Airport transport access (split from news thread)

[Amused]

The Government should also be thinking of a tram route out to the Airport.
Should go down Sir Donald Bradman Drive and then through city up the Parade to Norwood.

I initially thought this too but then thought about the logistics of moving passengers and luggage to the airport. Also, one would have to find their way to the rail line in the first place, again with luggage.
Due to the specificity of circumstances of going to or from the airport, family and friends, emotions and generally the personal nature thereof, I think that rail would be quite underutilised and would be one of the few circumstances that even if someone lived on the rail line, they'd still take a car. Just my thoughts though.

[Waewick]

so I gather you've never traveled then.

[Amused]

Interesting conclusion to draw. I've traveled a lot, locally and overseas. Certain members of my family travel at least once a month via air. What that has to do with anything bewilders me.

[rev]

The Government should also be thinking of a tram route out to the Airport.
Should go down Sir Donald Bradman Drive and then through city up the Parade to Norwood.

I initially thought this too but then thought about the logistics of moving passengers and luggage to the airport. Also, one would have to find their way to the rail line in the first place, again with luggage.
Due to the specificity of circumstances of going to or from the airport, family and friends, emotions and generally the personal nature thereof, I think that rail would be quite underutilised and would be one of the few circumstances that even if someone lived on the rail line, they'd still take a car. Just my thoughts though.

What about all the business people who travel?
They don't travel with half their wardrobe. And they don't have emotional family.
For them it would be convenient to arrive at the airport, and catch a tram into the CBD and go to their hotel. Would sure beat lining up for a taxi, if the service was frequent.

We can't just look at it from a family perspective. If we want our economy to grow, we have to cater for the business types.

[Waewick]

Interesting conclusion to draw. I've traveled a lot, locally and overseas. Certain members of my family travel at least once a month via air. What that has to do with anything bewilders me.

so do you go down and see your family off every single time they travel?

[Amused]

Interesting conclusion to draw. I've traveled a lot, locally and overseas. Certain members of my family travel at least once a month via air. What that has to do with anything bewilders me.

so do you go down and see your family off every single time they travel?

Just about but again, irrelevant.



First of all, thanks for welcoming me to the boards with such warmth. It's this sort of attitude that has come to represent our state on just about every forum I've ever read.

Secondly, I was initially going with a hunch based on my experience which I know is frowned upon on these forums. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people get tackled down on these forums by individuals with self-professed importance and wisdom beyond what anyone else could possibly have. I distinctly remember stating 'my thoughts only,' and so the condescension was not necessary. Either way, I did some research and from that I move onto point 3.

If they were to be serious about extending tram lines to the airport then one would need to undertake a study similar to Melbourne's study a few years back to find out what percentage of people currently take public transport to the airport instead of taxis/cars. Also, what the percentage of rail use of Adelaide is as it pertains to general commuting. This second part is important because currently, rail use of the Adelaide population is well below that of other states. At the same time, I happily grant that the existing tram line and extensions have also shown that light rail in Adelaide is a growth area with increasing popularity. So where we sit in reference to other states for rail use is important for forecasting because we can adjust our expectations accordingly.
IF the study results are as similar today in Adelaide as what they were a few years ago in Melbourne, then it's important to keep in mind that Melbourne forwent installing rail to their airport as their forecast was an increase of only about 2.6% of total commuters utilising the rail, increasing the rate of those using public transport from only 7.4% to about 10%. 7.4% total, including all of your business people, your back packers, your tourists, and every other form of aviation traveler, including local families with their emotions and what-not. Now whether the study accounted for people whom currently utilise buses and coaches who would instead use trains, I don't know. But if it didn't then the numbers wouldn't end up at 10% anyway and would likely be more conservative. However, the study also points out that it took into account numbers from Sydney and Brisbane, both rail services of which were operating well below forecasted patronage levels. Now Melbourne, that is rail heavy found that extending rail to the airport would be under-utilised based on their study and that it would be impossible to justify the costs of rail because it would not pay for itself in the short to medium term. The study does stress that Melbourne will revisit the idea at a later time should forecasted patronage levels increase.

A transit expert went on record in Auckland, stating that it would be much more cost effective for them to increase buses along purpose built roads than it would be to lay rail, Auckland, with a population similar to Adelaide.

In summary, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just adding my two cents. If a study shows that it'd be a bloody fantastic idea, then knock yourselves out, build rail to the airport. But in the mean time, lay off people a little.

[rubberman]

Welcome to the board Amused.

So you start off with a comment that on the face of it is a little odd. After all, plenty of airports round the world have rail lines, so a position that this is not going to work in Adelaide is a little counterintuitive.

You get a few bites, as one would expect from a counterintuitive post.

You then get sarcastic and tell us why we should do intensive and extensive studies before we respond to counterintuitive posts.

Like I say, welcome. However, you will find that there are plenty of posters here who are smart enough to pick a set-up when they see it.

Naturally, had you prefaced your first comment with the remarks about the need for studies etc etc, and why the rail experience in other airports both in Australia and world wide is not applicable in Adelaide, you might have gotten a slightly different response.

Just saying.

[Wayno]

About 10 days ago I raised concerns similar to our new forum member (Mr/Mrs Amused - welcome by the way).

I too travel alot (for work) and my family regularly drops me at the terminal. I reciprocate and drop other family members when they travel (probably 4-5 times a year). It's a nice thing to do.

I have my doubts that business people (without much luggage) and other travelers (tourists etc) will use airport PT in sufficient volumes to justify laying rail. But as i stated previously, gather facts and make an informed decision.

I am similarly amused (pun intended) when forum members engage their brains into "Fantasy PT Planning Virtual World" and announce things like "the rail must go along Sir Don Bradman drive, turn left here and then right and then left", but complain when someone simply shares an opinion that questions the overall viability.

Tolerance people. As my father says: we have 2 ears and 1 mouth, use them in proportion (is there an internet equivalent to this saying?)

[Waewick]

we have 2 eyes and 10 fingers?

tby honest amused I was just strring the pot after a rather crappy weekend, the good part is that the pot stirring resulted in a post that made sense.

I doubt you would ever put a tram specifically for the airport but if we were putting one down Sir Donald Bradman drive (is there a plan for that?) you would surely look at it. I know I would be taking it every time I travel as I did when I travelled Europe and Aisa but it is horses for courses but the majority of people I know go to the airport alone or with the person they are travelling with.

With the upgrading of the carparking AA coming up I wonder what the propective pricing is going to be I know that has been a majot annoyance of mine although last time I went it appears the pricing has changed - someone who goes there a little more often may help that.

I wonder if other countries that were in the studies amused talked about looked at a disinsentive to drive and to take the PT thus making their rail network more desirable?

[Amused]

Welcome to the board Amused.

So you start off with a comment that on the face of it is a little odd. After all, plenty of airports round the world have rail lines, so a position that this is not going to work in Adelaide is a little counterintuitive.

You get a few bites, as one would expect from a counterintuitive post. etc...

I think you're right, it was quite counterintuative but I think that to expect that because someone makes a counterintuitive comment is base to make a suggestion that implies a complete lack of understanding that went into the comment. Ask me about the health care system or emergency medicine and I will bore you with countless counterintuative concepts.
It is because my family and I use the airport frequently, many of my friends as well, that I felt that the usefullness of having a line running to the airport be counterintuative to what one would expect. I mean, technically in a round about way, an aircraft is public transport so it is fair to argue on that basis that one would be inclined to take public transport to and from an airport. However, for the great majority of people, boarding a jet aircraft is slightly less work-a-day than boarding a bus and as such it is still, I think, a very specific situation which bucks trends.
Further, I didn't state one needed to do studies before responding to counterintuative comments. I realised the onus was on me to find information to verfiy or disprove my position, which I did in an extremely hurried and biased way which'd have most seasoned researchers in tears.

I am happy to use PT when I can but prefer the convenience of a car due to daily cross-city commutes. But many of my friends while studying, rely on PT. Not a single one when it is time to board a plane doesn't ask around for someone to drop them at the airport or pick them up.
I personaly have used PT from an airport only once because we'd landed at Avalon Vic, and would have needed to have sold my liver to have afforded a taxi into Melbourne. (First and Last time I flew to Avalon)
All I was saying in my initial post is that it is my experience that PT is not well utilised to or from an airport in my circle and that perhaps my circle might be an indicator for a larger case. As it turns out, Melbournes study confirmed this a few years ago. Whether or not it was for the reasons I mentioned, who knows but I personally believe that it is.

The glimmer that I see here is that every time the tram is extended, patronage picks up dramatically. I think that if rail was extended to the airport and it was well advertised at the airport the convenience of the tram running past the front door of many popular hotels, then business visitors may use it. But then again, they also can write their expenses off on tax or their company, so maybe not. It's very hard to say as Adelaide is unique. Low train patronage overall but high growth in CBD light rail.

Anyways, I'm over it and am settled in now and there isn't anything more for me to say on the topic. Just note for future discussion I have a painful habit of writing essays... If you got through both posts and are still awake... I offer you cake.

[AtD]

There are a few differences between Melbourne and Adelaide which you need to consider if you're using a Melbourne study to justify/denounce a rail line for Adelaide Airport.

Tullamarine already has a freeway going directly from the city to the airport, something that Adelaide does not. You mention that it was deemed far more cost effective to simply put more buses on the road, and that's probably in part due to the road already being of a high standard. If I remember correctly, buses are permitted to use the break down lanes so traffic is less of an issue.

Melbourne's tram and train network has capacity constraints that Adelaide does not and Tullamarine is a hell of a lot further away from Melbourne than Adelaide Airport is from Adelaide. The cost of building and running a railway therefore would be far higher.

Auckland also has a longer distance to cover with freeways for most of the way, so again I don't think it's a fair comparison. Auckland is also far more geographically difficult to build though.

Likewise I don't think we can hold either Sydney nor Brisbane as an analogy to Adelaide. Sydney's line is extraordinary busy but also benefits from being in the middle of an already busy rail corridor. Brisbane's line is a joke with half hourly services even on weekdays so why would anyone bother?

I would expect there would be enough travelers going between the airport and the city to justify a line, since that's where the vast majority of hotel rooms are. But I think the killer for an Adelaide Airport line is a taxi split between three people is not that much more than three bus tickets.

Edit: I might split this discussion into its own thread when I get home tonight.

[rev]

About 10 days ago I raised concerns similar to our new forum member (Mr/Mrs Amused - welcome by the way).

I too travel alot (for work) and my family regularly drops me at the terminal. I reciprocate and drop other family members when they travel (probably 4-5 times a year). It's a nice thing to do.

I have my doubts that business people (without much luggage) and other travelers (tourists etc) will use airport PT in sufficient volumes to justify laying rail. But as i stated previously, gather facts and make an informed decision.

I am similarly amused (pun intended) when forum members engage their brains into "Fantasy PT Planning Virtual World" and announce things like "the rail must go along Sir Don Bradman drive, turn left here and then right and then left", but complain when someone simply shares an opinion that questions the overall viability.

Tolerance people. As my father says: we have 2 ears and 1 mouth, use them in proportion (is there an internet equivalent to this saying?)

I cant say I'm any different. I get dropped off/farewelled by family and friends, and vice versa.

But people also said the tramline extensions to city west and the EC would be pointless, and they turned out alright.
Not that I'm saying we need to build a tramline to the airport, but just saying that I think business types would find it useful, and it would be a further sign that our city is 'growing', by making it more accessible and welcoming. Tram from airport to Vic Square(ie Hilton), to North Tce(ie a whole bunch of hotels). Linking their arrival point with their accommodation.
I certainly wouldn't use it. I still haven't used the existing tram line, extension or otherwise.

[Isiskii]

I think any tramline to the Western Suburbs would (and should) be more likely be to service the communities and businesses along and around Henley Beach Road and Sir Donald Bradman Drive. The airport is merely an 'optional extra' should the demand suffice - Having said that, I still maintain my opinion that it (the airport) needs to be relocated and wouldn't advocate for an extension there - but that's for another discussion altogether.

[bm7500]

Guys! This is a thread about news worthy content relating to Adelaide Airport. Kindly post your Tramline discussion etc in the Visions thread.

Cheers.

[Aidan]

Guys! This is a thread about news worthy content relating to Adelaide Airport. Kindly post your Tramline discussion etc in the Visions thread.

Cheers.

It doesn't really fit there either - that thread's for upgrading and/or moving the airport itself.

AtD has said he might split this thread, and I strongly encourage that - transport to the airport does need its own thread. If there's to be a split, I can wait until then before replying, but the posts of those people who couldn't wait won't be cluttering up this thread for long.