a much smaller price and in a much shorter timeframe, further significant frequency and reliability upgrades could be made to the existing SkyBus service to further increase its share of airport passengers.

They could, but this is not an argument to put off longer term planning. Dig a well before you need to drink goes the proverb...

It also shows that it would be difficult to justify a high frequency train service (say every 10 minutes) unless the rail line carried around 40% to 50% of airport passengers.

The Brisbane Airtrain breaks even when there are only 40 passengers on board.
The 'analysis' done above assumes that the entire 900 seat train has to be filled up to be "viable". And then uses this as "proof" that only 2 trains per hour can be run. This doesn't seem correct.

Simply put, the successful operation of Skybus and the large number of people using it, and the prospect of needing to run buses every 3 minutes to satisfy demand is actually some of the more powerful evidence in support of a train line to Melbourne Airport. If the bus was poorly patronized, then we would worry that the train was not viable.

[Stillwater]

Good debate is always enhanced by good facts:

A rail line to Melbourne Airport will cost the Government money, not only for construction, but also ongoing operational costs, reportedly of the order of $100 million a year.  Why cause that drain on the public purse, when the private sector owners SkyBus turn over revenue of $28 million annually and achieve yearly profits of $5 million.  More importantly, they paid a dividend of $1.1 million to the state government in return for carrying an average of 5500 people a day.

Putting aside rail's construction costs, the raw data is $100 million operational cost for rail versus $1 million profit to government for bus.

Enthusiastic passion for rail notwithstanding, the Department of Infrastructure and Booz Allen (consultants) are credible sources of information and analysis.

A financial analysis undertaken by the Rail Projects Group (RPG) of the Department of Infrastructure showed that building a Melbourne Airport rail link now would require government subsidies over a 10 year period of between $350 to $450 million (in today's dollars).

A patronage study prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton showed that currently seven percent of passengers travelling to and from Melbourne airport use public transport (buses and coaches), or approximately 2 million people a year.

http://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/melbourne_details.php?id=2275

This is good background (See p51):

http://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Media/docs/Melbourne%20Airport%20GTP%20Final%2019%20Jan%202010-5789c342-b7bb-4ffa-965e-0f0e4d3e6ec8-0.pdf

Meanwhile, land is being reserved for an eventual rail link, feasible only when passenger throughput grows from 24 million currently to around 40 million a year.

http://www.realestatesource.com.au/melbourne-airport-rail-link-may-be-closer-than-first-thought.html

Other debate here

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/train-derailed-by-buckpassing-and-vested-interests-20100625-z9sx.html

http://www.railexpress.com.au/archive/2010/august/august-18-2010/top-stories/time-for-melbourne-airport-rail-link-2013-part-one

http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/does-a-rail-line-to-melbourne-airport-make-sense/

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-get-taken-for-a-ride-airport-rail-link-not-needed-20100701-zqib.html

[#Metro]

  Thanks.

A rail line to Melbourne Airport will cost the Government money, not only for construction, but also ongoing operational costs, reportedly of the order of $100 million a year.  Why cause that drain on the public purse, when the private sector owners SkyBus turn over revenue of $28 million annually and achieve yearly profits of $5 million.  More importantly, they paid a dividend of $1.1 million to the state government in return for carrying an average of 5500 people a day.

The fact that SkyBus is so successful and profitable actually supports the case for a rail line. It would be interesting to see the reports proper. If you are going to upgrade roads and so on and build a busway to Melbourne Airport, that too will cost money.

5500 pax per day / 2 directions (assume half leave and half arrive) /24hours = 114persons/hour/direction on average.
If 40 people are required to break even (like Airtrain)
then 114/40 = 3 at least 3 train services per hour on current patronage levels. If we factor in growth that could be 4 trains per hour or every 15 minutes, which is reasonable.

Bus upgrades now will hold the fort, but I think rail should be the end goal solution. And I think that's what's been decided.

[ozbob]

I regularly use the Sky Bus when in Melbourne.  It has frequency, artics almost it seems every 5 minutes at peaks, 10 minute or so other times.  A rail line to Melbourne Airport would be a huge success no doubt, particularly with the PT culture in Melbourne.  An obstacle though is the car parking and bus interests. They will fight it all the way and spin negative sentiments as able.

[#Metro]

I have used it a number of times myself (from the train station carpark! After transferring from a train! puff goes the "dispersal" argument!)
Time and again, I am always amazed at just how disorganised and silent the rail interests are on issues like this. Not a peep.
No analysis. Nothing! Not even an attempt.

It's like a freebie giveaway...

[#Metro]

Second, the new rail lines to Sydney and Brisbane airports are not performing well. Brisbane's Airtrain has low frequencies and stops operating at 8pm. At one stage Sydney's Airport Link was in receivership due to low patronage.

Disastrous PPP projects are being used as the reference case. I wonder with Airport Link, will that go bankrupt and "prove" that a freeway to the airport is "unviable", an absurd result if compared to Melbourne that does have a freeway to the Airport (should we more narrowly interpret is as a PPP anything is unviable)  

There are good financial reasons why public projects usually are more viable than PPP on identical project. If TL ran the show, would it pay 30% company tax? Would it be subject to higher costs of borrowing? Would it have shareholders to pay dividends to?

I also note that the Alice Springs-Darwin Rail line is a PPP too. Disaster struck that one.
Clem 7 disaster stuck that one. Sydney Toll Tunnel PPP, disaster stuck that one too. It is programmed failure; Is there one large infrastructure PPP in Australia that hasn't suffered financial near-death experiences? Are these fair reference cases?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-get-taken-for-a-ride-airport-rail-link-not-needed-20100701-zqib.html

[#Metro]

http://www.visitdenmark.com/uk/en-gb/menu/turist/transport/lufthavne/transportationfromcopenhagenairport.htm

Copenhagen doesn't charge high fees-- works out to be $5 to the airport.

[#Metro]

A rail line to Melbourne Airport will cost the Government money, not only for construction, but also ongoing operational costs, reportedly of the order of $100 million a year.  Why cause that drain on the public purse, when the private sector owners SkyBus turn over revenue of $28 million annually and achieve yearly profits of $5 million.  More importantly, they paid a dividend of $1.1 million to the state government in return for carrying an average of 5500 people a day.

One other thing. Taxi is profitable (after all, they charge gouge prices that are unbelievable $50-$100 easily), they provide door to door services better than any public transport mode including bus, their frequency is superior to any transport mode (on demand!) and probably collectively make more money and carry more passengers to Melbourne Airport than the Skybus does.

Skybus has worse service characteristics than taxis, on all criteria except for perhaps price.
And yet it is provided...

[Stillwater]

If, if, if, if, maybe, perhaps, assume.  There needs to be integrity and discipline in planning for any major piece of infrastructure, CRR being a case in point.  The methods must be proven and defensible; all the benefits and costs captured.  And, while circumstances may change over time (we should be open to those) zeal should not dull, or override, common sense and imaginative practicality.  Fantasy has its place also, but only as whimsy to emphasise reality.

A review of the Melbourne Airport rail link as part of any plans to widen the Tullamarine Freeway is a cause worth pursuing, because it could be a game changer.  We don't know.  We should know.  We owe it to ourselves to find out.  All the facts should be on the table.  However, we should not pre-empt an outcome or limit its outcome to a pre-determined conclusion.

Right now, the available evidence, competently gathered, analysed and presented is that a Melbourne rail link can't be justified at this time, but may be viable in 10 years.  Meanwhile, it is prudent to work towards that goal, and this is happening through land purchases.
Contrast that with the situation in South-East Queensland, then, we have sound evidence for governments to act and the solutions to apply.  And yet they resist and prevaricate.  Adopting a short-term fix not in keeping with a long-term plan inexorably can start us down a path where that ill judgement  must be confirmed by another poor decision ... and so it goes on.

CRR must be tested comprehensively, without passion or bias.  No to do so would lead us to the same place as Victoria's Regional Rail link – now due to cost $1 billion more than anticipated, with a resultant undermining of its benefit-cost ratio.  Oh how things might have been different had the Queensland Government presented a watertight case for CRR at the time the Victorians put in a bid for federal money for the regional rail link.  CRR may have been a better investment.  As it was, all the feds could justify was to give our state money for the proving-up stage.  We still don't know its viability because the business case continues to be worked on.

But let's build a case to a solution one sure step at a time, whether that be Melbourne's airport rail link or our own situation closer to home.

[Stillwater]

Thanks for bringing up the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, TT, because it is an important case in point.  All advice to government was that the Alice Springs-Darwin railway was not viable, and thus it was so.  At the opening ceremony, and to the cheers of the crowd, then PM John Howard mokingly derided that advice by saying:  "This is the rail project that, if the bureaucrats had their way, would never have been been built."

The business case did not stack up, yet driven by ideology, politicians and business went ahead anyway.  The private sector put $1.3 billion into this project, governments (collectively) almost $560 million.

As with failed business projects, the market sorts things out when it comes to bad PPPs -- the project gets onsold at a lower price.  There are good PPPs, of course, Sydney's western ring road being one.

[#Metro]

Stillwater, the business case is going to be affected by who does it.
This is because public and private projects consider different things when they do the same cost-benefit analysis.
A business case for a project done under public will look different to that same identical project done under private.

As a rule of thumb, more projects are viable under public than private.

I have already mentioned that the lower cost of capital available to government, and also the ability to construct projects during times of economic downturn to take advantage of labour markets (which is much harder to do under private as in such times getting $$$ is harder). I think in many cases, the operation would not have gone bankrupt in the first place if it were done under public.

Now, this may not prove a case for or against the Melbourne rail link, as that is a specific case and we will see what Ted Ballieu comes up with in the feasibility studies. I think $2 billion when we built ours for a measly $220 million (and it is elevated!) really puts into context that someone seems to have chosen the uber-expensive option/alignment, possibly using gold bullion as the sleepers. The viability of the project will also depend on the alignment - if there are tunnels, then the $$$ will go up hugely.

It needs to be fast. Very fast for rail to work, and I will agree with you on that point.

A business case is only as good as the assumptions and options that were fed into it. If someone chooses "Maglev to Melbourne Airport" with gold bullion as sleeper, and diamond encrusted carriages and then comes up with the result "not feasable", well, what do you expect??

[#Metro]

CRR must be tested comprehensively, without passion or bias.  No to do so would lead us to the same place as Victoria's Regional Rail link – now due to cost $1 billion more than anticipated, with a resultant undermining of its benefit-cost ratio.  Oh how things might have been different had the Queensland Government presented a watertight case for CRR at the time the Victorians put in a bid for federal money for the regional rail link.  CRR may have been a better investment.  As it was, all the feds could justify was to give our state money for the proving-up stage.  We still don't know its viability because the business case continues to be worked on.

I would go so far as to say that TransPerth should be paid to do an investigation of this option. There can be no harm in looking.

[Stillwater]

In any investigation, it is important not to compare West Australian apples with Queensland oranges.  No-one, absolutely no-one, has suggested Maglev to Melbourne airport.  As for gold billion sleepers?  Taking an extreme case can be useful in a debate if only to highlight the absurd and bring focus back to reality.  That is where useful debate is grounded, and from where proper conclusions can be drawn.  Yes, we should test any report for its thoroughness, but not deride it unnecessarily if it reaches a conclusion we don't accept.  If the surgeon tells you you have only six months to live, it would be wise to seek a second opinion.  If the answer is the same, do we ignore it in disbelief?  Ahh, but there is a guy in Perth who wears a while coat and says he is a doctor ... he says you will live.  No worries then.

[#Metro]

You have a point stillwater, but what problem do you have with getting TransPerth in and having them look at the option? They have experience in projects like this where trains go in freeway medians. I think the earliest would be 7-10 years to take it from idea to on the ground and open for business reality. In that time SkyBus upgrades would have happened and maybe they would be handling quite a load.

Is it that hard to get a report by them written up? What could possibly so scary about that?

I am only using examples (and a bit of license) to illustrate my point. Sometimes extremes are needed to illustrate points, as you have yourself done with your own doctor analogy.

I do not believe that it costs $2 BILLION to construct something like that when we built ours, elevated, for 9 times cheaper!*
Is there some special reason why Brisbane elevated rail is cheaper than the same thing in Melbourne?
And Perth managed to get 70km of rail for that cost.

I'm sorry, but there seems to be an unwillingness to believe anything that works for PT outside Australian capital cities.
The cry is always the same- It won't work for us, they're "different".

Maybe I am wrong. I don't mind if I am.
But what could be so difficult about getting someone to look at it?

* 6x if you adjust for inflation

[Stillwater]

People can make their own judgements about the issues raised.  However, it is important today that we celebrate common sense victories, such as the announcement of an extension of the railway line to Springfield.  Among those who helped bring this outcome about, Ozbob and others in RailBOT can take some credit for continually presenting the merits of this project to government.  Esoteric debate about projects in other states aside, this is a core bread and butter issue for this forum, and good sense has prevailed.

[#Metro]

Agreed. Its not within our state, but I have gone down to Melbourne often, and I often hear arguments based on Brisbane Airtrain.
I also like to play Devil's advocate  

It seems that the public do know what they want. The comments section generated a huge response, including this one:

My name is Tim Anderson. I am the Chief Executive of Airport Link in Sydney. Our company is the private organisation that conducts the train link arrangements to and from Sydney Airport on what is known as the Airport Line.

Alan Davies writes in this article: "Second, the new rail lines to Sydney and Brisbane airports are not performing well."

I have never met Mr Davies, or spoken to him. I do not know who he is. He is not privy to our patronage numbers or our business affairs. I am entirely unclear how he can make such comments.

In our view, Airport Link in Sydney is performing very well. During the last financial year nearly 6.5 million people used the four train stations on the Sydney Airport Link. To use a well known Melbourne rule of thumb, that is equivalent to more than 65 MCG grand final crowds.

Mr Davies should at least do some research or substatiate his statements before he makes them. Nobody is beyond criticism, but it is very poor that the Age should allow such statements to be published without at least providing the public with some accompanying grounds to support the ascertions.

Tim Anderson
Chief Executive
Airport Link Sydney
Tim Anderson, Chief Executive, Airport Link Sydney | Sydney - July 02, 2010, 11:07AM

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-get-taken-for-a-ride-airport-rail-link-not-needed-20100701-zqib.html?comments=186#comments


And remember, Class A right of way cost the most, but it also has the highest level of benefits, because it is 100% separate from traffic:

The entire article ignores the fact that just one accident on the Tullamarine toll/freeway can block traffic for hours, including the Skybuses. There is a pressing need for a good, reliable, real public transport alternative. I regularly use the airport train in Sydney and despite its chequered history, it provides an good value. alternative service to either car or bus.
RobertDH | Kew East - July 02, 2010, 12:00PM

[Gazza]

Here's the issue I have. For 20 hours a day, when its not peak hour, the SkyBus is fine. Its very fast and convenient.

So basically, a shift to a train is only fixing a problem that occurs in peak hours. Would you spend even just $1 Bil to Fix this in the short term?

Is there some special reason why Brisbane elevated rail is cheaper than the same thing in Melbourne?
And Perth managed to get 70km of rail for that cost.

If you still cant answer this question for yourself, have a look at the type of environment the Airtrain runs through, versus the type of areas it has to run through in Melbourne's inner suburbs.

[#Metro]

As I pointed out earlier, it will take at least 7-10 years to go from design to actually having it open. There is nothing to prevent planning for longer term solutions, as governments are expected to do and as the public expect (judging by the huge response from the comments in the age). By all means do the SkyBus upgrade, but do not use that as some kind of excuse not to look at the options.

A railway will always be expensive, because it needs an exclusive alignment to operate in, separate from cars. While that is costly, it also results in a high quality service that is not disrupted by mixed traffic and traffic incidents, as the people in The Age have raised. To get exactly the same effect using buses, you need to construct a Class A right of way all the way from the CBD to the Airport- a busway in effect, and that too is going to be costly. So that has to be looked at too. With the rail option you have open the possibility of adding another line to the Melbourne train network to serve these areas as well (airport workers who live near the airport can walk to these stations to get to work) on top of that.

The second thing is that a busway is basically a bus road. The CityLink contracts apparently permit rail to the airport, but not competing roads. The legalities around that will have to be explored particularly if non-airport workers are to be served.

If you still cant answer this question for yourself, have a look at the type of environment the Airtrain runs through, versus the type of areas it has to run through in Melbourne's inner suburbs.

They are both freeway medians, the train can capitalise on the existing grade separation of intersections and the gradients that the freeway provides and not require as much land acquisition or housing resumptions because the right of way is more or less already there.

None of your arguments are reasons why a study into the possibility of using the Tullamarine Freeway as a potential alignment should not go ahead, and if the freeway needs widening at sometime in the near future, then I do not see why this possibility cannot be explored.