Is rail on track at Sydney Airport?
- Share
Ratio of domestic and international passengers using Airport Link to total Sydney Airport air passengers
It looks like something quite extraordinary has happened at Sydney Airport over the last five or six years. I’m surprised it hasn’t received more attention.
According to Airport Link, the company that manages train operations at the domestic and international terminals, rail patronage grew 32% over 08/09-11/12 while the total number of air travellers passing though the airport grew by just 11%.
Almost 16% of air travellers now use rail to get to and from the airport. That’s a huge increase compared to 2006, when the Productivity Commission estimated rail’s share at around 10%.
Estimating mode share is a tricky business – it depends on what’s included and what’s not. Airport Link simply divides its total patronage by the number of airline passengers passing through the terminal (see exhibit). Melbourne’s SkyBus does the same.
It seems to work. The company’s estimate for 2006 is reasonably close to the Productivity Commission’s figure.
Airport Link attributes the upturn to better marketing and management. For example, it has improved foot traffic flows through the airport stations, offers an average 7.5 minute frequency in peak periods, and emphasises the benefits of the train in its marketing.
I think good old-fashioned management smarts has a lot to do with it, but there’re other possible explanations too. For example, the airline discount war might’ve increased the share of cost-sensitive travellers who prefer the cheaper train service to a taxi.
Or it might be that taxis are getting increasingly unattractive due to traffic congestion and airport queues. The train is more predictable, goes to all city loop stations, and takes only ten minutes to get from the domestic terminal to Central (18 minutes to Circular Quay). Most importantly, it’s frequent and, compared to a taxi or parking your own car, it’s cheap.
The growth in patronage is being achieved with a one-way fare of $15.40 between the CBD and the domestic terminal. The fare includes a $12.00 airport access fee which goes to Airport Link (although there are various concessions).
The company is hopeful it will increase its mode share to 18% – 20% over the next 3 to 5 years. This would place it close to the best performing rail services at major airports worldwide.
The Airport Link is a good offer. Exogenous forces like traffic congestion increasingly make it the rational choice for many travellers. Management seems to be effective at ensuring travellers are aware of the benefits and have a satisfactory experience.
Of course the success of Airport Link begs the question of whether or not there should be a train service to other major Australian airports. Brisbane already has Airtrain and Perth and Adelaide are probably too small to seriously contemplate investing in a rail line at this time. Essentially the question is whether Melbourne Airport could, or should, be served by rail.
There are a number of matters to bear in mind in extrapolating from Sydney’s situation to Melbourne’s. Sydney’s domestic and international terminals process many more passengers than Melbourne’s joint terminal – in other words the markets bigger – and they’re much closer to the city centre. It‘s also doubtful it would be feasible to route an airport train via Melbourne’s city loop.
Perhaps most important though is Sydney got a lucky break with its airport train. Airport Link picked up the assets for around $300 million in 2008. The original company spent about $1 billion to build the infrastructure in time for the Sydney Olympics, but miscalculated patronage and went into receivership. Although Brisbane’s Airtrain narrowly avoided receivership, it only cost $220 million to construct.
A competitive train between Melbourne Airport and the CBD is going to cost billions to build – at least $2 billion but very likely much more. Melbourne also has the profitable SkyBus service which has considerable scope to expand capacity through frequencies as high as every two to three minutes. It’s also likely speeds could be increased at much lower cost than a rail link.
The key lesson for Melbourne from Airport Link is that public transport – whatever form it takes – has scope to significantly increase its share of travel to the airport. Of course those who’re prepared to look already know that from SkyBus, but what’s missing is more concerted support for improvements.
The frequency and span of hours of public transport to Melbourne Airport is already very good. The focus of further improvement should be on improving journey times, trip time predictability, connections with other modes, and the quality of the travel experience. The choice of mode will depend on which can deliver on those objectives most cost-effectively.
The key story here though is the increasing role of public transport at Sydney Airport. It doesn’t come within cooee of the CBD, but sixteen percent is a big number for an Australian airport.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
I don’t know if you should call the original company going bust a lucky break, but the fire-sale price is probably the only thing that makes Airport Link viable. It also shows the value of the PPP model (in some circumstances) where the risk is taken by the builder/financier, rather than the the poor old taxpayer handing over wads of cash for some politician’s dream.
Skybus’s submission to a VCEC inquiry into tourism (at http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/T19-SkyBusSubmissionWord/$File/T19%20-%20SkyBus%20Submission%20Word.doc) notes it’s ridership has been growing strongly to about 8.5% passenger mode share in 2009/10. It would be interesting to see if it has continued to grow since.
And as you note, the service levels (already 10 minutes most of the day and 30 minutes throughout the night) could be improved for a tiny fraction of the cost of a Melbourne Airport Rail Link. And they already claim a typical 20 minute trip time – hard to see rail offering much better!
“It‘s also doubtful it would be feasible to route an airport train via Melbourne’s city loop.”
“A competitive train between Melbourne Airport and the CBD is going to cost billions to build – at least $2 billion but very likely much more.”
With respect, NO to both propositions. As to the first, note that if the train is on broad gauge, it can happily run via the loop. As to the second, there are two feasible routes, neither of which would cost anywhere $2 billion. More like $200 million at the absolute outside.
Time is not necessarily the most important consideration for passengers, more likely consistency and reliability. And that is where rail wins hands down. So a route may be considerably longer than the road route, but if it is not affected by congestion, it still has an advantage and could still be faster.
Route 1 uses the railway line from Albion to Jacana. There are two tracks, one standard gauge, and one broad/mixed gauge. The mixed gauge accommodates a standard gauge loop. The non-mixed gauge sections may need to be upgraded to permit 160 kmph running from Albion Junction to a junction where the line crosses the Tullamarine Freeway. There a bridge and a sharp curve would take the line into the Freeway median, thence to an elevated station at the Airport terminus.
Route 2 uses the Freeway median as well, but instead turns east into Essendon Airport, where it would skirt the eastern edge, outside the perimeter road except near the end of the E-W runway, where it would enter a short tunnel to bring it to the northern edge of the Tullamarine Freeway, and then rise to cross over the Freeway, Pascoe Vale Road and Loeman Street to a junction with the Broadmeadows line between Pascoe Vale and Strathmore Stations. This last tunnelled and elevated section would probably be single track. Both routes would be electrified.
While the expensive cramped and crowded Skybus only gives one CBD stop, a rather inconvenient place hidden in the depths of Southern Cross Station, the rail version would give useful stops at Albion, North Melbourne, and either stops in the loop or via Southern Cross and Flinders Street to a terminus at Richmond, suitable for interchange with all eastern and southern rail lines.
And if Sydney’s and Brisbane’s Airport Links are doing well, should not Melbourne’s be able to do even better, especially as the construction cost is low. Sydney had a ridiculous cost because of being all tunnelled, and Brisbane’s was expensive but more reasonable as it is all elevated. Melbourne’s will be almost entirely ground level, with very little or no tunnelling and little elevated track.
@Dudley – You’ve quoted what it should cost. Remember Victoria’s the State that spends $5billion+ on rail projects, costed on the backs of envelopes. We can’t even seem to build a fairly basic station for less than $50mill.
Until the D.O.T undergoes a major overhaul and a lot of staff are sacked, or the PTV gets set up the way it should have been in the first place, don’t expect any reasonably costed rail projects in Victoria. Every contractor in the state knows if it’s rail + government, then they can and will milk it.
There’s nothing that brings on a barney in transport policy like Melbourne airport rail (except maybe cycling helmet laws).
Yes, rail to the airport would be nice. But there are plenty of other places where it would be nice to have rail that don’t attract the same attention.
But because people who have access to the national don’t generally travel by public transport notice airport rail in the other destinations they visit, and the lack of it in Melbourne, we have this fixation on it.
Dudley $2b is not even close IMO.
Regional rail link-
-2 tracks at 47.5km
-no electrification
-2 new stations
First estimated at $500m funded at $4.3b and said now to be $5.3b and climbing. Its claimed to have an estimated benefit of $6.2b which also sounds like wishful thinking (There must be some really creative number crunching in that benefit claim IMO, I cant practically see how we will be economically $6.2b better off as a nation following RRL).
Note I pulled that info off the wiki (not always the most reliable but summarised my understanding of it).
Miki = $1.5b and what is the actual benefit of miki? M1 was technologically groundbreaking, had large benefits to travel times/reliability and infinitely complex in construction and only cost $1.4b.
What bus network would we have for the RRL cash. How many grade separations?(50+). How many new trains/busses/trams. How many toll roads could we have brought to market only costing the government planning and management to deliver?
In summary:
- Eastlink $2.5b, benefit = (industrial/commercial/residential development, travel savings, reduced accidents etc.) cost to government = a fraction of the total project cost.
- Regional Rail Link $5.3b+, benefit = (small reduction in travel times for regional trains, an opportunity to modestly increase metro train frequency), Could these benefits have been achieved more cheaply without the link? Is the benefit large enough?
- M1 redevelopment, $1.4b, benefit = (travel savings/reliability, reduced accidents, new freeway management technology etc.)
- Myki $1.5b, benefit = ?
People who wonder why governments invest in road based infrastructure including road based public transport shouldn’t because it’s almost always the best value for money investment in transport they can make.
The Regional Rail Link is a golden opportunity to get rail to Tullamarine – cheaply and move people faster than the Tullamarine Freeway can.
I’ve actually written about this on my blog ( http://melburnistbraindump.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/melbourne-airport-rail-link-half-of-it.html ) where all the detail is however in summary:
There’s going to be a lot of capacity on the dual regional rail link tracks and what’s required is building two more from Sunshine where the Albion corridor branches off the Bendigo line and then running it alongside the current interstate SG lines to a point where the track would go elevated across the western ring road, airport drive and then onto the airport’s land.
Just need 4-5 more Bombardier/Vlocities to operate 15 minute (10 minute in peak) services, as they’re the type of train which are better built for airport services (They’re regional in nature so have more luggage space – what people need coming from an airport – from day 1) – no need for catenary that way, no need to add more trains to an already congested Northern City Loop and it would offer anyone from Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong a quick one change service at Sunshine as well as a 16-17 minute express service from the CBD only stopping at Sunshine. Competitive with the current bus and definitely competitive on price with taxis.
See blog link for detail.
6
Very interesting. Few points though.
It would require the extension of the RRL to a new grade separated junction at Albion (Good for the Bendigo line) to get the RRL trains to the new airport link and avoid conflicts with the suburban Sunbury line. Not cheap though.
Footscray is a station of significant patronage due to many of the jobs and services there and should not loose its RRL stop. Due to the regrettable absence of an RRL station at North Melbourne (current interchange for the City Loop and 401) Footscray will be the new RRL interchange for the loop.
The frequency of services to the airport would most sensibly be governed not by the CBD commute but by airport busyness.
Any airport surcharge should go the the construction authority and/or operator of the rail service, with minimal money going to the private airport operator.
You’re forgetting that when the RRL is opened, frequencies on Sydenham will be increased therefore eliminating Footscray and North Melbourne as Vline stops and expanding Sunshine will allow easy connections to the Metropolitan services for people going to Footscray from Bendigo/Ballarat/Geelong. Wait times would be minimal at Sunshine in peaks.
Throw in the fact the Melbourne Metro Tunnel will take the Sydenham line out of the loop, however still provide connections at Melbourne Central and Flinders Street – CBD access options are ehanced for both regional and metropolitan traffic.
The days of one seat journeys to the city are [thankfully] coming to an end – time to start using our rail network like a real metro.
There are several practical factors driving increased patronage.
1. The sum of a gate pass plus regular rail ticket is less by $3-5 to purchasing a ticket to airport stations outright. You buy your gate pass at the ticket plaza where there is a side window before exiting the barriers.
2. There is good wi-fi all the way through the airport rail tunnels and indeed across almost all of the Sydney metropolitan network, and staying connected, reclaiming lost drive time and not paying atrociously high parking fees all combine in the minds of those that are curious to make rail an attractive reconsideration.
I’ve used airport rail options in Hong Kong, Singapore, London (Heathrow, Gatwick, City and Stansted) and Paris, and my wider circle of family and friends regularly also use Bangkok, Tokyo Narita and Hamburg. The Sydney link is inferior to all of them in utility and most of them by price, but not always trip times. But connectivity changes everything.
8
There are good reasons that Footscray should retain an RRL stop. As well as being the station for lots of jobs, shops, and services, including Victoria University, it is the interchange for the Werribee and Williamstown lines. Footscray is not a diversion or minor station. it is a major station.
I thought that the Kennett government put a clausevn the agreement with city link that there would be no rail link to tullamarine for so many years.
Perths airport is fairly awful. I frequently hav to wait at leas 15 minutes. The current duplication of Gt Eastern Hwy would’ve been a great opportunity to do something about it.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.