Melbourne Airport Terminal Bucket list- The place is an embarassment

[NormalFF]

1. City to Airport to City rail link- I know all this costs huge dollars, but this has to happen quickly. The Hong Kong link is fabulous and you can even check-in your luggage in at Central before you board the train going to the airport. Bloody smart and the train is really fast too.

It'd remove a lot of car traffic from the terminal as well.

2. International arrivals, the Customs area and bag collection is like the old Hong Kong Chai Tak airport....a disgrace.

These are two of the biggest gripes.

Any more??

 

[nlagalle]

1. City to Airport to City rail link- I know all this costs huge dollars, but this has to happen quickly. The Hong Kong link is fabulous and you can even check-in your luggage in at Central before you board the train going to the airport. Bloody smart and the train is really fast too.

It'd remove a lot of car traffic from the terminal as well.

2. International arrivals, the Customs area and bag collection is like the old Hong Kong Chai Tak airport....a disgrace.

These are two of the biggest gripes.

Any more??

Whats wrong with the Skybus?? runs every 10 minutes during the day but still runs 24/7. 20 mins to the airport too. Why must we have a rail link? it's been done to death already. The only way to have a fast link is to build a totally new one outside of the suburban rail network to it runs efficiently.

 

[QF WP]

Whilst I love airports that have train connections (HKG, SYD, FRA, CDG etc), I became a Skybus convert and love it. I know the driver knows where they are going, they all speak English, the fare doesn't escalate between $40 and $70 and I get there at pretty much the same time as taxi's.

Handy that my CBD appts are generally at the Southern Cross station end (well, I try to make them that way).

My beef is the loss of the Hilton Airport

 

[NormalFF]

Whats wrong with the Skybus?? runs every 10 minutes during the day but still runs 24/7. 20 mins to the airport too. Why must we have a rail link? it's been done to death already. The only way to have a fast link is to build a totally new one outside of the suburban rail network to it runs efficiently.

Apologies if it's been done to death. But how does the Skybus deal with the morning traffic jams on the freeway? I don't think it does. They get stuck too.

Yes, I agree that we have to have a new rail link outside of the existing suburban rail network. The Government needs to use its land access powers to make it happen.

 

[nlagalle]

Apologies if it's been done to death. But how does the Skybus deal with the morning traffic jams on the freeway? I don't think it does. They get stuck too.

Yes, I agree that we have to have a new rail link outside of the existing suburban rail network. The Government needs to use its land access powers to make it happen.

There are express lanes for the bus to use. I haven't heard of people having issues being stuck in the traffic (and skybus timetables are pretty good).

It's not so much the land, the issue is the bottle neck that is southern cross/north melbourne. Basically it would need to be underground to get out of the city. So it would cost an absolute bomb to build and would take 50 years to pay back. Look at Sydney and Brisbane, both cost a fortune to use (it's often cheaper to get a cab form Central to Mascot when there is 2 of you)

 

[NormalFF]

There are express lanes for the bus to use. I haven't heard of people having issues being stuck in the traffic (and skybus timetables are pretty good).

It's not so much the land, the issue is the bottle neck that is southern cross/north melbourne. Basically it would need to be underground to get out of the city. So it would cost an absolute bomb to build and would take 50 years to pay back. Look at Sydney and Brisbane, both cost a fortune to use (it's often cheaper to get a cab form Central to Mascot when there is 2 of you)

If they can build it in Hong Kong where they have less land, then we can build it here. There is no doubt that if we want to continue to use the Southern Cross (Spencer St) station footprint for ever and a day, then yes, we need to stack the platforms on top of each other. But that is not just about an airport link to do that, that is as much about future proofing Melbourne's overall rail system which is off topic, although somewhat relevant.

Cost, always an impediment but can be overcome. And so what if it is a 50 year pay back. That's only 20 years more than the payback of most mortgages.

 

[rechoboam]

People just love fixed rail. Why, is a complete mystery to me. Basically they invented this thing about a hundred years ago, just like a train but can run on asphalt, gravel or even grass....no need for specialised rails...you can fit 10 or 100 people inside...if the route is blocked it can move laterally, up and down bridges to get to its destination..you can have one of them on the "track" or you can have 100 of them one after the other, a few metres apart...single or double decked..
It's called a bus!
It's great, you should try it.
By the way if you spend much time in Melbourne you would know instinctively that a train to the airport will not be Hong Kong, but more like taking the Tube in London to Heathrow (if you've ever tried that)

 

[Dalescott]

Anybody that has been to Shanghai, knows that there airport connection is Maglev. It is one of the greatest rides on a train that you can have, 430KM, and when the other train passes it blows your mind. Now I can tell you that there has been a paper submitted http://www.newaustralia.net/MaglevAlternative.pdf to the Victorian State Government. Now the State Government have not expressed interest in the paper, but this is largely due to political matters. The matter of the Skybus in peak hour is one of the big advantages of a Train over road. The peak hour service can be slow, the 20 minute trip goes out to 45 to 60 minutes. A number of forums support this, even Skybus confirms this in there own media to staff. Skybus talk about passenger numbers of 2.25 million per year, if my maths is right 2.25 million by $16 is $36 million. Skybus internal media is talking about 4 million passengers per year by 2013. That would take turnover to $64 million, now Skybus is owned by the Drivers group. They also own Greyline, and is owned by the Driver family, a very Australian company. Improved transport to the airport will also reduce the need for car parking, which is a large source of income for the owners of Tullamarine airport
Having said all that, my personal view is that as the Tullamarine freeway gets more and more traffic on it, the 20 minute time will increasingly get closer to 30 to 35 minutes ( see John Odgers paper, and Public Transport Users Association (2008) ‘Common Urban Myths About Transport'. In which they discuss the slowing of peak hour traffic by upwards of 7 KPH. There will come a time when a form of mass transport to Tullamarine airport will become necessary.

 

[Justchecking]

Speaking of embarrassing airports, Perth uses a minibus (16 seats) that runs once per hour to shuttle people between domestic and international terminals. :shock: Now tell me why again Melbourne is so embarrassing?

 

[QF029]

If they can build it in Hong Kong where they have less land, then we can build it here. There is no doubt that if we want to continue to use the Southern Cross (Spencer St) station footprint for ever and a day, then yes, we need to stack the platforms on top of each other. But that is not just about an airport link to do that, that is as much about future proofing Melbourne's overall rail system which is off topic, although somewhat relevant.

Cost, always an impediment but can be overcome. And so what if it is a 50 year pay back. That's only 20 years more than the payback of most mortgages.

Have you stopped to consider the passenger movements at MEL compared with HKG? I would love a rail link but the cost (build & operate) would be exorbitant.

 

[nlagalle]

If they can build it in Hong Kong where they have less land, then we can build it here. There is no doubt that if we want to continue to use the Southern Cross (Spencer St) station footprint for ever and a day, then yes, we need to stack the platforms on top of each other. But that is not just about an airport link to do that, that is as much about future proofing Melbourne's overall rail system which is off topic, although somewhat relevant.

Cost, always an impediment but can be overcome. And so what if it is a 50 year pay back. That's only 20 years more than the payback of most mortgages.

It's got nothing to do with land, however take a look at the population and people that use it over people we have here. We'd never even break even on it in my lifetime. Look at the traffic into HKG compared to MEL, that'll tell you we could never justify the cost of a rail link - or if we did it'd cost $30+ each way!

 

[Justchecking]

People just love fixed rail. Why, is a complete mystery to me.)

let me enlighten you...

Getting luggage on and off a train is a lot easier than on and off a bus. Wide sliding doors and am platform level with the carriage mean you can wheel your luggage onboard. A lot of travelers are toting fairly heavy luggage. When was the last time you lifted a 15kg bag to shoulder height in order to get it onto a bus luggage rack and off the floor? If you are short those high luggage racks are diabolical. Unlike trains you can't park your luggage in the middle of a bus, it stops people getting on and off.

Train stations have amenities that bus stops rarely afford. The luggage friendly platform is one of them. Automatic ticketing machines are another. Even if you don't speak or read the language of the city you are in you can still navigate a rail system with a ticketing machine and a network map. Other amenities include lifts and escalators, and waiting spaces out of the weather. Road-side bus shelters are rarely adequate or pleasant.

The only bus system I have encountered that was even a close rival for a rail system is BKKs BRT system. This is basically a dedicated bus lane that is serviced by bus stations that look and work exactly like train stations, complete with automatic ticketing and platforms that are level with the modified bus door for ease of access. It's basically a rail system without the rail but it's nothing like a traditional bus system except for the fact it utilizes roads.

A bus transfer system is better than no system at all, but rail systems tend to better because of the way rail networks are equipped.

 

[Boeta]

Speaking of embarrassing airports, Perth uses a minibus (16 seats) that runs once per hour to shuttle people between domestic and international terminals. :shock: Now tell me why again Melbourne is so embarrassing?

Hate to drag this any more off topic, but were there any pax left waiting at the stop when you used this service? Why use a large gas guzzling 50 seater when only a dozen people are using it?

 

[Justchecking]

Hate to drag this any more off topic, but were there any pax left waiting at the stop when you used this service? Why use a large gas guzzling 50 seater when only a dozen people are using it?

As a matter of fact there were 32 of us, all off the one flight. And about 45 when I made the return trip. All of us stood there for 40mins and were appalled when a mini-van turned up. Meanwhile 3 gas guzzling large buses turned up for longterm car parks with only about 5 people waiting for those and two city shuttles again gas guzzling 50 seaters setting down 2 pax and picking up none. my transit times were 10:00am and 9:00am on weekdays. Although my experience is somewhat limited there appeared to be much higher demand for terminal transfers than for the other services. What kind of airport has a once per hour terminal shuttle? If the city is big enough to warrant a seperate international terminal, surely there is enough traffic through the terminals to warrant a usable service. One of the pax behind me commented that DPS was better run!

 

[thewinchester]

Speaking of embarrassing airports, Perth uses a minibus (16 seats) that runs once per hour to shuttle people between domestic and international terminals. :shock: Now tell me why again Melbourne is so embarrassing?

Let's get some facts straight about the PER service shall we:

1. The service runs every 50min, and is generally timed to meet connecting flights (ie. scheduled to meet passenger demand)
2. Urgent transfer services are available with either a simple mobile call, or a visit to the staff Connect bus counters located opposite the pickup stands.
3. The size of the bus depends on the time of day. For light periods, the aforementioned mini-bus, often with a luggage trailer, is used. For heavy periods, the larger Connect buses used primarily for long term carpark transfer (a very similar bus to that operated by Skybus) are used to provide the service.

The fact Perth needs a transfer service is the embarrassing fact. The service which they have to manage this deficiency in the airport layout and operations serves them quite well, and the construction of Dunreath Drive has made the service four times faster for transfer due to the speed limits on airside roads.

Getting back to it - It was long envisaged in the Department of Aviation master plan drawn up as part of the 86" INT terminal construction envisaged clearly that both DOM and INT ops would be from Horrie Miller Dr well before now. However, the move away from Government ownership to privatisation and the failure of successive Governments to enforce airports to deliver on service plans and promises sees this important vision and plan remain a pipe dream.

 

[Justchecking]

Let's get some facts straight about the PER service shall we:

1. The service runs every 50min, and is generally timed to meet connecting flights (ie. scheduled to meet passenger demand)
2. Urgent transfer services are available with either a simple mobile call, or a visit to the staff Connect bus counters located opposite the pickup stands.
3. The size of the bus depends on the time of day. For light periods, the aforementioned mini-bus, often with a luggage trailer, is used. For heavy periods, the larger Connect buses used primarily for long term carpark transfer (a very similar bus to that operated by Skybus) are used to provide the service. dream.

1. 
   
   Thanks for the facts. Unfortunately the connect bus stands were closed at the time I transited, and neither I nor any of the other people came across the information about a mobile phone number we could call. Perhaps that could be better signposted. Pity then that I was obviously transiting outside a peak period and my flights also happened to arrive at a time when no other connecting flights were....:shock: I guess no-one connects off Thai airways to go somewhere domestically.

 

[NormalFF]

So at what stage does Melbourne Airport management (I think APAM) become accountable for what they dish up at the International arrivals hall. It's just second rate.

Are they fair dinkum about running an airport?

They just don't seem to be managing. Unfortunately for them, there are so many benchmarks at airports around the world that are set much higher, the expectation of the traveller is also raised.

But what are they doing about improving the facility to make it world standard?

Surely they cant be just sitting back and enjoying the car parking revenue without any obligation to provide first rate facilities?

It sends a really poor message to overseas tourists and it is not acceptable.

 

[QF029]

Let's get some facts straight about the PER service shall we:

If your argument is strong enough you don't need to worry about the condescending tone.

 

[oz_mark]

Let's get some facts straight about the PER service shall we:

1. The service runs every 50min, and is generally timed to meet connecting flights (ie. scheduled to meet passenger demand.

I do not for one minute believe that there is anything about the timetable that was designed with meeting connecting flights. It runs every 50 minutes (if it's on time, which it's not always), and that's it.

(BTW - WHen did it become a free service?)

 

[nlagalle]

So at what stage does Melbourne Airport management (I think APAM) become accountable for what they dish up at the International arrivals hall. It's just second rate.

Are they fair dinkum about running an airport?

They just don't seem to be managing. Unfortunately for them, there are so many benchmarks at airports around the world that are set much higher, the expectation of the traveller is also raised.

But what are they doing about improving the facility to make it world standard?

What is sub standard about it? I was there a month ago and didn't think anything different about it.

They are in the process of upgrading the areas upstairs, perhaps that is on the list next?