I like the view of the EK A380 from the Airtrain given that it sits on the tarmac all dayDoes anyone from Brisbane ever say "I wish the airport station was underground. It would be so much better!"
All the "developed" cities have their metro undergroundWhat difference does it make if it's above ground or underground?
Does anyone from Brisbane ever say "I wish the airport station was underground. It would be so much better!"
One word: stubbornnessI am struggling to understand why it is so hard to build the rail link to MEL. Yes I know the underground/overpass debate, but for the long term it makes sense to build it underground. SYD/WSI are examples.
Sometimes you just need to build underground now and get it over and done with. If you build it later it would be even more expensive, even if it is overpass due to inflation etc.
It is amazing that WSI is going to have a rail link way before MEL would ever have. NSW just seems to get things done.
Putting above ground probably takes away valuable space that could be used for car parks, hotels or other revenue generating activities. If it's underground, you can still have all of that profit generating activity above it.What difference does it make if it's above ground or underground?
I personally cant see the business case stacking up,
It would have been under $9 thenI think the last time I used the MEL Skybus was 1994.....
All the "developed" cities have their metro underground
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
If you restrict it to just train access to airports, there’s quite a few as well that are not genuinely underground, many are “at grade” or elevated. Ones that come to mind include HKG, LGW, LCY, SFO, JFK/EWR although they’re not really airport rail as such), PHL, BNE, OSL, YVR?, PVG, PEK, DXB, FCO, MAN to just pick a few.Yeah, I guess, depending on your definition of "developed".
Elevated metros exist in:
New York
Chicago
San Francisco
Miami
Berlin
Amsterdam
Vienna
... amongst many others
If MEL is the terminus, an above ground station coming in over the existing roadway wouldn’t be that big a deal and zero impact on airport expansion. Lots of airports (some mentioned above) have that arrangement.Above or below ground is really dependent on the situation. Underground is by far the better option in Melbourne, it would allow for easier expansion of the airport facilities (and the train line further north, come to think of it)
I catch it twice a week. Don’t think it has ever been 20 mins. More around 30mins. Worse if an accident or full peak hour.What's so bad about taking the Skybus that only takes 20 minutes to the Southern Cross? (runs away into a corner)
Can't think of any other way to "land" in Melbourne though. Feels like Melbourne is not Melbourne without the whole landing in Southern Cross experience in the middle of the nightI catch it twice a week. Don’t think it has ever been 20 mins. More around 30mins. Worse if an accident or full peak hour.
The bus terminal (and southern cross itself) is an abomination. To think that is many international visitors arrival point in to Melbourne, dark, dank and smelling of diesel.
Compare that to the $16+ they charge you to get from SYD to downtown for taking the train for 10 minutes. What an insultI catch it twice a week. Don’t think it has ever been 20 mins. More around 30mins. Worse if an accident or full peak hour.
The bus terminal (and southern cross itself) is an abomination. To think that is many international visitors arrival point in to Melbourne, dark, dank and smelling of diesel.
I also catch that twice week and it is much nicer and efficient than SkyBus!Compare that to the $16+ they charge you to get from SYD to downtown for taking the train for 10 minutes. What an insult