3 ms·

If it's anything like where I live (Brisbane), the airport railway line is privately owned as opposed to publically funded like the rest of the network. The ser

by NamTaf 11y ago

If it's anything like where I live (Brisbane), the airport railway line is privately owned as opposed to publically funded like the rest of the network. The service (maintenance and operations) is then contracted out and given that there's only one player (cityrail) it goes to them. As a result, the fare is much higher.

vonklaus 11y ago
Hopefully companies like Lyft, Uber & Sidecar will provide a substitute for the train. This competition could drive down rail prices.
- NamTaf 11y ago
  I don't see that happening. The airport can only sustain so much road traffic before congestion becomes an issue and the ridesharing companies have the added issue in Australia of minimum wage requirements. That adds a whole lot of cost to the fares and really balances it back up (though still definitely cheaper than taxis). The airport is such that the $15 ticket is really not going to be equalled by any sort of road-based transport, because the distance from the CBD is simply too great. edit: I'm in this case referring to Brisbane airport, though I imagine that maps to many others given their generally remote proximity from CBDs.
  - xyzzy123 11y ago
    You make really good points, it's just that if it costs $3 to get to one place and $17 to get to another (in fact if you are going FURTHER from the other direction, it costs just $4 to the CBD), one has to wonder why there's this enormous cost gradient, and whether that's just a question of consumer price-sensitivity. Theoretically if roads were a problem a rational transport network would incentivise rail use, but in fact taxi use is effectively subsidised by about $10 due to the expense of trains. I'm just talking about Sydney though, don't know about Brisbane.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - xyzzy123 11y ago
    (much later comment): I totally misread you, sorry.
NeutronBoy 11y ago
At least you have airport trains (I live in Melbourne, where an airport train has been a political football for at least 20 years)
- frio 11y ago
  As a regular visitor from Auckland, I've wondered about that. Auckland's similarly mired in political crap, but at least Melbourne has an otherwise-functional train/tram network. It'd be a lot nicer taking a train than those airport busses, although getting dropped at the station is nice.
  - NeutronBoy 11y ago
    The existing network is part of the problem. Options put forward include do nothing, new dedicated line from CBD to the airport, or branch off one of two existing lines in the area for a new airport spur line. Then you have to think about, how often can you run airport trains on existing lines? Do they go express or stop at stations? If they stop at stations, does it take too long for airport passengers? None of them are hard questions, but in a partisan political environment where no parties can agree with each other, unless you can plan it in two years and build it in another 2, there's no way it's going to happen before next election.
xyzzy123 11y ago
Yeah, the "Airport Link Corporation" built and operated the line. Apparently it has paid for its capital costs and is now in its "revenue sharing" phase. NSW transport is keeping the surcharge to subsidise the rest of the network.

by NamTaf 11y ago

vonklaus 11y ago

Hopefully companies like Lyft, Uber & Sidecar will provide a substitute for the train. This competition could drive down rail prices.

NamTaf 11y ago
I don't see that happening. The airport can only sustain so much road traffic before congestion becomes an issue and the ridesharing companies have the added issue in Australia of minimum wage requirements. That adds a whole lot of cost to the fares and really balances it back up (though still definitely cheaper than taxis). The airport is such that the $15 ticket is really not going to be equalled by any sort of road-based transport, because the distance from the CBD is simply too great. edit: I'm in this case referring to Brisbane airport, though I imagine that maps to many others given their generally remote proximity from CBDs.
- xyzzy123 11y ago
  You make really good points, it's just that if it costs $3 to get to one place and $17 to get to another (in fact if you are going FURTHER from the other direction, it costs just $4 to the CBD), one has to wonder why there's this enormous cost gradient, and whether that's just a question of consumer price-sensitivity. Theoretically if roads were a problem a rational transport network would incentivise rail use, but in fact taxi use is effectively subsidised by about $10 due to the expense of trains. I'm just talking about Sydney though, don't know about Brisbane.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- xyzzy123 11y ago
  (much later comment): I totally misread you, sorry.

NeutronBoy 11y ago

At least you have airport trains (I live in Melbourne, where an airport train has been a political football for at least 20 years)

frio 11y ago
As a regular visitor from Auckland, I've wondered about that. Auckland's similarly mired in political crap, but at least Melbourne has an otherwise-functional train/tram network. It'd be a lot nicer taking a train than those airport busses, although getting dropped at the station is nice.
- NeutronBoy 11y ago
  The existing network is part of the problem. Options put forward include do nothing, new dedicated line from CBD to the airport, or branch off one of two existing lines in the area for a new airport spur line. Then you have to think about, how often can you run airport trains on existing lines? Do they go express or stop at stations? If they stop at stations, does it take too long for airport passengers? None of them are hard questions, but in a partisan political environment where no parties can agree with each other, unless you can plan it in two years and build it in another 2, there's no way it's going to happen before next election.

xyzzy123 11y ago

Yeah, the "Airport Link Corporation" built and operated the line. Apparently it has paid for its capital costs and is now in its "revenue sharing" phase. NSW transport is keeping the surcharge to subsidise the rest of the network.