Deputy PM confirms Badgerys Creek design will include rail access

 

News article: Deputy PM confirms Badgerys Creek design will include rail access

Space for rail links will be included in the design plans for the second Sydney airport to be built at Badgerys Creek in Western Sydney, Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss has confirmed.

  8077 Chief Train Controller

Location: Crossing the Rubicon
The Govt has always said it would provision for rail but it is unlikely it will be built.  Abbott does not like metropolitan railways and is not likely to fund this white elephant.  

Who will travel from the northern suburbs of Sydney over 150 kms to an airport for a flight to Adelaide or Brisbane?

There must be a better way of increasing airport capacity at Botany rather than the expense of building another airport so far from Sydney.

If the decision to build does go ahead rail will be vital to the success of the airport.  Imagine Tokyo Airport without rail access.  That airport is over 100 kms from the city centre.

I was in Tokyo last month and used the airport train.  It is very convenient and easy to use.  I also had the option of checking my bags for the flight at the Tokyo end.

Deputy PM confirms Badgerys Creek design will include rail access

Sponsored advertisement

  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
If we disregard the crude attempt at Petty Partisan Political Point-scoring (or PPPP)... or "Yes we get who you always vote for" in the original post.

Most major cities in the first world have at least two commercial airports, London has five (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City Airport). Even Melbourne has two (Tullamarine and Avalon) and is flirting with a idea of building a third at the top of Western Port to serve the rapidly growing suburbs to the south east.

A second commercial airport would be valuable for the vast majority of the population who don't live in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. It doesn't have to be on the huge scale of Mascot and able to take A380's, but rather one that just handles domestic flights plus mid-haul international flights to places like Bali and Auckland.

There are limits to how many more aeroplanes can land at Mascot and then there's the impracticality of the curfew (which it shares with Adelaide) which is especially off putting for late running international flights.

A new airport would:
  • Relieve the increasing pressure on Mascot's capacity
  • Be a closer destination for many (or most?) of Sydney's population
  • Offer a curfew free option which is essential for any city with pretensions to being a major player
  • Offer an alternative Sydney location for planes diverted from Mascot due to things like bad weather or accidents
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Who will travel from the northern suburbs of Sydney over 150 kms to an airport for a flight to Adelaide or Brisbane?

There must be a better way of increasing airport capacity at Botany rather than the expense of building another airport so far from Sydney.
8077
Badgerys Creek is less than 90km by road from any part of the northern suburbs of Sydney; and in any case it is designed to serve Western (and South-Western) Sydney. Like it or not, Sydney is quite a bit bigger than just a CBD and a harbour bridge.

As for capacity upgrades: removing the curfew and restricting access for smaller planes (such as general aviation and regional flights) are just about the only ways to shove more passengers through Sydney Airport.

Most major cities in the first world have at least two commercial airports, London has five (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City Airport).
Bogong
But there's also a common pattern there - only one airport in each of those major cities is the primary hub for long distance flights. In the case of London, that's Heathrow. Gatwick is also heavily used by international flights (both Europe and long-haul) but it's nowhere near as busy as Heathrow. Stansted and Luton are used mostly by low-cost operators. London City Airport is used by City bankers for their private and charter jet flights.

Badgerys Creek may very well end up like Gatwick: low cost carriers will use it preferentially if the fees are lower. International carriers (both flag and low-cost) could be attracted by the lack of curfews to base their Sydney flights from there.

It's not going to replace Kingsford-Smith as Sydney's main airport, it'll complement it.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
If counting Essendon which is used for commercial and general aviation then Melbourne is lucky enough to have 3 airports.  

A new airport in the south east?  Aren't 3 airports enough?

Why not consider better transport links between airports or better direct train services to Melbourne airport from the South East?
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
A new airport in the south east?  Aren't 3 airports enough?

Why not consider better transport links between airports or better direct train services to Melbourne airport from the South East?
x31
Tullamarine is completely different to Kingsford-Smith in Sydney. No curfew, enough room to double the number of runways, heaps of space for new terminals.

With an airport like Tullamarine, there's arguably no need for a second international airport in Melbourne - hence why Avalon isn't doing so well.
The fact that a) Avalon can afford to restrict flights for a whole summer weekend and b) that the airshow is the busiest time of the year for the airport speaks volumes about its viability.

With PTV's intended (eventual) integration of Melbourne Airport Rail Link with Melbourne Metro, there should be plenty of scope for through-running services from the south-east to Tullamarine. That should hopefully nip in the bud any ideas about expanding Tooradin Airport or building a new one around Koo Wee Rup or Lang Lang.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
If counting Essendon which is used for commercial and general aviation then Melbourne is lucky enough to have 3 airports. ...
x31
Essendon and Moorabbin airports in Melbourne both have a few scheduled regional flights, but they are not really commercial airports. Essentially they fill a similar role to Bankstown airport in Sydney and there's a good reason why NO ONE is suggesting that Bankstown be upgraded to take some of the pressure off Mascot.

Avalon is on the northern outskirts of Geelong and far from the main population centres of Melbourne. In a NSW context, it's as if there was a major airport at Goulburn. The Tooradin proposal is entirely different. It's on the other side of Melbourne, about as far from Tullamarine as possible while still being on the outskirts of Melbourne. If it was built, it would be closer to at least 2 million people than Tullamarine is. So it would immediately achieve a level of demand that Avalon will always struggle for (at least until the distant time when the plains between Weribbee and Corio are converted to suburbia).
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The Govt has always said it would provision for rail but it is unlikely it will be built.  Abbott does not like metropolitan railways and is not likely to fund this white elephant.  

Who will travel from the northern suburbs of Sydney over 150 kms to an airport for a flight to Adelaide or Brisbane?

There must be a better way of increasing airport capacity at Botany rather than the expense of building another airport so far from Sydney.

If the decision to build does go ahead rail will be vital to the success of the airport.  Imagine Tokyo Airport without rail access.  That airport is over 100 kms from the city centre.

I was in Tokyo last month and used the airport train.  It is very convenient and easy to use.  I also had the option of checking my bags for the flight at the Tokyo end.

Deputy PM confirms Badgerys Creek design will include rail access
8077
Your letting your anti TA vision cloud your post facts

TA never said he doesn't like Metro rail, he said he doesn't believe the Fed govt should fund such things as it makes the projects complicated and removes responsibility from the states on providing commuter transport. Brisbane is case in point where nearly every major upgrade was co funded, some including councils as well. And yes it should apply to commuter road as well. NSW meanwhile just gets on with it and will probably Vic. Rudd also wanted to do a similar thing starting with health but failed.

Read the timeline for this project. Even if TA was popular he still wouldn't be around by then. And just because you have a 2nd airport doesn't mean it needs a railway straight away. Wait until it has at least 1 plane per 20-30min. It will be minimum of 10-15 years before the numbers will justify a viable railway, maybe more unless its built for other reasons which is likely.

Toyoko Airport, assume Haneda handles double that of MAscot in a country with low levels of car ownership, and you wonder why the connection is so good!

With a good connection, travelling to Mascot or BC from the Nth side will matter little in time, especially if you are going with peak.

Mascot Airport has a number of major issues
- Peak hour congestion due to the high number of 737/320 aircraft for the volume of people as using larger aircraft means for most of the day the will fly around half full or be forced to run lower frequencies.
- Lower number of international traffic compared to likes of Toyoko
- and main issue is teh curfew, which means airlines have to adapt their schedules around the world to fit in with Sydney. They must also be careful about arriving too late or risk having their planes locked down until the morning if the flight was schedule to go elsewhere on another leg.

The New airport will attract the freighters who will be able to fly far more flexible schedules not having to avoid curfew or peaks. Late night international flights and some domestic travel. ideally they should kick out of Mascot all planes less than 100 seaters in peak within a few years of BC opening.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Tony Abbotts book "Battlelines" quote:

"Mostly though, …there just aren’t enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads.” P174

This wrong and ignorant comment speakes volumes on TA's misplaced attitude.

To build what will be a major airport without a rail link for years will simply entrench the car and a half arsed bus, making the non provision a self fulfilling prophecy. To have rail early brings with it the advantage of the airport growing with it.

Cheers
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Tony Abbotts book "Battlelines" quote:

"Mostly though, …there just aren’t enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads.” P174

This wrong and ignorant comment speakes volumes on TA's misplaced attitude.

Cheers
arctic
As long as its not taken out of context is it wrong?

A regional airport doesn't need a train connection and BC will have no more traffic than some of the busies regional airports for many years.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Do I have to quote the whole book to have the context? What is the context? The comment stands by itself as wrong and shows a complete wanton ignorance of the millions of Australians who do travel on PT every day. In the same section, he says he wants cars buses and bikes in that order. No room for urban rail in that "context" - he complains about the high cost of current urban systems which can be agreed with but the solution is not to simply abandon them but to take the path of an alternative implementation (the metro).

Cheers
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Badgerys Creek will NOT be built as a rival to Mascot - at least not initially.

Stage 1 would have a single runway capable of taking narrow body A320 / B737 type aircraft with the capacity of landing smaller wide body planes in exceptional circumstances. It would have a basic terminal, no airbridges (passengers would go outdoors and walk to their planes), a modest car park and a minibus connection to the city every half hour. So something like Launceston or Gold Coast airport.

BUT it would have the capacity for massive upgrading, (albeit many years later) with room for the runway to be extended to A380 size and perhaps room for a second runway. There would be space for a big second terminal, a reserved path for a possible future rail connection and several paddocks leased back to farmers where a future mega car park could be built.

However that would be in the distant future, stage 1 would be a simple affair for narrow body domestic flights and after a few years perhaps wide body freight flights and medium haul internationals.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Badgerys Creek will NOT be built as a rival to Mascot - at least not initially.

Stage 1 would have a single runway capable of taking narrow body A320 / B737 type aircraft with the capacity of landing smaller wide body planes in exceptional circumstances. It would have a basic terminal, no airbridges (passengers would go outdoors and walk to their planes), a modest car park and a minibus connection to the city every half hour. So something like Launceston or Gold Coast airport.

BUT it would have the capacity for massive upgrading, (albeit many years later) with room for the runway to be extended to A380 size and perhaps room for a second runway. There would be space for a big second terminal, a reserved path for a possible future rail connection and several paddocks leased back to farmers where a future mega car park could be built.

However that would be in the distant future, stage 1 would be a simple affair for narrow body domestic flights and after a few years perhaps wide body freight flights and medium haul internationals.
Bogong
Thanks and tend to agree, although I would have thought stage would would be designed to encourage freight operators and hence need B747 standard.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Do I have to quote the whole book to have the context? What is the context? The comment stands by itself as wrong and shows a complete wanton ignorance of the millions of Australians who do travel on PT every day. In the same section, he says he wants cars buses and bikes in that order. No room for urban rail in that "context" - he complains about the high cost of current urban systems which can be agreed with but the solution is not to simply abandon them but to take the path of an alternative implementation (the metro).

Cheers
arctic
Hi,
No, did a quick look up myself.

“In Australia’s biggest cities, public transport is generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still hideous drain on the public purse. Part of the problem is inefficient, overmanned, union-dominated government run train and bus systems. Mostly though, …there just aren’t enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads.” P174

Well hes not completely wrong. Many a person here has stated the top two lines, including reference to the high subsidy in Australia. 45 years ago Melbourne trams were cash flow positive.
Do we really believe we can wipe out the dominate use of cars in Australia as a means of getting around? HR is known as mass transit for a reason and Australian cities will mostly only support HR for peak use
And many a person here has stated the same for the bottom two lines.

Question is, Did his comments mean abandonment of the existing and proposed expansions of the current HR networks? I doubt it. For example, he knows for full well that removal of the North Shore line would lead to car chaos across the harbour and buses will simply not cut it and would take a multi billion dollar bridge/tunnel to replace it and cause gridlock in the city streets. I would suggest the context is more related to suburban sprawl.

My original reference was to P133 (No I hadn't read or even looked this up by while you gave me the hint why not)

“Meaningful reform is unlikely until one level of government can call the shots"

This was my point and i support the concept and have have this opinion long before he wrote this book in 2009. But it needs to be far more than just rail and include roads.

....back to OT, Badgery's Creek Airport. It will only justify buses as per Abbott's book for many years to come unless the railway is built to support other development.
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
I am still extremely sceptical of the need for Badgery's Creek, in relation to a HST BNE-SYD-CBR-MEL. My reasoning being that, even though a HSR link on this corridor is not, at the moment, commercially viable, if it was to eventuate it would reduce a huge number of aircraft movements from Sydney Airport (I will refer to it as YSSY, the ICAO code for it).


Think of it this way, if a huge amount of money was spent on a HSR link BNE-SYD-CBR-MEL, when all the consortia want is "tax breaks" (in other words, not paying tax on income received, which I don't have a problem with, the tax revenue foregone would not be coming in anyway if the project DOESN'T go ahead) then it is revenue neutral to the Commonwealth, but might actually help the bottom line in terms of reduced unemployment (so less Centrelink payments) and increased GST income (due to now employed people spending more). So improving the bottom line for the Commonwealth.

But experience around the world has shown that providing high-speed rail links vastly reduces the demand for air travel. Business travellers benefit by being able to work during the entire trip, something they can't do if they are flying, due to connectivity issues, as well as the time they spend with security and all of the rest of the garbage that is associated with flying. A journey time, by HSR, of under four hours, would be competitive with air travel, when looking at city centre to city centre. and HSR will provide this.

If the HSR was to go BNE-SYD-CBR=MEL, then most of the SYD-BNE, SYD-CBR, SYD-MEL and CBR-MEL air traffic would be eliminated, as would a large amount of SYD-originating regional flights. The number of movements at YSSY would be so reduced that Badgerys Creek would not be needed at all. So, instead of the Commonwealth spending a huge amount of money building Badgerys Creek, why not just forego some revenue - revenue which will not be received if the HSR doesn't go ahead (so no money lost) - and let the HSR go ahead - at no cost to the taxpayer (apart from foregone revenue, revenue which would not be forthcoming anyway if it doesn't go ahead) - and then avoid the cost of this airport?

Dave
  donttellmywife Chief Commissioner

Location: Antofagasta
I am still extremely sceptical of the need for Badgery's Creek, in relation to a HST BNE-SYD-CBR-MEL. My reasoning being that, even though a HSR link on this corridor is not, at the moment, commercially viable, if it was to eventuate it would reduce a huge number of aircraft movements from Sydney Airport (I will refer to it as YSSY, the ICAO code for it).
thadocta


Assuming a reasonable system was built, I would expect a very significant reduction in aircraft movements from Sydney to points along the HSR route.  But given traffic to other destinations and growth in that traffic, that just buys you a few decades of spare capacity.

Think of it this way, if a huge amount of money was spent on a HSR link BNE-SYD-CBR-MEL, when all the consortia want is "tax breaks" (in other words, not paying tax on income received, which I don't have a problem with, the tax revenue foregone would not be coming in anyway if the project DOESN'T go ahead) then it is revenue neutral to the Commonwealth, but might actually help the bottom line in terms of reduced unemployment (so less Centrelink payments) and increased GST income (due to now employed people spending more). So improving the bottom line for the Commonwealth.


I am not aware of any reasonable proposal from any consortia that suggests that they would build the complete HSR system if tax breaks were provided.  Some sort of proposal like that existed for the Sydney to Canberra segment in the late 1990's, but we don't know any details, though it has been hinted that what was being asked for was very much a step too far.  

What has been suggested is that if the government paid to build the system, then it would be viable for private operation.

Even if there was such a "tax break only" proposal, as above, the HSR system would very much likely take traffic off the current airlines.  The activity associated with that airline travel provides tax revenue, loss of that activity then means you lose tax revenue.  It is not neutral to the bottom line.  Similarly, after the initial boost associated with construction (which you get with any local construction spend - including spend on airports...), you are not likely to see large changes in employment - new jobs in the HSR system will, to a rough approximation, just be matching jobs lost from the aviation system.  How that actually plays out in detail depends on the relative labour efficiencies of rail travel versus air travel.

But experience around the world has shown that providing high-speed rail links vastly reduces the demand for air travel. Business travellers benefit by being able to work during the entire trip, something they can't do if they are flying, due to connectivity issues, as well as the time they spend with security and all of the rest of the garbage that is associated with flying. A journey time, by HSR, of under four hours, would be competitive with air travel, when looking at city centre to city centre. and HSR will provide this.


Yes, though with time I expect similar level of security to be in place for HSR travel as for airline travel, and "connectivity" is becoming less and less of an issue with time.

One issue with Sydney airport at the moment is peak period congestion.  With an additional airport operating, that should be mitigated to some extent - reducing some of the delays currently experienced.

If the HSR was to go BNE-SYD-CBR=MEL, then most of the SYD-BNE, SYD-CBR, SYD-MEL and CBR-MEL air traffic would be eliminated, as would a large amount of SYD-originating regional flights. The number of movements at YSSY would be so reduced that Badgerys Creek would not be needed at all. So, instead of the Commonwealth spending a huge amount of money building Badgerys Creek, why not just forego some revenue - revenue which will not be received if the HSR doesn't go ahead (so no money lost) - and let the HSR go ahead - at no cost to the taxpayer (apart from foregone revenue, revenue which would not be forthcoming anyway if it doesn't go ahead) - and then avoid the cost of this airport?
[/quote]The need for Badgerys creek would be deferred, not eliminated.  It has been a while since I looked at this, but estimates were presented in the Sydney basin capacity strategy, and also discussed to a limited extent in the phase two study.  From memory it might be something like a twenty year deferral.  That's not an insignificant deferral, but it is also about the same amount of time as it would probably take to build the entire HSR system.

The biggest issue with your argument though, is that the cost to government (state and federal), under reasonable proposals, of building the HSR system is something like $100 billion.  The cost to government (state and federal), under reasonable proposals, of building Badgerys Creek is only perhaps a few billion - what is expected is that private enterprise will build, own and operate the airport at their own cost, government will just be paying for things like connecting infrastructure (maybe some road extensions, perhaps one day a train line).  Even if the government ends up paying for everything associated with the airport, its total cost (when fully constructed in a few decades time) would be a mere fraction of the cost of the HSR system.

You are not "avoiding cost" by spending $100 billion in order to avoid perhaps $10 billion.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
Will the rail station at Badgerys be for:
* double deck trains (extension of East Hills-Leppington line)
* single deck "Metro" trains (extension of NWRL from Rouse Hill via say St Marys)
* or both?
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
Will the rail station at Badgerys be for:
* double deck trains (extension of East Hills-Leppington line)
* single deck "Metro" trains (extension of NWRL from Rouse Hill via say St Marys)
* or both?
awsgc24
to answer your question
It will be double deck trains as part of the SWRL extension
It will also be double deck trains from St Marys

Gov't press releases confirm this.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
I am still extremely sceptical of the need for Badgery's Creek, in relation to a HST BNE-SYD-CBR-MEL. My reasoning being that, even though a HSR link on this corridor is not, at the moment, commercially viable, if it was to eventuate it would reduce a huge number of aircraft movements from Sydney Airport (I will refer to it as YSSY, the ICAO code for it).
"thadocta"

This is true however it will only affect movements at the domestic terminal.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
I am still extremely sceptical of the need for Badgery's Creek, in relation to a HST BNE-SYD-CBR-MEL. My reasoning being that, even though a HSR link on this corridor is not, at the moment, commercially viable, if it was to eventuate it would reduce a huge number of aircraft movements from Sydney Airport (I will refer to it as YSSY, the ICAO code for it).


Think of it this way, if a huge amount of money was spent on a HSR link BNE-SYD-CBR-MEL, when all the consortia want is "tax breaks" (in other words, not paying tax on income received, which I don't have a problem with, the tax revenue foregone would not be coming in anyway if the project DOESN'T go ahead) then it is revenue neutral to the Commonwealth, but might actually help the bottom line in terms of reduced unemployment (so less Centrelink payments) and increased GST income (due to now employed people spending more). So improving the bottom line for the Commonwealth.

But experience around the world has shown that providing high-speed rail links vastly reduces the demand for air travel. Business travellers benefit by being able to work during the entire trip, something they can't do if they are flying, due to connectivity issues, as well as the time they spend with security and all of the rest of the garbage that is associated with flying. A journey time, by HSR, of under four hours, would be competitive with air travel, when looking at city centre to city centre. and HSR will provide this.

If the HSR was to go BNE-SYD-CBR=MEL, then most of the SYD-BNE, SYD-CBR, SYD-MEL and CBR-MEL air traffic would be eliminated, as would a large amount of SYD-originating regional flights. The number of movements at YSSY would be so reduced that Badgerys Creek would not be needed at all. So, instead of the Commonwealth spending a huge amount of money building Badgerys Creek, why not just forego some revenue - revenue which will not be received if the HSR doesn't go ahead (so no money lost) - and let the HSR go ahead - at no cost to the taxpayer (apart from foregone revenue, revenue which would not be forthcoming anyway if it doesn't go ahead) - and then avoid the cost of this airport?

Dave
thadocta
HSR has yet to close an airport yet (open to correction). At forecast projection is 9mpa users. Sydney is 35m and rising a few % per year, Compound that over 20 years and the HSR is a drop in the ocean that only services a minor component of the airport traffic.

The Consorta wanted tax breaks in 1990's. These days they would want massive subsidy.

I do have an issue in them not paying tax. If I start a business I must pay tax, Qantas must pay, as others, yet it would have been collected anyway if I had not started. I work in Dubai, so when I go home do I need to pay income tax because it was being paid for anyway and I have educated my kids out of the Australian taxpayer funded system and health systems?

If your argument is correct, there will be less flights, so how many jobs lost from a taxpaying organisation to a non taxpaying one?

Experience aroound the world demonstrates on shorter flights of less than 500km, HSR is very successful, Mel is over 850km away. The Canebrra and Nth Coast air traffic are the most comparable and less than 1.5mpa currently. Not all business needs to or wants to work 3hr and certainly the non-business are less likely to.

I find your comments on security amazing after what just happened last week, serious?

Traffic lost
- Syd- CBR, yes most (1mpa total)
- CBR - MEL, very small numbers and probably most
- Syd-Mel, less than half (7mpa total)
- Syd-BNE, less than 1/3 (4-5mpa total)

The total traffic now is less than 1/3 of Syd, and of that number lost to HSR, would be replaced by ~10 years growth.

And ignoring the ongoing issues with peak, curfew and long haul international working around the curfew. The curfew is the biggest nose around Sydney's neck. Few cities with a single international airport 850km from the nearest have such restrictions.

Do you still feel that a $100B outlay with no taxable income is better than a few B$ airport where each flight is run on commercial grounds and provids a city of 5m people with a 24/7 international and freight airport for the first time?

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: RTT_Rules

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.