On the rails

One of the perennial discussions in Melbourne is public transport, especially fixed-rail transport such as trains and trams: where it is, where it isn't, and where it should be.  The Age has been running on the latter two issues this week in publishing a series of articles advocating for the building of a railway link to Melbourne Airport at Tullamarine.  This terminal opened on 30 June 1970, so the present week's debate has been partly about marking the anniversary and partly about raising an issue that won't simply go away.  The first airport in Melbourne was in Essendon, which was connected to the city via a tramline from an early stage.

The latest bout of news and editorial pieces seems to have been prompted by a proposal to widen the Tullamarine Freeway.  This road opened shortly before the airport, and has been widened four times in the last 40 years.  Drivers in Melbourne have been enduring almost continuous freeway works now for nearly 15 years, with CityLink, the present widening of the Monash Freeway (formerly known as the South-Eastern Arterial Freeway), continued works on the various ring roads and so on.  It's been a good decade to be in road building.  It's been a bad decade to be in the public square advocating for more public transport: the ultimate argument against this has been "not yet."  Isn't it funny how there's all the time in the world to widen freeways and extend the parking lots at the airport (from which the company which runs the airport reaps a handsome profit)?

It started last Saturday, with an extensive article by Clay Lucas telling the long tale of woe about proposed and abandoned rail links to the airport.  It made edifying reading, but I can't seem to find it online.

Then on Monday the paper published a news item beginning with this:

MELBOURNE would fall behind other international cities unless planning began now on an airport rail link, lord mayor Robert Doyle said yesterday.
His comment comes as the head of Melbourne Airport says the state government is considering widening the Tullamarine Freeway again, from four to six lanes between the Western Ring Road and the airport.

 Read the rest here.  The news item carried a poll (closed since Wednesday) which asked readers if they supported a rail link to the airport: 97% voted yes.  This news item was complemented by an editorial which argued forcefully for the link to be built, pointing out that the rail link -- first mooted in 1963, seven years before the airport opened at Tullamarine -- "has been frequently conceived, but never born."

On Tuesday, there was a series of letters to the editor, mostly in support.  One correspondent declared the building of a railway link to be a "no-brainer."

Finally, today an opinion piece by Alan Davies, a planning consultant, was published: "Don't get taken for a ride: airport rail link not needed."  The essential line in the argument here is that advocates of a rail link are claiming that it's an "embarrassment" that Melbourne doesn't have a train to the airport, and that it's all about misplaced civic pride:

Perhaps the key to this entire debate is that a rail link from the airport to the CBD is not going to be an effective substitute for private cars. Brisbane's Airtrain carries 9 per cent of passengers and Sydney's Airport Link carries 11 per cent. It is highly probable that the great bulk of passengers would come from Skybus and some from taxis.
It is hard to see how replacing one form of public transport with another would justify a subsidy of about half a billion dollars. Nor is it clear why business people travelling at company expense, or time-rich tourists, deserve to be subsidised.

The essence of this piece is "not yet."

I found this article a bit of a giggle, if only because it fell over on logic in so many directions: so many sentences ended with the thought -- so what?  Oh, really?

I have caught trains to and from airports in Sydney, Brisbane and London.  Only the latter treats the train as part of the rest of the public transport network.  Going down the Piccadilly line from Earl's Court to Heathrow terminals will cost around £4.50 if you use an Oyster Card.  If you wish to catch the Heathrow Express from Paddington, the cost rises to £15.00 per passenger.

Contrast this to Sydney and Brisbane, where the airport trains also form part of the wider public transport network, but the city to airport branch is ticketed as a special fare.  In both cities it costs $15.00 one way to transfer to the main city train terminal if you buy the ticket at the station before travelling -- some discounts apply to internet bookings.  If you're as rushed as I tend to be when organizing transfers, internet bookings are the last thing on your mind.  You turn up at the ticket office and take your chances: the real public transport choices begin when you arrive at the main city terminal.

If you catch the Skybus from Southern Cross Station to Melbourne Airport you will pay $16.00 at the ticket office for a one-way fare.  Contrast this with the price of a Metcard: a two-hour fare in zone 1 and 2 is $5.80, or $3.70 for zone 1 only.  If you use Myki, the fares are lower still.  Faced with the choice between paying $16.00 for a bus which might end up caught in traffic under present conditions, or $5.80 for a train which would only stop at a few stations, I know which one I would choose.  If one of those stations included a hub outside the city centre where several train lines meet -- for example, North Melbourne Station -- this would relieve the necessity to travel into the city before making the ongoing connection.

I think it would make very good sense to build a railway to the airport.  Since 2004 I have traveled out there roughly three or four times a year to catch a plane, and the experience is always frustrating.  The Skybus service is good, efficient and reliable, but it is basically a monopoly.  If I land in London, there is a choice to catch a bus, the tube or a dedicated express train into the centre of the city.  If I wish to travel from Heathrow to somewhere else, the option to catch a train or bus is there as well.  If I land in Melbourne and wish to travel from the airport to somewhere else in the city, my options are limited to catching a taxi (very expensive) or taking the bus into the city and then transferring to the main transport network.  There is a planned buslink to the train station at Broadmeadows, but this is hardly an adequate solution.

However, for all the huffing and puffing, this is essentially an argument about economics and the principles of competition in the free market.  Contrary to much of the published commentary on what this means, I dissent from the view that this must necessarily mean the government retreats from the marketplace.  As the only body capable of building infrastructure, the government is the most potent player in the establishment and maintenance of a market.  The market players crying out in this debate are the taxi drivers, the freeway builders and a bus company, all notable for their status as private entities (the Tullamarine Freeway is integrated into CityLink, which is a "Public Private Partnership").  If the public good is served by the building of a railway, why is this debate so hamstrung by rent-seekers and "not yet" merchants?


The underlying principle of economic policy everywhere is the creation of conditions for competitiveness.  I believe the present situation on transport to Melbourne Airport is highly anti-competitive so long as ruling out building a viable public transport link is the default position of debates like this.  I have referred to private monopoly interests already.  In practice, this means building a train link which is integrated properly into the existing framework of fares and zoning in the public transport network without removing the rights of taxi drivers and Skybus to continue to ply their trade at the airport.  This would be truly consistent with principles of competition.  It would provide travellers with genuinely economic choices as to how they reach the airport.