Just a few months after acquiring a prime Broadbeach site on the corner of First Avenue and Surf Parade, family-run developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/raptis">Raptis</a> has filed fresh plans for a new apartment development.

Raptis is seeking to deliver a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/17-19-first-avenue-broadbeach-qld-4217">29-storey tower with 73 apartments</a> on the 818 sqm site. It will be the developer's seventh project in the suburb, as they are approaching completion of The Sterling on George Avenue.

There will be a pool, barbecue and outdoor dining area, residents lounge and dining, sauna and steam room, gym, and a Yoga and Pilates studio.

<img alt="Raptis" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b554da3f-7344-49aa-b1c9-44cf459af0d7" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-06-05%20at%2010.41.45%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=zzjWu1iO1wnuYv4EV4fyOyf5nSXjGYut" />

Raptis Joint Managing Director, Evan Raptis, says they remain&nbsp;committed to developing quality infill sites across the Gold Coast in the lead-up to the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.

"This project continues our long track record of delivery in Broadbeach, and we look forward to bringing another premium development to this thriving precinct."

The announcement follows strong delivery momentum for Raptis, with The Sterling Broadbeach nearing completion and construction well underway on the final stage of the Waterpoint community adjacent to Harbour Town. The developer's continued investment in the Gold Coast reflects confidence in the region's apartment market fundamentals, underpinned by sustained Southeast Queensland population growth.&nbsp;

The outlook for the region is further bolstered by infrastructure investment tied to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games, which is expected to drive continued economic and population growth across the SEQ corridor.&nbsp;

Subject to a favourable response from Gold Coast City Council, construction on the new First Avenue tower is targeted to commence before the end of 2026.&nbsp;

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/qld/it-s-all-in-the-family-four-decades-later-raptis-continues-to-shape-the-gold-coast-skyline">It’s all in the family: Four decades later, Raptis continues to shape the Gold Coast skyline</a>

Read more: <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/qld/raptis-secures-prime-surf-parade-site-for-next-broadbeach-apartment-development">Raptis secures prime Surf Parade site for next Broadbeach apartment development</a> 
&nbsp;

Gold Coast developer brings seventh Broadbeach project to market, targeting construction commencement before year end

Joel Robinson

First look: Raptis lodges plans for new 29-storey Broadbeach tower 

Brisbane development veteran Kevin Seymour's Seymour Group is set to deepen its presence on one of Brisbane's most tightly held riverfront addresses, lodging revised plans for a luxury apartment development on Oxlade, just a few doors down from The Oxlade, which it completed in 2024.

The <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/70-72-oxlade-drive-new-farm-qld-4005">new project at 70-72 Oxlade Drive</a>, directly north of The Oxlade, will have 27 apartments across a seven-storey building&nbsp;overlooking the Brisbane River and Merthyr Park. It's a revision from a 2021-approved design.

Designed by bureau^proberts, the project has evolved from the previously approved 26-apartment scheme, introducing an additional penthouse level while maintaining a low-density, boutique character. The development will comprise 26 three-bedroom apartments and a single four-bedroom penthouse, supported by two basement levels with 86 car spaces and 34 bicycle spaces.

The architectural response is centred around two distinct building forms separated by a landscaped open-air atrium.&nbsp;"This dual composition captures and embraces Brisbane’s subtropical environment whilst breaking down built form and scale," the submission to the Brisbane City Council noted.

<img alt="First look: Seymour Group returns to Oxlade Drive with revised riverfront apartment plans in New Farm" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c12d84d0-bc11-4067-b46f-5bd2d786a34d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/new%20farm%20landscape.png?VersionId=YEPc2k5CAdh6aAPlu4uVpgZadh4MEfRd" />

A defining feature of the design is a deep landscaped void running through the centre of the building, creating what bureau^proberts describes as a "natural ravine" that enhances airflow, daylight penetration and resident amenity. The design report notes that the separation of the two building volumes is intended to maximise natural light, cross-ventilation and outlook while strengthening connections to the surrounding riverfront setting.

Curved balcony edges, integrated planting and extensive landscaping throughout the façade reinforce the subtropical design approach. The building's façade is softened by elevated gardens and planter beds, creating a green edge that complements the established landscape character of Oxlade Drive and neighbouring Merthyr Park.

New Farm has become one of Brisbane's most sought-after suburbs for developers delivering premium downsizer-focused apartments.

GRAYA has been particularly active in the precinct, completing both Chalk and York in recent years, while construction of Moray House, being delivered for Spyre, is now nearing completion. Architect-turned-developer Joe Adsett recently launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/arcilla-new-farm-by-joe-adsett-28-maxwell-street-new-farm-qld-4005">Arcilla on Maxwell Street</a>, an exclusive collection of just nine apartments.

First look: Seymour Group returns to New Farm's Oxlade Drive with riverfront apartment plans

A new residential tower will be the first piece of a broader mixed-use precinct set to reshape a prominent Newcastle West site, with local developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/gwh">GWH</a> bringing its <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/cambridge-quarter-newcastle-west-12-denison-street-newcastle-west-nsw-2302">Cambridge Quarter</a> vision to market.

The first release, Tempo, will introduce 87 apartments across a 24-storey tower, marking Stage 1 of the residential component of a larger urban regeneration project planned for the western end of Newcastle's city centre, encompassing the former Cambridge Hotel site.

Positioned on Denison Street, Tempo has been designed as the inaugural building within Cambridge Quarter, a precinct that will ultimately combine apartments, retail activation and revitalised public spaces including the revamping of the Cambridge Hotel.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=135876 project_image_fid=368853]

The tower will comprise a mix of one, two and three-bedroom apartments, including layouts with multipurpose rooms, catering to a broad cross-section of owner-occupiers. Apartment sizes range from around 60 sqm to 192 sqm, with a number of residences oriented to capture views across Newcastle Harbour, the city skyline and coastline.

GWH has emphasised liveability in the design, with open-plan layouts extending to generous balconies and terraces. Residents will have a choice of two interior palettes, while specifications include engineered stone benchtops, SMEG appliances, full-height bathroom tiling and secure building access. Premium upgrade packages will also be available.

Multiple rooftop resident retreats will provide communal outdoor space overlooking the harbour and city, offering an elevated amenity layer above the activity of the precinct below.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=135876 project_image_fid=368851]

The broader Cambridge Quarter vision extends beyond the residential tower itself. Ground-level retail activation and landscaped public areas are planned throughout the precinct, creating a walkable neighbourhood environment connected to the surrounding renewal of Newcastle West. The Cambridge Hotel is also earmarked for future redevelopment into a family-friendly hospitality venue integrated with the new precinct.

The project is strategically positioned within walking distance of Newcastle Interchange, providing access to light rail, regional rail services and direct connections to Sydney. Residents will also be close to Honeysuckle, Newcastle Harbour and the city's beaches and coastal walkways.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=135876 project_image_fid=368852]

For GWH, Cambridge Quarter represents one of its most significant Newcastle developments to date. The locally based developer, which has operated in the Hunter region since 1995, describes the project as a new chapter in the ongoing transformation of Newcastle West.

GWH Executive Director Jonathan Craig said the project had been shaped by a focus on creating lasting community connections.

"We take pride in creating places that last. Spaces where people feel connected, comfortable and a genuine sense of belonging," Craig said.

"Cambridge Quarter is something we are truly proud of, a place shaped by local knowledge, built with care and designed to be part of Newcastle's next chapter."

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=135876]

GWH unveils first release at landmark Cambridge Quarter precinct in Newcastle West

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/ss-projects">S&amp;S Projects</a>,&nbsp;Rainbow Bay's busiest developer,&nbsp;has officially lodged plans for the largest development in its booming local portfolio, seeking approval for a further 88 apartments on Boundary Street.

The proposal&nbsp;at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/209-213-boundary-street-coolangatta-qld-4225">209–213 Boundary Street, Coolangatta</a>,&nbsp;marks the next chapter in the developer's transformation of the southern Gold Coast beachside precinct. It will be its fifth in the area, having already delivered Flow, Awaken and Esprit, while construction continues on the 38-apartment Radia. The new project would rise 57 metres above a consolidated 1,518 sqm site, on the same street as Radia and Esprit.

&nbsp;

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cottee-parker-architects">Cottee Parker</a>, the proposed development comprises 88 two and three-bedroom apartments across a contemporary podium-and-tower form that integrates extensive landscaping from street level through to the rooftop.

The tower would be delivered above a basement and multi-level podium accommodating resident and visitor parking, with the residential component commencing from level three. The design incorporates cascading planting throughout the façade, landscaped podium edges, and deep planting zones along the Boundary Street frontage.

<img alt="First look: S&amp;S Projects lodges plans for 88-apartment wellness tower at Coolangatta's Boundary Street" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="677e6615-b5c0-4b6c-b4f9-efb14fcde1a6" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/ss%20da%20pers.png?VersionId=YOnPKQm7IFXv0M5H326djEpxk80500Hi" />

A key feature of the development is its expansive rooftop wellness and recreation precinct. Plans reveal a resort-style pool deck, gymnasium, sauna, steam room, hot and cold plunge pools, rooftop terraces, barbecue areas and landscaped relaxation spaces positioned to capture views across the southern Gold Coast coastline.

The rooftop wellness focus builds on the vision S&amp;S Projects first outlined when it acquired the site for $20.25 million last year.

"We are taking every advantage to create a truly unique rooftop wellness experience with a natural feel for residents, offering stone features throughout and an underlying theme that emulates a botanical garden," S&amp;S Projects founder and director Paul Gedoun said at the time.

The proposal seeks a 57-metre building height, representing a 50 per cent uplift on the site's mapped 38-metre height limit. Planning documents argue the additional height is consistent with recently approved and emerging towers in the immediate Boundary Street and Rainbow Bay precinct.

Urbis, acting as planning consultant, said the development would provide "88 dwellings, comprising a mix of two and three-bedroom apartments, contributing to housing choice and supply within an established medium to high-rise coastal urban neighbourhood."

The scheme has undergone extensive pre-lodgement consultation with the City of Gold Coast, with the design refined following feedback relating to architectural expression, landscaping, traffic access and podium treatment.

<img alt="S&amp;S" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="0a2d70fd-62ac-4b83-97c6-b798fc1243dd" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-06-05%20at%209.16.31%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=yHmghUwKM3IVGpBktQU1mE.0Lpf3WimG" />

The architectural team is led by Brisbane-based Cottee Parker, one of Australia's most active residential design studios, with landscape architecture by Dunn + Moran. The consultant team also includes ADG Engineers, Windtech and Acoustic Works.

S&amp;S Projects has become one of the most influential private developers operating on the southern Gold Coast. Since entering Rainbow Bay in 2022, the company has assembled a portfolio exceeding $1 billion in end value, establishing itself as a key player in the area's evolution into a premium apartment destination. Pezet Matheson will again handle the sales for S&amp;S.

Coolangatta is entering another wave of apartment development, following the delivery of several prominent residential projects in recent years.

John Kearney's Immerse Projects will launch&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/kaiya-kirra-beach-5-haig-street-coolangatta-qld-4225">Kaiya on Haig Street</a>&nbsp;soon, meanwhile, Palm Beach-based Sherpa Property Group is preparing to bring its debut Coolangatta development, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/flourish-viver-87-griffith-street-coolangatta-qld-4225">Flourish Viveré</a>, to market later this year, subject to approvals.

First look: S&S Projects proposes 88-apartment wellness tower at Coolangatta's Boundary Street

A landmark former orphanage site in Surrey Hills could be transformed into a new residential community under plans lodged by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/antipodean-land-developments">Antipodean Land Developments</a> that would deliver 76 apartments and townhouses while restoring some of the suburb's most significant heritage buildings.

The burgeoninng Melbourne-based developer has submitted plans for the 9,158 sqm site at 1 Kent Road and 24 Durham Road, home to the former St Joseph's Home for Destitute Children, a historic institutional complex dating back to the late 19th century. The proposal seeks to adaptively reuse several heritage buildings while introducing two new four-storey residential buildings set within extensive landscaped grounds.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/woods-bagot">Woods Bagot</a> and Kerstin Thompson Architects, the project has been conceived as a contemporary residential village embedded within a restored heritage precinct. The development team describes the design approach as "The Village in the Garden," with new buildings positioned among mature landscaping by OCULUS and significant heritage structures.

<img alt="First look: Antipodean Land Developments plans heritage-led apartment community in Surrey Hills" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="44ec8c1b-c0b6-44ae-859e-5811b3e6a023" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%281%29.png?VersionId=p.p1_KFh4iQoV4nisdnPfQBAsWNi7m79" />

The proposal would deliver 76 dwellings comprising a mix of apartments and duplex-style residences, significantly increasing housing supply on one of the largest privately held residential landholdings in Surrey Hills. The development includes 127 car spaces, 24 bicycle spaces and more than 1,000 sqm of communal amenity, with the existing chapel building earmarked for conversion into resident facilities.

According to the planning submission, the project centres on the restoration and adaptive reuse of the site's most significant heritage assets, including the original c.1889 St Joseph's building, the chapel designed by architect Augustus Andrew Fritsch, and the historic brick perimeter walls and entry gates. The proposal also incorporates the retention of other contributory buildings including the former infirmary and school building.

Tract Consultants, in the planning report accompanying the application, said the scheme had been shaped through extensive heritage analysis and design development.

"The shared vision for the Site by the project team has culminated in a scheme which successfully breathes life back into a historic site while delivering upon the objectives of Victoria's Housing Statement in a carefully curated and contextually responsive manner."

<img alt="First look: Antipodean Land Developments plans heritage-led apartment community in Surrey Hills" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="7263b7d8-95ea-400f-9531-6ca7d22c3c33" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%282%29.png?VersionId=4cR1tiWOsDpgxEOwZi5vVFcyvvOsYkIE" />

The proposal is being assessed under Victoria's Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway. As part of the application, three per cent of the project's residential development cost would be contributed to the Social Housing Growth Fund. The development would also provide a diverse mix of one, two and three-bedroom residences targeting a broader range of buyers than typically found in Surrey Hills' detached housing market.

Sustainability initiatives include an anticipated 66 per cent BESS score, natural cross-ventilation to 80 per cent of apartments, 28 per cent deep soil landscaping and a canopy cover outcome exceeding local planning requirements. The proposal also sets aside more than 1,083 sqm for communal indoor and outdoor resident amenity spaces.

<img alt="First look: Antipodean Land Developments plans heritage-led apartment community in Surrey Hills" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="33fad46f-fe26-4d0a-acfd-6b776e1c6a3d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Untitled%20design.png?VersionId=D9F6WVSyYCtGvSUmith35LRp6R7PQkw_" />

Planning documents describe the property as one of the largest underutilised residential sites in Surrey Hills, arguing it presents a rare opportunity to introduce "missing middle" housing in an established inner-eastern suburb while preserving and revitalising a significant heritage precinct.

Antipodean Land Developments has built a reputation for design-focused residential projects across Melbourne, particularly in the medium-density sector. Previous developments include Neighbourhood in Brunswick East, delivered with Breathe Architecture, and Balfe Park Lane, designed by Kerstin Thompson Architects.

They've been very active in site acquisition as they build out their future development pipeline. They recently launched Thornubury House, 45 apartments above a mix of commercial, retail, and food and beverage tenancies, and have plans for a boutique project in Fitzroy and another <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/vic/antipodean-plan-apartments-for-deepdenes-missing-middle-on-whitehorse-road">"missing middle" project</a> on Deepdene's Whitehorse Road.

First look: Antipodean Land Developments plans heritage-led apartment community in Surrey Hills

Airports

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

The clock keeps ticking. And it's not going away anytime soon. I'm of course talking about land transport to and from Melbourne Airport, or more to the point our over-reliance on the road network to transport both passengers and employees to and from the airport terminals and the many businesses located nearby.

In either reporting or an op-ed form, there's a vast array of published public advocacy for a Melbourne rail link both here on UM and elsewhere, and when Spring Street is asked to comment, this article in <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-aiport-begs-for-rail-link-warns-tullamarine-freeway-faces-gridlock-20161205-gt4hnr">The Age</a> from December 2016 illustrates the government's consistent response: yes, but not now.

<blockquote>
Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan said an airport rail link could not be build without the Metro Rail Tunnel first being completed.

"In less than two years we've fully funded and started building the Metro Tunnel, and we're getting on with the other major projects our network needs – 50 level crossing removals, bigger trains, high-capacity signalling and major line upgrades in Melbourne and regional Victoria," Ms Allan said.
<cite>Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan as quoted in <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-aiport-begs-for-rail-link-warns-tullamarine-freeway-faces-gridlock-20161205-gt4hnr">The Age</a></cite>
</blockquote>

Whether the government doesn't want to commit to expanding the scope of works required in an already incredibly large-scale project - the 'High Capacity Metro Line' (HCML - the Melbourne Metro Tunnel + Level Crossing removals + new trains + new signalling system on the Sunbury-Pakenham/Cranbourne corridor) - or some other reason, we may never know.

However, the 'line' pushed out by the government is consistent: the government is placing a de facto Metro tunnel dependency on the Melbourne Airport Rail link.

If we take this on face value, then why isn't the government positioning itself to kick off the project so that its construction and opening coincides with the completion of the metro tunnel in 2025-2026? Day 1 of metro tunnel operations would be day 1 of Airport rail services as well as Melton.

The <a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/files/Draft%20strategy%20-%20tech%20reports/AECOMPwC%20Options%20Assessment%203%20Technical%20Report%20%E2%80%93%20Supplement%20C.PDF">Aecom-PWC report</a> conducted for Infrastructure Victoria to inform the authority on the costs of well-known big-ticket transport projects produced a 'lower bound cost' of $2.1 billion and an 'upper bound cost' of $3.1 billion to build the Melbourne Airport Heavy rail line - project coded as MAH (refer to <a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/files/Draft%20strategy%20-%20tech%20reports/AECOMPwC%20Options%20Assessment%203%20Technical%20Report%20%E2%80%93%20Supplement%20C.PDF">pages 25 through 30</a>).

The line as assessed in the report would include rebuilding Albion Station (and presumably a proper grade separated rail junction that didn't force airport trains to pass the Albion station platforms), a new rail bridge over the Maribyrnong (presumably to run alongside the <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/63W8YFSSzxo">existing bridge</a> which carries the interstate network across the river), an elevated track section in the airport precinct and a station at the airport near the transport hub near terminals 3 &amp; 4.

The draft options book, which the Aecom-PWC report findings were fed into, found that the benefit-cost ratio without wider economic benefits ranged from 1.0 and 1.2 and with wider economic benefits, the ratio would be 1.2 to 1.6. In other words, the project makes economic sense in that the project would produce an 'even' return (1.0) or more likely a positive return.

<blockquote>
While the existing plans for an Airport Rail Link have provided the basis for our assessment, we have not proposed a particular technical solution for this option, but note that existing plans for the rail link along the Albion East alignment and connecting to the south-east via the Melbourne Metro tunnel are projected to face capacity challenges over the long term, due to growth on the Melton and Sunbury lines which would share tracks with the airport line.

A more enduring solution could require a different network configuration, potentially leveraging further capacity upgrades to the Sunshine and Werribee corridors (ref. 10.10.2), or by identifying a different corridor for the airport rail link – whether connected to the existing rail corridor or a separate dedicated link. Consideration could even be given to linking to regional rail corridors.

However, caution is warranted in pursuing any options which would be materially higher cost than the current plans.
<cite><a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/files/Draft%20Options%20Book%20Version%20Two%20-%20FINAL.PDF">Infrastructure Victoria Draft Options Book version two</a>, page 460</cite>
</blockquote>

Furthermore:

<blockquote>
With the large supply of car parking areas at Melbourne Airport, there is a risk that the structure of the pricing and number of services may not attract people to leave their cars at home.

This could lower the benefits from this option that involves a significant capital investment. This option presents the opportunity to re-use a proportion of the existing airport car parking for more productive land uses such as hotels and other development plans to increase the ability to realise Melbourne Airport as a national employment centre.
<cite><a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/files/Draft%20Options%20Book%20Version%20Two%20-%20FINAL.PDF">Infrastructure Victoria Draft Options Book version two</a>, page 460</cite>
</blockquote>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/schematic_stage_3_0.png" rel="gallery-all" title="The Melton &amp; Airport lines in the context of the 2012 PTV Network Development Plan"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="490" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/schematic_stage_3_0.png?itok=75YHa7P0" title="The Melton &amp; Airport lines in the context of the 2012 PTV Network Development Plan" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Melton &amp; Airport lines in the context of the 2012 PTV Network Development Plan</figcaption></figure>In 2016's budget, nearly half a billion dollars was committed to upgrading the Ballarat line - including duplicating the track between Deer Park and Melton as the precursor to electrification and bringing Melton onto the Metro network, another western branch of the new HCML.

And most recently comments from the Prime Minister about Melbourne's lack of a rail link point to, perhaps, an increasing willingness for the Federal Government to finally invest in a proper city shaping project (and not a project for the road freight lobby) in Melbourne.

Despite efforts at the state level to remove the politics out of infrastructure planning - the true test for Spring Street will be once they release their 5-year plan at the end of the year - populism is going to reign supreme at the Federal level.

Daniel Andrews, Jacinta Allan and Tim Pallas should be grabbing this opportunity to kick off the planning and design for the second round of Melton line works (the electrification) and the planning and design for the Airport Link at the same time.

The existing non-electrified regional track from Sunshine to Deer Park will need to be duplicated (to become a 4 track corridor) to maintain separation of Vline and Metro services where the regional trains are at their most frequent (Geelong trains turn off the corridor beyond Deer Park) and that will inevitably result in augmentation of Sunshine station, specifically its track layout.

Given the likelihood of building airport rail link will require minimal interaction with existing services - it would be built adjacent to existing track or in new corridors - and that catenary can be installed with only minor interference with existing services, the major disruptive works will likely be where the two branches connect with the mainline and Sunshine and Albion respectively. Upgrading Melton and building the Airport branches at the same time would present an opportunity to minimise disruption by building both new junctions at the same time.

The overwhelming majority of track for the airport line in the Albion corridor can be built in isolation, therefore it begs the question what's stopping the planning for the airport link and Melton electrification kicking off soon with the aim of opening these two new branches at or around the same time as the HCML?

If the High Capacity Metro Line is to begin operations in 2025-2026 when the new tunnel opens, that's plenty of lead time for both governments to invest in the detailed business case for both branches within the next 12 months and then pending the results, kick off an 18-24 month planning and design period thereafter.

Another 36-month build-test-commission period after the planning and design phase would bring us very close to the estimated High Capacity Metro Line opening date.

Spring Street might want Melburnians to focus on the huge infrastructure programme it has unleashed on the city already, however what's next?

The 5 year plan to be released at the end of the year might answer this question but will the Federal Government be on side with it? Unlikely - it's far more likely to be infrastructure politics as usual when it comes to dealing with Canberra.

Spring Street should be getting the Federal Government to put their money where the Prime Minister's mouth is and get them to lock in the $2-$3 billion extra needed to add the airport branch to the new cross-city metro line.

Lead image: Daniel Bowen
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Tick tock: let's get Melton upgraded and the Airport rail link built at the same time

<html><body>
Refreshed stations delivered as part of the ongoing level crossing removal project, the new Melbourne Metro tunnel, ballsy private sector-lead high-speed rail proposals like CLARA and now the Rail Futures 'InterCity' paper. It's a good mix of shovels in the ground and an eye on the future of rail in the state.

The Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) high-speed rail and InterCity paper by Rail Futures have a true statewide focus through the creation of brand new cities serviced by a high-speed rail line (CLARA) and InterCity's advocacy for population decentralisation outside of Melbourne.

While it is tempting to launch straight into an analysis of the hard infrastructure proposals in the InterCity report, we need to talk about the notion of a "State of Cities".

It's quite easy to throw phrases like "building sustainable cities" around, and 9 times out of 10, the message will likely be interpreted as building green cities, which is fine, but what about a growing city sustaining its own residents through increased local employment opportunities?

I must echo the comments made by Alan Davies <a href="https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2016/09/07/are-regional-dormitories-the-way-to-grow-our-cities/">earlier this week</a>: the overriding vision in the InterCity report seems to focus largely on enhanced regional rail line infrastructure and services as the new high-speed commuter conduits from the regional cities into central Melbourne.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the '20 minute city' concept (regardless of how pithy that aspiration is). Inter-city commuting, on the scale of Ballarat/Geelong/Bendigo to central Melbourne, would be the domain with those with high levels of income.

The regional cities may currently have, and potentially build new, affordable housing, but it won't be cheap to commute, nor should it. We should be focusing our efforts on creating jobs in the regional cities so that locals can work local.

It would be wrong to narrow the affordable housing debate into one of grand-scale long-distance commuting to Melbourne from the regional cities and this specific debate needs further study, not just from the planning and transport realm, but also the health, economic and small, medium and large business realms.

Moreover in InterCity, there's an assumption that regional rail services will remain diesel-powered.

In light of the Victorian Government's recent posturing to kick-start renewable energy investment as well as the <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-hope-for-solar-towers-as-south-aust-seeks-energy-competitors-94366">recent news</a> that the SA Government 'announced a new tender designed to introduce new competition in the [generation] market': to build solar-based power plants and storage, capable of dispatching electricity into the grid 24 hours a day. I'd argue that on top of assessing the individual proposals, a switch to greater electrification throughout the regional rail network should also receive a look in.

Overall however, InterCity is an elegant and informative document and will likely be a report that's referenced a lot in future (the proposals contained within it now need to run the gauntlet of cost-benefit analyses to ascertain whether any of its multiple proposals stack up).

<h2>CLARA and InterCity: a crossover?</h2>

The proposals outlined in the <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/160804-Regional-Rail-paper-v14.1.11-final-for-printing.pdf">InterCity report</a> are spread over two phases:

Phase 1 would see an investment program which deals with incremental change over a few election cycles: line speed upgrades (trackwork, signaling, level crossing protection), duplicating single track sections and quadruplicating metro area track to allow greater separation of regional and metro trains as well as increase regional service frequencies. The start of the cross-country network on the newly converted standard gauge track between Geelong, Ballarat and Maryborough/Horsham would also begin in this phase.

<blockquote>
Phase 1 also includes a fundamental shift in transport govenance, to actively integrate planning across transport modes and to deliver on the objectives of the Transport Integration Act 2010.

<cite>InterCity: How regional rail can re-balance population growth and create a 'state of cities' in Victoria (page 44)</cite>
</blockquote>

Phase 2 is the more meaty part of the infrastructure proposal, made possible by changes in phase 1: further line speed upgrades to enable 200kph operations where achievable, a dedicated fast line that would extend from Southern Cross to Melbourne Airport and then act as a new main line for Bendigo/Echuca/Swan Hill and Seymour/Shepparton/Wodonga regional services.

This new route would also double as the future path for future inter-state high-speed rail services to enter Melbourne.

The second phase also calls for a new fast line to Geelong that would connect to the cross-country network and that same network would then be extended from Maryborough into Bendigo. Overarching everything would see more and more lines converted from broad gauge track to standard gauge, presumably made simpler by installing dual gauge sleepers from the get-go so that a gauge switch can eventually be carried out with minimal disruption.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/intercity_phase2_map.png" rel="gallery-all" title="InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="457" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/intercity_phase2_map.png?itok=IWhWXT_5" title="InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)</figcaption></figure>The <a href="http://www.clara.com.au/">CLARA</a> high-speed rail and city-building proposal came to light in mid-July with ex-Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales fronting a media conference. The organisation's website is vague and much of the media reporting at the time was also vague: there's still a lot of cards being held close to the chest of the CLARA directors.

One might expect a proposal such as this to tout a particular rail technology, alas, it didn't. Instead, visitors to CLARA's website are presented with images and a video which depicts conventional high-speed rail (metal wheels on metal tracks) and maglev technology.

No doubt there are commercial reasons behind not revealing the type of high-speed rail CLARA will run with eventually, however if any tests that might prove any of InterCity's proposals to be worthy of adding to the long-term infrastructure for the state come back positive, this would likely force the hand of CLARA or any other future high-speed rail proposal linking the state capitals.

Inherent in InterCity's proposal is that the airport will function as a major hub: regional services would run to and from Bendigo and Seymour, City-Airport rail shuttle services and high-speed rail would use this corridor over the longer term. If this proposal is studied at any great length and it is found to have merit, the tracks initially built for the regional and shuttle services will not be able to handle maglev trains.

The sooner a clearer picture of the entire CLARA proposition is made public, the better.

<h2>InterCity's airport hub focus: multiple birds with one stone?</h2>

Based on media reporting at the time of CLARA's unveiling, it has become apparent that the Melbourne end of the route to Sydney is likely to kick off first. And fundamental to this will be the decision on how to access the terminus in central Melbourne.

If I were a betting man, I'd offer good odds that the Rudd and Gillard-era high-speed rail study for the east coast from 2012 has informed a part of CLARA's proposal. Thanks to the documents that are now in the public domain we know <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Appendix_Group_3D_Melbourne.pdf">the indicative route</a> and the estimated capital costs involved in the 2012 study.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/ec_hsr_costs.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Estimated costs on the East Coast High Speed Rail network (Appendix 4B)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="427" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ec_hsr_costs.png?itok=MeqT6wY4" title="Estimated costs on the East Coast High Speed Rail network (Appendix 4B)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Estimated costs on the East Coast High-Speed Rail network (<a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Appendix_Group_4_Cost_and_program.pdf">Appendix 4B</a>)</figcaption></figure>The 2012-era study foresaw the east coast high-speed rail network as a conventional line (minimum 300kph operations) which require their own corridor but do have the ability operate over the conventional networks. This is how the TGV system works in France: all high-speed lines lead to Paris and they connect with the mainline network on the outskirts of the city, and then travel to the various terminii on the lower-speed network.

Regardless, due to the century's old Australian anachronism of differing rail gauges, a new track pair would need to be built in Melbourne (or the really cheap solution would be to go really slow over the existing standard gauge line, fighting for access with freight trains).

The 2012 study found that the most effective solution to access Southern Cross is to build an approximately 12-13 kilometre tunnel from Gowrie station, near the Western Ring Road and Hume HWY, all the way to Southern Cross underneath the existing Upfield line; the orange line in the map below is an approximation of this route.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1D-QCvXH91ehwoHgPkWlO70JxkeA&amp;hl=en" width="100%"></iframe>

The estimated cost of this tunnel in 2012 was $2.2 billion. If you're trying to get your head around that figure by trying to compare it to the $6 billion figure for the 9km Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel, just don't. In short, a basic explanation is: the high-speed rail tunnel would just be that: a tunnel. No stations en route, just a path for trains to move in and out of Southern Cross and the Melbourne metropolitan area.

The 2012 study also has a "Northern Melbourne" station located just outside the tunnel in Campbellfield. The <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Chapter_3.pdf">indicative service plan</a> as part of the study foresaw this station effectively working in peak flow directions on the flagship inter-city express services: morning peak all Sydney-bound trains would stop en route, and in afternoon peaks all Melbourne-bound trains would stop here.

The rest of the 'pretty' lines on that map are my attempt to adapt the InterCity Melbourne Airport hub and the 2012 east-coast high-speed rail study. The blue line is a tunnel, measuring 14km - approximately 1 kilometre longer than the 2012 study tunnel - and the pink line is an elevated track leading to an elevated station 'bolted on' to the Terminal 1 expansion (which is depicted in Tullamarine's master plan); zoom in on the airport for more detail.

The Green and Yellow lines beyond the airport are my approximation of the new regional (and eventual high-speed) lines from the InterCity report.

Essentially the 2012 study route and station has been moved westward in that map: a tunnel leading all the way to Southern Cross is still the backbone, there's a "Northern Melbourne" station at the airport and the connections beyond the airport run outside the urban growth boundary for the most part (the 2012 study would have seen a new line built in the existing Upfield and Craigieburn-Wallan rail corridors, right through the middle of the growth areas).

Taking the known estimates for the 2012 study, I assume the cost to build the proposal as shown in the map would be similar to the study's cost breakdown; perhaps with a higher station, bridge and earthworks cost.

Like many others I don't hold high hopes for a high-speed rail line anytime soon. That's said, I'll be watching the CLARA proposal with interest and here's hoping the ducks fall into line across the various governments.

Furthermore I acknowledge the <a href="http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/resources/business-case">Melbourne Metro Rail business case</a> makes it pretty clear that airport rail services will eventually run through it; however it's always good to take a fresh look at things, especially now that the InterCity report is out in the open.

To close, I'll leave you with this thought: a 19km journey from Southern Cross through the tunnel and over the elevated sections into the airport station with a maximum speed of 200kph could be done in 8-10 minutes. How do you like them apples, Skybus and Transurban?
</body></html>

CLARA & Rail Future's InterCity: a crossover?

<html><body>
Melbourne's Tullamarine airport <a href="http://melbourneairport.com.au/news-events/listing/overview/melbourne-airports-2015-16-passenger-traffic-results">published its latest passenger numbers</a> on July 20th and announced it had achieved 5.1% passenger growth in the financial year ending June 30. This comprised 9.5% in international passenger growth compared to the same time last year and 3.7% passenger growth in the higher volume domestic segment.

At June 30th 2015, 32,192,000 passengers either originated or terminated a trip at Tullamarine's terminals and a further 122,000 transited at Melbourne to weigh in with a financial year 2015 total of 32,314,000 passengers.

Contrast this with the financial year just finished: 33,876,000 origin/destination passengers - made up of 9,165,000 international and 24,711,000 domestic trips - and coupled with a further 91,000 transiting passengers, the financial year to June 30 2016 total 33,967,000 passengers.

That's 1,684,000 more passengers that will have needed to travel to or from the airport terminals, compared to last year. All of those transfers/last mile trips will have taken placed on roads: on SkyBus, smart buses, private cars, taxis, Uber, town car services or shuttle buses. And that's only the passengers, never mind the legions of people who work at or near the airport precinct.

Aviation passenger statistics have peaks and troughs - at different times of the year and at different times of the week - for simplicity's sake by dividing the year-on-year growth number by 365 days in the year, we come up with an average of 4,613 new passenger trips along the Tullamarine Freeway, Airport Drive or Bulla Road.

But what is it going to be like in 10 years if similar growth continues?

According to the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport &amp; Regional Economic's <a href="http://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/index.aspx">aviation statistics</a>, in the past decade Melbourne airport has no recorded a negative calendar year of passenger growth. We've had two years of slow growth (1.3% in 2009 and 1% in 2011), however we have had on average 4.73% passenger growth each year since 2006. (See the data <a href="http://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/WebAirport_CY_1985-2015.xls">here</a>).

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Calendar Year</th>
			<th scope="col">Projected passenger growth 4% p.a.</th>
			<th scope="col">Projected passenger growth 2% p.a.</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2016</td>
			<td>34,101,000</td>
			<td>33,446,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2017</td>
			<td>35,465,000</td>
			<td>34,114,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2018</td>
			<td>36,884,000</td>
			<td>34,797,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2019</td>
			<td>38,359,000</td>
			<td>35,493,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2020</td>
			<td>39,894,000</td>
			<td>36,203,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2021</td>
			<td>41,490,000</td>
			<td>36,927,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2022</td>
			<td>43,149,000</td>
			<td>37,665,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2023</td>
			<td>44,875,000</td>
			<td>38,418,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2024</td>
			<td>46,670,000</td>
			<td>39,187,000</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2025</td>
			<td>48,537,000</td>
			<td>39,981,000</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
* The above passenger projections are based on BITRE's 2015 Calendar year figure of 32,790,000 (rounded to nearest thousand) with 4% and 2% per annum growth scenarios accordingly.

Both growth scenarios above - the high growth scenario representing less than the average which has occurred over the past decade - paint a picture of Melbourne airport seeing between 40 and 49 million passengers either originating or terminating their trip at Tullamarine.

And all of these passenger trips through the airport terminals are going to be dependent on the road network.

The <a href="http://citylinktullawidening.vic.gov.au/about">Citylink-Tulla widening project</a> that is set to add an extra freeway lane from the West Gate Freeway all the way out to the airport is set to be complete and the short-term road capacity unlocked in 2018.

The <a href="http://melbournemetro.vic.gov.au/resources/business-case">Melbourne Metro Rail project</a>, which according to its <a href="/news"> business case documents</a> is a dependent project for the Melbourne Airport Rail Link, is not set to be complete until 2024.

Assuming a best case scenario where the planning, approvals, tendering and financing of the Melbourne Airport Rail Link were to occur in the latter stages of the Melbourne Metro Rail project's construction phase, so that construction can start in earnest soon after the Melbourne Metro Rail project is complete, we'd be looking at a rail link to Melbourne opening sometime in or after 2027 assuming a quick three year turnaround for construction of the Airport Rail Link.

10+ years from the time the new freeway capacity is unlocked (I give it, maximum, five years before we're back to the same congested status quo, just with higher volumes of traffic) to when a potential rail link would open is enormous. And risky from a congestion point of view; not just at the airport, but on many other segments of the Tullamarine Freeway.

The roar of engines on their take-off roll is only going to increase in frequency, yet this relentless passenger growth, both current and projected, is met with silence on providing real structural change in the way we interface with the airport.

Tick, tock.

Tick.

Tock.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://railgallery.wongm.com/skybus/E114_2168.jpg">wongm's rail gallery</a>
</body></html>

Tick tock: Melbourne airport records 5.1% FY16 passenger growth

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

In case you missed it, Melbourne's Tullamarine airport has been a story of growth, growth and even more growth for the past decade. A story of growth in passenger numbers using the terminals and a story of projected growth in employment within the entire aviation precinct.

One of the FAQs on the airport's <a href="http://melbourneairport.com.au/about-melbourne-airport/melbourne-airport-partners/faqs-1389">community &amp; partners web page</a> states "the airport's operations directly support 14,300 jobs, which is forecast to grow to 23,000 by 2033". Furthermore the FAQ goes on to state "more than two-thirds of these jobs are held by people living in communities around the airport".

According to official numbers published by the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, in 2006 Tullamarine airport saw <a href="http://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/airport_traffic_data.aspx">21,567,868 passengers</a> through its terminals. In 2015 it was <a href="http://melbourneairport.com.au/about-melbourne-airport/media/media-releases/melbourne-airports-2015-passenger-traffic-results-1868">32,989,094 passengers</a> according to an airport media release published in January; or better represented as 53% growth over a decade.

As they say in the financial world, past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future return, however if the next decade's growth is even remotely similar to that of the past then there will be upwards of 45,000,000-50,000,000 passengers using Melbourne airport by the time the Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel is open for business. The airport expects there to be 60,000,000 passengers to be <a href="http://melbourneairport.com.au/about-melbourne-airport/current-projects/road-improvement-projects">using the airport by 2030</a>.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/mel_air_precinct_plans.png" rel="gallery-all" title="The airport isn't just about travel: precinct breakdown from Melbourne Airport's master plan"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="407" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mel_air_precinct_plans.png?itok=2fP6dIGM" title="The airport isn't just about travel: precinct breakdown from Melbourne Airport's master plan" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The airport isn't just about travel: precinct breakdown from Melbourne Airport's master plan</figcaption></figure>Last year the $1.3 billion Citylink / Tullamarine Freeway widening project was announced which is set to add an extra traffic lane in each direction between the West Gate Freeway / Bolte Bridge interchange and Melbourne Airport.

Judging by the 6-7 year gap between widening projects on the Monash Freeway, it's likely the inducement effect of increased freeway capacity on the Tullamarine Freeway will have the road lobby squealing for another widening project in another decade, especially if the passenger and employment growth numbers projected at Melbourne airport actually come to fruition.

The centre of Melbourne - from a population and economic sense - is shifting westward and all the dry economic and planning commentary asking if a rail link to Melbourne Airport is worth it is moot as sometimes I think participants completely disregard the growth story at the airport and its surrounding employment precincts.

The Airport Drive extension was opened last year and thanks to a recent Google satellite map update over the entire metropolitan area, we can now clearly see the rapid change that's occurring in the 'landside business precinct' on the airport's land.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="450" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m13!1m11!1m3!1d12212.711209546773!2d144.86063659064953!3d-37.69717590063364!2m2!1f0!2f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sau!4v1458782613102" style="border:0" width="100%"></iframe>

Of course, we are going to need a rail line to the airport. The relentless growth reported monthly by the Melbourne airport owner continually counters here-and-now static arguments about public transport mode shift and whether or not the skybus service can continue to cope (and current road works are likely to play havoc with reliability, ditto for the next future widening project).

The questions we should be asking:

<ul>
<li>How many stations should the airport rail link have? A station near Sharps Road and Airport Drive? A station near Keilor Park Drive / Avondale Heights?</li>
	<li>How can we extend the route 59 tram to the airport to provide a high quality public transport service to the areas in the north west which are bypassed by the heavy rail line?</li>
	<li>Which roads and freeways require widening to cater for bus lanes carrying high frequency smart bus-like routes servicing areas to the west (Watergardens, Hillside, Melton, Caroline Springs) and east (Broadmeadows, Greenvale, Somerton, Epping, Campbellfield) of the airport?</li>
</ul>
Tullamarine Airport may have been built on the city fringe in the 60s/70s and thanks to the forward planning that has limited suburban growth to the west and north of the region, the airport enjoys a curfew-free status that is a distinct advantage over many other Australian cities. Like the centre of the city, the Tullamarine area is undergoing rapid growth.

The airport rail line has appeared on PTV heavy rail network development maps as a branch line of the larger Sunbury-Pakenham/Cranbourne line that will be created once the Melbourne Metro Rail project comes online since 2012, however beyond it being present on a map, no timeline for its construction has been published and you can be forgiven for thinking we're looking at a typical waterfall scenario of development.

The Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel is penciled in for a 2026 completion date and can we really wait another 4-5 years beyond that date for a heavy rail line to finally service the airport given the huge growth passenger and employment projections for the area?

No, we can't. Infrastructure Victoria needs to treat the Melbourne airport region like another CBD.

The authority needs to give Melbourne airport priority in assessing the ground transport needs so that the Victorian government can start allocating budget money for holistic transport planning and money for kicking off the smaller-scale projects - like bus and tram extensions - that can make a dent in the nauseating car dependency in and around Melbourne airport before a heavy rail line comes online.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.6971759,144.8606366,2805m/data=!3m1!1e3">Google Maps</a>.
</body></html>

Should Melbourne Airport get special treatment in Infrastructure Victoria's 30 year strategy?

<html><body>
The journey will take roughly 25 minutes calling at two intermediate points; the services will operate every 15 minutes for 19 hours a day; and the vehicles will run on - for the most part - existing rail corridors. Sound even remotely familiar?

I'm not referring to a Melbourne Airport Rail Link, I'm in fact referring to Toronto's <a href="http://upexpress.com/en/">Union Pearson Express</a> project that is well underway and scheduled to be operating next year.

Over the weekend Urban Toronto published a piece asking "<a href="http://www.urbantoronto.ca/news/2014/10/lanes-melbourne-could-something-similar-happen-here">The lanes of Melbourne: could something similar happen here?</a>" and in the spirit of mutual recognition our eerily similar, arguably long-lost Doppelganger located on the other side of the planet, I'd like to take a look at what Toronto's doing with its airport transportation.

The Union Pearson Express project in a nutshell:

<ul>
<li>New terminus platforms at Union Station (Toronto's central station) and Toronto Pearson International Airport.</li>
	<li>Upgrade and re-use of existing rail corridors between the centre of the city and near the airport.</li>
	<li>New branch line to allow trains to enter the airport precinct from the nearby existing rail corridor.</li>
	<li>Upgrade of two existing intermediate stations, one at Bloor which connects with Toronto's subway and one in Weston.</li>
	<li>Capital expenditure of $456 million CAD ($490million AUD in 2010 dollars), broken down in Canadian dollars: $355million for infrastructure works and approximately $100 million for service development.
	<ul>
<li>The Ontario Provincial Government-owned Metrolinx <a href="http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/upexpress/upexpress.aspx">website</a> goes on to state they have awarded contracts worth $128 million for new airport station and branch line connection, $75 million for train procurement and $24 million for the development of the Union station terminus.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6wOnNt3WdDA" width="100%"></iframe>

This is where comparing the UP Express project with the many ideas that have been floated for Melbourne Airport Rail Link gets really spooky.

Toronto's airport is located in the über-burb of Mississauga to the west of central Toronto with a road distance (as measured by <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/dir/Union+Station+Rail,+Toronto,+ON,+Canada/Toronto+Pearson+International+Airport,+6301+Silver+Dart+Dr,+Mississauga,+ON+L5P+1B2,+Canada/@43.6524001,-79.5750703,18092m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d4cb2cb8f8d3cb:0xc859da5affa61138!2m2!1d-79.379456!2d43.645218!1m5!1m1!1s0x882b394ac02dd491:0xb41d5de9c4030ec5!2m2!1d-79.62482!2d43.677718">Google Maps</a>) of approximately 25km. Tullamarine is uncannily similar when you <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/dir/Southern+Cross+Station,+Docklands,+Victoria/Melbourne+Airport,+Departure+Dr,+Melbourne+Airport+VIC+3045/@-37.7865809,144.9010968,19762m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6ad65d4e2e5ae775:0xf6cc548ff3f8019c!2m2!1d144.953388!2d-37.81816!1m5!1m1!1s0x6ad659a9ebaa3917:0xf045676052ff090!2m2!1d144.841027!2d-37.669012">measure road distance</a> from Southern Cross: 22km.

The Albion freight and interstate standard gauge rail corridor, the preferred alignment of State governments of both persuasions, <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Melbourne+Airport/@-37.7163219,144.8708364,2473m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad659a9ebaa3917:0xf045676052ff090">passes to within 1km</a> of Tullamarine airport's southern boundary; the Kitchener GO Rail corridor which is to be used for Union Pearson express services, is <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/search/toronto+airport/@43.6975328,-79.6259714,2260m/data=!3m1!1e3">within spitting distance</a> of the northern corner of Pearson airport's boundary.

If you stick to limited-access roads, the road journey in Melbourne is more direct versus using Toronto's grid of inner city freeways. Conversely the rail journey in Toronto will almost be as direct as is possible versus, should a Melbourne Airport Rail Link use the Albion corridor, the rail journey to Tullamarine which will swing out west via Sunshine then turn north east towards the airport.

Perhaps most importantly in explaining how Toronto's UP Express project has come about so quickly as opposed to the stagnation confronted by the predicament we face in Melbourne, it's wise to look at how differently rail has developed in our respective regions.

Despite many similarities between Melbourne and Toronto - and perhaps Australian and Canadian cities in general - a stark difference lies in the way our respective rail networks have developed over time. Where many of Melbourne's current rail corridors began with private operators, nationalisation was all the rage from the 1870s onwards and it laid bare to the vast metropolitan rail network we now have reaching from the CBD to the suburban fringes in all directions.

With the colonial and post-Federation state government owned and operated rail networks acting as the backbone for suburban expansion throughout Australia well before anyone had even heard of an 'automobile, private companies pushed forward and continue to be a dominant owner and operator of rail corridors in Canadian cities. The Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway companies have played a part in suburban rail services in Toronto like private companies did in Melbourne a long time ago but it wasn't until (relatively) recently - in the 1960's - that the Ontario Government rolled out the 'GO Transit' services operating over private railways.

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GO_Transit#Operations">According to Wikipedia</a>, GO Transit now owns 80% of the track in which it operates services over and given the relative lack of service frequency compared to most Melbourne Metro lines, Metrolinx (which owns and operates to the GO Transit brand for the Ontario Government) has a lot of flexibility to make projects like UP Express work.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/arl_spur_map-850x411.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Alignment of new branch line to serve Toronto's Pearson airport"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="280" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/arl_spur_map-850x411.jpg?itok=5wlNme77" title="Alignment of new branch line to serve Toronto's Pearson airport" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Alignment of new branch line to serve Toronto's Pearson airport</figcaption></figure>As I wrote last year, <a href="/news/half-of-the-melbourne-airport-rail-link-is-currently-under-construction">half of Melbourne's Airport Rail Link is already under construction</a> through the Regional Rail Link project.

In that piece I argued that the capacity which will be unlocked as part of the RRL project should be used to run rail services utilising an operator and a separate train configuration we already have to and from Tullamarine after expansion of the Albion corridor and a Tullamarine branch has taken place. I'm still very much of this view.

If you watch the current Spring Street Government's pre-campaign advertising about the Melbourne Airport Rail Link, the Government appears fixated on the notion the airport should be serviced with standard metro trains by making the Pakenham/Cranbourne corridor through-route to the Sunbury and a new airport line. The ALP's policy, stretching back to when they were last in government, is similar in that they originally proposed to have Pakenham/Cranbourne services run through the Melbourne Metro tunnel rather than the current Liberal Government's proposal to run it through existing track between South Yarra, Flinders Street, Southern Cross and North Melbourne.

Like the East West Link, this position has not be explained well, if at all.

Passengers heading to or from Tullamarine are going to have different needs than those who use the rest of the Metro network. Even a business day-tripper traveling with hand luggage to Melbourne will take up more space than the average Metro commuter.

In short, the vehicles which operate an airport service must take into account the extra spatial and luggage storage needs of airport passengers.

Any Tullamarine Airport rail link project should be an opportunity to break the "one train size/technology caters for all" mentality we have in Melbourne that so often produces great ideas but ultimately, at best, is severely delayed owing to enormous capital requirements or at worst enters the never-never. We must recognise that an airport rail link will be a premium service and therefore we should plan accordingly, just like Toronto has with the Union Pearson Express.

Image credit: <a href="http://upexpress.com/">UPExpress.com</a>.
</body></html>

Is Toronto's airport rail link a model for Melbourne?

<html><body>
It has been known and talked about in closed circles for some months, but Australia Pacific Airports Corporation Limited have finally unveiled their intention to comprehensively overhaul Melbourne Airport's International T2 Terminal. On Monday evening before 700 individuals representing business, government and the wider community, APAC Limited offered a sneak peek into the future redevelopment of the International Terminal as part of a sustained investment campaign.

Within the 2013/2014 financial year Melbourne Airport's capital expenditure weighed in at $420 million with Melbourne Airport CEO Chris Woodruff stating during the evening "next year alone we expect to invest around $700 million as part of sustained ten year investment period.”

Contained within the <a href="http://melbourneairport.com.au/docs/map-stakeholder-pres-2014_final_low-res.pdf">Melbourne Airport annual stakeholder report</a> are multiple concept images depicting total redevelopment of the previously untouched 1970's edifice. The intended redevelopment follows recent 'waves' of regeneration and expansion to Terminal 2, which currently sees works in play to enlarge the terminal's arrivals area.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image15map.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="A new visitor/user experience in the making. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="240" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image15map.jpg?itok=4jS9Kya7" title="A new visitor/user experience in the making. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A new visitor/user experience in the making. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport</figcaption></figure>As for the intended development, <a href="/">Apartments.com.au</a> understands it to be valued in the billions with the visitor/user experience at the crux of the new space. Under the working title of Market Place, a cavernous new terminal space offering a variety of services and retail outlets will stretch over the three existing terminal frontages, with Terminal 2 at its heart.

Departure Drive currently used by vehicles disembarking passengers will be banished, with all arriving transport modes relocated to the multi-level car park forecourt. In doing so it is expected the manic traffic flows to the terminal departure areas will be eliminated in favour of an enhanced user experience once the redevelopment is complete.

Multiple large blue retail pods are shown over ground floor with a vast expanse of space directly behind the sheer glass facade. Elsewhere double height luxury retail outlets will frame the internal space with a multitude of airline lounges set to crown the internal area in what will be a quantum leap forward for all users of the new terminal space.

Apartments.com.au also understands that once regulatory approval is gained via the Federal Government, APAC Limited is keen to facilitate construction as soon as is practically possible.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image16map.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="A sign of things to come. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="245" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image16map.jpg?itok=TcFtsNz5" title="A sign of things to come. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A sign of things to come. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport</figcaption></figure>According to <a href="https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/international_airline_activity-annual_publications.aspx">statistics on BITRE</a>, since 2007 Melbourne Airport's international growth has been consistently higher in percentage terms than that of Sydney airport with 24% of all international traffic in Australia now flying through Tullamarine.

In 2007, 20% of Australia's international traffic was moving through Melbourne Airport and this refresh of Melbourne's primary international gateway is sure to leave a better impression of our city on all those who pass through it.

In due course Apartments.com.au intends to cover the proposed International Terminal redevelopment in detail, including all interested parties perspectives on what is expected to become one of the State's flagship infrastructure projects.

With Alastair Taylor.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image17map.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The new terminal follows Departure Drive's curvature. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="242" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image17map.jpg?itok=ty_NfB1T" title="The new terminal follows Departure Drive's curvature. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The new terminal interior follows Departure Drive's curvature. Image courtesy Melbourne Airport</figcaption></figure>
</body></html>

silvermb

Melbourne Airport's stakeholder presentation reveals a new International Terminal

<html><body>
The Herald Sun is reporting plans are underway for a $1 billion monorail link between Melbourne's CBD and Tullamarine Airport. The plan is reportedly in its early phases and has garnered interest from a local infrastructure developer.

8 to 10 minutes travel time from either Flinders Street or Southern Cross station are the numbers being reported as well as the benefits of prefabricated construction techniques utilising factory line labour that is being laid off from the automotive industry.

The journalist quoted Peter O'Brien, the brainchild of the plan, as saying:

<blockquote>
The whole problem with heavy rail is you have to buy the land from the public and that’s expensive and takes years. Newly proven technology means we can now follow the established use of airspace in the northern hemisphere without building huge concrete edifices.
<cite>Peter O'Brien</cite>
</blockquote>

The report doesn't go into much detail and leaves many questions unanswered however that should not distract from taking this proposal seriously - any unsolicited private sector project should be assessed on merit once more public domain information is released and we very much look forward to that day.

Having said that, the following is an attempt to make sense of the limited information contained in the article.

The road distance from Southern Cross to Tullamarine is 22km as per Google maps which takes a route along Spencer Street, Dynon Road, Citylink and the Tullamarine Freeway. It's safe to assume that an 8-10 minute trip would mean the monorail vehicles would have a top speed in the range of 200kph given it takes approximately 20 minutes to drive the same distance and the speed limit on the freeway section of the route is 100kph.

Claims about not needing huge concrete edifices is interesting given utilising airspace is mentioned. The assumption here is that the monorail guideway would be elevated and therefore would need to clear the multiple overpasses currently crossing the Tullamarine Freeway - Ormond Road, Dawson Street, Victoria Street, Albion Street, Moreland Road and the very high Bell Street overpass just to name a few.

The Herald Sun report likewise mentions the Melbourne plan would be similar to that of a monorail built in Seoul without mentioning the Seoul project is in fact a maglev for the Incheon airport district yet the Melbourne proposal is reportedly to run on rubber-wheels.

Whether a classic steel wheel on steel rail, rubber-wheel or a maglev technology is utilised for the train, the bulk of any guideways (and therefore visual impact) depends on the width of the vehicles and whether there will be dual track or not - and this amongst other things is not made clear in the report.

If the service is to have capacity for 40,000 passengers an hour one can only assume this would be configured with dual track and vehicles with a capacity for 1000 people running every 3 minutes in each direction - impressive given the reported $1 billion price tag as reported by the Herald Sun.

<a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/bold-plan-to-build-1-billion-monorail-above-the-tullamarine-freeway-under-way/story-fni0fit3-1226844195129">The Herald Sun report</a> is available for viewing.

Lead Image source: <a href="http://kojects.com/2012/01/28/maglev-at-incheon-international-airport-to-be-completed-this-year/" style="font-size: 10px;">kojects.com</a>.
</body></html>

Monorail proposal to link Melbourne airport

<html><body>
Growing up, I couldn't believe we had no train to the airport. I could catch a train to such distant wonderlands as Hurstbridge, Tecoma and Tyabb (albeit on a 'Red Rattler'!); towns so small and far away that to most people they sound mythical. Yet if I wanted to catch a train to the airport, located in Tullamarine, a suburb just 17km from the CBD, I was left scratching my head whilst dad inserted half his weekly wage into the parking machine in order for us to pick Grandma up on her return from Europe.

Any friends which visited from overseas/interstate would look at me gobsmacked and laugh. “What, there's no train? I thought you said Melbourne was the most liveable city in the world”!

Tullamarine Airport opened fairly recently (1970) in the infrastructure scheme of things. Its predecessor, Essendon Airport (still used for charter and general aviation) also didn't have a rail link, making this continued oversight even more frustrating. Admittedly, the new Tullamarine site was chosen for its relative lack of surrounding housing, theoretically making future expansion an easier proposition. If you look at the debacle that is currently the search for a site of Sydney's second airport, this foresight has turned out to be worth its weight in gold!

43 years on, we still have no end in sight with regards to high capacity (although we do have high frequency) public transport to and from Tullamarine. Multiple rail routes have been mooted – branches from the Craigieburn and Upfield lines, a direct underground line, and a branch from Albion-Jacana standard gauge freight and interstate corridor, as well as an extension of the tram line from Airport West.

Some of these have now been wisely cast aside:

<ol>
<li>The tram line would take much too long. The tram trip from the airport to the city would be almost certainly be in excess of an hour, resulting in a longer trip than a flight from Melbourne to Adelaide or Sydney!</li>
	<li>An underground line would be much too expensive. Underground heavy rail costs about 10 times the cost of heavy rail at grade. And given the much needed 9km Melbourne Metro tunnel has been estimated to cost $9 Billion, the cost of an underground airport link could approach double that.</li>
	<li>A stopping all stations trip via the Craigieburn/Upfield lines would take much too long, and there are too many capacity/signalling problems as it is to run extra express services.</li>
</ol>
That leaves the Albion-Jacana branch line as the only viable option. In some ways it makes sense – The Southern Cross – Sunshine section is currently being upgraded as part of the RRL, so the only new rail line needed is dual track alongside the standard gauge lines in the Albion corridor and a relatively short deviation from Airport West to the airport terminal. When PTV released their multi-decade plan recently choosing this as their preferred option, all seemed right in the world. Except...

<figure class="align-left"><img alt="" height="217" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/0801rail_links-300x0.jpg" title="Source: The Age" width="300"><figcaption>Source: The Age</figcaption></figure>Until last year I just accepted my fate and drove to the airport. However I finally got sick of Melbourne Airport's exorbitant parking prices (the most expensive in the world – more than London Heathrow or JFK New York!) and decided to do something I promised myself I would do for years – catch Skybus!

It was a great experience – it ran direct from Southern Cross to the terminal door, ran every 10 minutes so no need to book a seat, and best of all, only took 20 minutes!

Given the airport train is tipped to take 20 minutes (via Southern Cross option) and up to 30 minutes (via Melbourne Metro Tunnel option), is it really worth spending billions of dollars on an option which wont get us there faster than the current option?

Consider this:

<ol>
<li>Skybus runs direct from Southern Cross Station to the airport, the same as a train would.</li>
	<li>Skybus runs every 10 minutes 24 hours a day. Metro trains do not currently run overnight – running extra trains would be more expensive than running extra buses.</li>
	<li>Skybus is scalable. If extra services need to be added at a later date, buying extra buses is much cheaper than buying extra trains! I also assume that special airport trains would have to be purchased, as current metro trains do not have any luggage storage capacity.</li>
	<li>Skybus costs $17 one way and $28 return, comparable with Sydney's airport train. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/skybus-lane-faces-fight-20130103-2c7ib" target="_blank">There has recently been talk of the government subsidising the fare and installing Myki readers on the buses</a>, thus reducing the cost of a trip to the equivalent of a zone 1 / 2 fare.</li>
	<li>There is no guarantee a train would actually increase mode share over the bus. Both Sydney's Airport Link and Brisbane's Airtrain were initial disasters, with low patronage levels forcing Sydney's train into administration and Brisbane very nearly following suit. They both survived, however even today their mode shares are only 8% and 11% respectively. Skybus' mode share is a tick under 9%. Not bad all things considering.</li>
	<li>Skybus only takes 20 minutes off peak, but up to 40-50 minutes during peak hour. The last point is obviously the most contentious. However its one solved by creating bus express lanes on the Tullamarine Freeway. There is a risk people and organisations such as the RACV will cry foul about the effect this will have on car traffic, however road projects currently underway and planned by the Tullamarine airport authority such as extending &amp; upgrading Airport Drive enabling another high capacity road from the Western Ring Road into the airport would go a long way to alleviating the current crunch at the end of the Tullamarine Freeway.</li>
</ol>
<figure><img alt="" height="271" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/292854-airport-road%20%282%29.jpg" title="Source: Herald Sun" width="482"><figcaption>Source: Herald Sun</figcaption></figure>CityLink and more vigorously Melbourne Airport, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/skybus-lane-faces-fight-20130103-2c7ib" target="_blank">are of course against this proposal</a>. They make a fortune from the borderline criminal parking rates they charge, and aren't keen on this stopping any time soon. It is ridiculous when you think about it – what other organisation in the world would actively campaign against having yet another high quality access method lead directly to their facility?

It is time governments of all persuasions toughened up and stopped pandering to these bully boys, and put an end to this decades old impasse. Reconfiguring the freeway lanes, subsiding the fare, and most of all, promoting the hell out of Skybus, will be orders of magnitude cheaper than building heavy rail. And we can do it now, and not have to bicker about budgets and the best route for the next 10 years. With a fast, fast efficient airport link we can continue to deserve the title of 'the most liveable city in the world', not 'the laughing stock of the developed world' which our current non-existent solution is.

And my non-Melbourne friends will finally stop laughing at me!
</body></html>

TheHeadOnTheDoor

Melbourne, a city of two tales - Skybus vs The Airport Train

<html><body>
Australian Pacific Airports Corporation - owner of Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport  - has released its latest Master Plan draft for public viewing. The full document suite is available <a href="http://melbourneairport.com.au/About-Melbourne-Airport/Planning/Master-Plan" target="_blank">here</a>.

The highlight of which, and mentioned in mainstream media toward the end of last year, is the announcement Melbourne's 3rd runway will be a shorter arrivals-focused runway to the south of the terminal precinct running parallel to the existing 9/27 (East-West) runway.

For years Melburnians have seen in their Melway street directories the proposed 3rd and 4th runways locations, and now we have less fluid and slightly more concrete dates on when the 3rd runway will be operational - 2022 at the latest. And it was somewhat amusing to watch a report on ABC News24 2 nights ago where locals living in Gladstone Park were overall quite supportive of the project and were happy to list the benefits of the expansion.

I've always believed that Tullamarine was one of those rare examples of good planning foresight from different levels of government at the time. Thereafter successive governments have maintained strict suburban development controls to the west and north of Tullamarine, minimising complaints and maximising the airport's usefulness through its 24 hour operation - a demonstrably genuine example of a good balance between the needs for housing and and the needs for connectivity expansion over time.

Contrast that with the decades-old biff which the powers that be in Sydney have had to contend with, it's not hard to sit back and just have a smug look on your face when you read about the latest cacophony taking up valuable air time on national TV when the country knows Sydney has an infrastructure paralysis problem and time would be better spent sorting the issue out in the domestic media rather than the NSW government smearing egg all over its own face infront of us all.  

I'm not alone by the looks of things, Chris Woodruff, head honcho at Tullamarine, has even publicly gloated about <a href="http://www.afr.com/Page/Uuid/bda9d0cc-c0d3-11e2-a4e8-dad4012b432c" target="_blank">"taking the fight to Sydney and outgrowing them"</a>. <a href="http://urbanmelbourne.info/policy-culture/2013/05/07/the-melbourne-versus-sydney-debate-isnt-boring-its-useful#content" target="_blank">As I've argued previously</a> - Sydney and NSW need Melbourne's growth plans and demonstrated success so they can dig themselves out of their own complacency.  

The three runway configuration as outlined in Tullamarine's masterplan is expected to increase the maximum aircraft movements per year (currently hovering around the 240,000 mark).  Terminal 2 - International has yet more scope for expansion over the next 10-20 years as seen in this image taken directly from the master plan itself.

<img alt="" class="image-article_full_width_702px" height="608" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/mel_T2_expansion.png?itok=bV-NRe93" title="Image courtesy Melbourne Airport Master Plan" width="702">

We've already seen the plans for the new dedicated <a href="http://urbanmelbourne.info/forum/tullamarine-news-projects-construction#comment-501" target="_blank">Low-Coast Terminal - T4</a> thanks to forumer Fedsquared who provided renders via graphic artist Gareth Servant. Combining T3/T4 and T2 expansion together, the southward additions to the Terminal precinct and the new 3rd runway further illustrate Tullamarine's management mean business and the future is bright for attracting new international airlines as well as a domestic expansion to support a growing Melbourne.

Yet the biggest grey area in the masterplan and further confused by the recent Airport Rail Study is ground transportation access. Airport management claim via <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/six-million-people-would-use-train-to-melbourne-airport/story-fni0fiyv-1226647198690" target="_blank">this Herald Sun article</a>, they hope for 25% of all trips to/from the airport to occur via public transport and that 6 million passengers (15%) would use an airport rail service in 2022, should that link be built. Only attracting 15% of an eventual 40 million passengers to a rail service appears to be very conservative given Melbourne current receives approximately <a href="http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/tra/National%20Visitor%20Survey/2013/Travel_by_Australians_December_Quarter_2012.pdf" target="_blank">15 million domestic visitors</a> per annum (yet not all use the airport to get here) plus another <a href="http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/tra/International%20Visitor%20Survey/2013/IVS_%20December_Qtr_2012.pdf" target="_blank">1.7 million international visitors</a>.  Those figures will grow over the coming decade and so will residents using the airport to travel elsewhere.  I'd very much like to see the detail behind that prediction.

Even on the airport's own target of having 25% of all trips to/from the airport on a public transport mode, the gap (10%) between the goal (25%) and the rail-use prediction (15%) suggests it will be filled with a large bus network, presumably there to primarily serve airport employees who live direct easy, south and west of the airport.

I can't help feel my suspicions about the do-nothing Airport Rail Study was just that: a study to say do nothing - or at least make the case for a rail line dependent on a litany of other projects.  Here we have a private organisation happy to plan and put money where its mouth is and expand infrastructure to support more growth but the public sector refuses to see the wood for the trees and get rail access to the airport sooner by piggy-backing off the <a href="http://urbanmelbourne.info/transport/2013/03/27/half-of-the-melbourne-airport-rail-link-is-currently-under-construction#content" target="_blank">Regional Rail project</a>.

The smug look on my face, as you can imagine, has by now disappeared - maybe we do have a NSW-like problem after all.
</body></html>

Tullamarine's Master Plan goes for more growth

<html><body>
....in the form of the <a href="http://www.regionalraillink.vic.gov.au/home" target="_blank">Regional Rail Link</a>.

<h2>What is the RRL and how is it relevant?</h2>

The Regional Rail Link (RRL) project is a Kevin '07 stimulus project that aims to separate V/Line-regional traffic heading to Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo from metro traffic by building one new track pair all the way from Southern Cross station to Tarneit via Footscray, Sunshine and Deer Park.

When built, all V/Line traffic heading to Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo will use this track enabling faster regional journeys and just as important: freeing up capacity on the Werribee and Sydenham metro lines so frequencies can be increased on these lines.

In short RRL is a big shot in the arm for rail capacity in the western suburbs.

<h2>Current V/Line operations - without the RRL</h2>

The following is a snapshot of what the current timetables on the Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo lines between 5 and 6pm on a weekday look like - it's to be expected that the same or very similar levels of service will be using the RRL once it's opened for business.

<ul>
<li>Geelong - 5 trains per hour (TPH): 4:57pm, 5:08pm, 5:21pm, 5:32pm, 5:54pm</li>
	<li>Ballarat - 4 TPH 5:07pm, 5:22pm, 5:52pm, 6:02pm</li>
	<li>Bendigo - 3 TPH 4:57pm 5:28pm 5:48pm</li>
</ul>
So by the time the RRL opens, out of a potential 24-30 train paths (a train every 2.5 minutes or 2 minutes hurtling down the RRL tracks), only 12 will be used (5 + 4 + 3)

In summary the track will only have up to 50% of its capacity used if you assume the same or similar timetable will be used upon opening.

Fast forward three decades post RRL completion and for argument's sake lets say Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo double in population and the service level also doubles notwithstanding the option of also extending train lengths for more capacity:

<ul>
<li>Geelong 10 TPH</li>
	<li>Ballarat 5-6 TPH*</li>
	<li>Bendigo 5-6 TPH**</li>
</ul>
*By then, Melton trains won't be using the RRL tracks in the city as they'll have been electrified, and potentially even Bacchus Marsh.

**An extra Kyneton terminating train.

Assumption total: 20-22 trains per hour will be using the Regional Rail Link tracks between Southern Cross and Sunshine in three decades.

<h2>The missing link</h2>

The Bracks/Brumby governments identified the Albion corridor as their preferred corridor to link Tullamarine with the city and this has <a href="/news/questions-still-remain-on-the-melbourne-airport-rail-link-study">recently been confirmed</a> by Baillieu/Napthine government.

The recent study has shown that the favoured option is to have new track built alongside the existing freight lines, where the new track would leave the Sydenham/Bendigo corridor near Albion Station and then travel alongside the existing dual gauge freight lines.

A new bridge over the Maribyrnong River would be required, and the extra track would run under Keilor Park Drive and the Calder Freeway, at which point the line would ramp up onto an elevated section to traverse the Western Ring Road and Airport Drive and utilise the wide corridor that exists there and then come back down to earth on the southern boundary of Melbourne Airport's land at Sharps Road.

It's anticipated the line would travel through the airport land and would tunnel underground 1km before the Tullamarine Airport terminal station.

The Airport's own master plan appears to take into account an underground station, however it is curious why this is so when an elevated structure would require less capital expenditure and the airport is similarly planning to build a giant elevated road network to service the new parking facilities opposite the new Terminal 4.

<h2>Who should operate the "Tullamarine link"?</h2>

V/Line. Upgrading the signalling on the new Sunshine-Southern Cross RRL track would allow more frequent trains and why bother throwing up catenary above the RRL between the City and Sunshine (or add another branch line to the Sydenham Metro tracks) when V/Line is perfectly capable of operating the service at higher speeds than Metro?

No point adding yet another class of rail vehicle to the network to intermix with existing Metro Trains - and the Melbourne Airport rail Link (MARL) study said itself the opportunity for express services will be limited if the Airport Line mixed with Sydenham (or Craigieburn) services.

V/Line's fleet of Dandenong-built Vlocity class trains would fit the bill perfectly because V/Line trains are built for extra luggage (which airport services require).

<h2>What about V/Line-Regional operating patterns?</h2>

Well as I stated earlier, when the RRL goes live, only half the capacity will be used from day 1.

If you assume a 15 minute service from Southern Cross to the airport, that would bring the earlier total of 12 Geelong/Bendigo/Ballarat services up to 16.

If you fast forward 30 years to the regional service projections I came up with earlier, of the 20-22 Geelong/Bendigo/Ballarat trains per hour using the City-Sunshine section of the RRL plus 4-6 TPH going to the airport we're looking at finally reaching the absolute capacity.

It appears that the RRL tracks out the back of Werribee will be used for stopping trains to service the new suburban subdivisions - let's hope this is only temporary and the corridor is quadruplicated sooner than later so the Werribee Metro line itself can operate the services and the RRL track gets back to actually separating Metropolitan and Regional services.

This peak capacity scenario would be made easier by eliminating all V/Line stops at Footscray and instead expanding Sunshine station and making it the only non-city stop in the metro area for regional services, because....

<h2>You hit two birds with one stone</h2>

Having all regional services (Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat) stop at Sunshine, as well as having all City - Airport services stop at Sunshine allows connectivity for the inner-city, North Eastern and South Eastern quadrants of the metro area (connecting at Southern Cross or Sunshine via Melbourne Metro tunnel) a quick non-road based transport solution to Tullamarine as well as offering a one change service for people travelling from the regional cities to Tullamarine.

Wait times at Sunshine would be minimal if a 15 minute, or even better a 10 minute frequency of service ran for City-Airport - Assuming a 5-6 TPH frequency for Geelong, the average wait time would be 5 minutes, Ballarat and Bendigo in the order of 7 minutes would be the average wait time.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/026.JPG" rel="gallery-all" title="A simple safety message at the end of runway 34 at Tullamarine; the simple message for the State Government is maximise the use of new rail capacity"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/026.JPG?itok=fBUWiCVn" title="A simple safety message at the end of runway 34 at Tullamarine; the simple message for the State Government is maximise the use of new rail capacity"></a>

<figcaption>A simple safety message at the end of runway 34 at Tullamarine; the simple message for the State Government is maximise the use of new rail capacity</figcaption></figure>A potential timetable departing Southern Cross could look like this:

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Destination</th>
			<th scope="col">Southern Cross</th>
			<th scope="col">Sunshine</th>
			<th scope="col">Airport</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Airport</td>
			<td>17:00</td>
			<td>17:11</td>
			<td>17:20</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Geelong</td>
			<td>17:03</td>
			<td>17:14</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ballarat</td>
			<td>17:08</td>
			<td>17:19</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bendigo</td>
			<td>17:12</td>
			<td>17:23</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Airport</td>
			<td>17:15</td>
			<td>17:26</td>
			<td>17:35</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Geelong</td>
			<td>17:20</td>
			<td>17:31</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ballarat</td>
			<td>17:25</td>
			<td>17:36</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Airport</td>
			<td>17:30</td>
			<td>17:41</td>
			<td>17:50</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bendigo</td>
			<td>17:32</td>
			<td>17:43</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Geelong</td>
			<td>17:36</td>
			<td>17:47</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ballarat</td>
			<td>17:40</td>
			<td>17:51</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Airport</td>
			<td>17:45</td>
			<td>17:56</td>
			<td>18:05</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bendigo</td>
			<td>17:48</td>
			<td>17:59</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Geelong</td>
			<td>17:50</td>
			<td>18:01</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ballarat</td>
			<td>17:55</td>
			<td>18:06</td>
			<td> </td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Airport</td>
			<td>18:00</td>
			<td>18:11</td>
			<td>18:20</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
City to Airport rail services must be fast and express to make the case for attracting patronage.

The MARL study claimed there would be limited opportunities for express City-Airport services if Metro (and the Metro fleet) were to operate the services and the same South-East connectivity can be achieved by passengers on the Pakenham/Cranbourne lines changing trains at Sunshine using the V/Line &amp; RRL track option.

The Baillieu/Napthine Government's MARL study also identified the possibility of creating a new MYKI zone for this purpose and we, the travelling public, should make it absolutely clear that this should be a modest increase, not just another revenue stream for the entity that owns the lease over Tullamarine airport.
</body></html>

Airports

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Airports

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News