Re: Airport rail link

["Tim Jones" <tall_man_tim@hotmail.com>]

There's only one problem with this... it sounds far to logical and well
thought out.

It also will not get the pollies excited (extend the Broadie line! we don't
want those people going to the Airport!)

I would think that there could even be room to run a third line along the
Broadie line to allow express trains (unless there's already enough
tracks???)

--
Regards,

Tim Jones
DNRC Member
"Anthony Morton" <amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au> wrote in message
8uajbt$ae8$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU">news:8uajbt$ae8$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU...
> (crossposted to aus.rail from melb.general)
>
> whitehat <whitehat@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Both the Kennet and Bracks Governments had plans to do this. The current
> >government's plans are striking two problems:
> >
> >1) They are keen to be seen to consult widely regarding the route, but
> >various protest groups are saying 'not in my back yard'.
> >
> >2) They want the private sector to pay for it but not to own or operate
it.
> >The private sector is having trouble with this concept.
>
> Both problems boil down to the fact that the whole thing's being run as a
> typical DoI bureaucrats' project, where they spend twice as much money as
> they need to and get something half as good.  For a relatively modest sum
> they could extend the existing Broadmeadows line three kilometres right
into
> the basement of the terminal building.  Instead they propose running
special
> high-speed trains along a new dedicated track at enormous expense, and
> terminating the trains on the far side of the car park!
>
> The money they save by not building excessive infrastructure could be
spent
> instead on eliminating all the level crossings on the Broadmeadows line,
which
> would go a long way toward placating the local residents.  Vicroads has a
big
> fat budget for road projects, so the level crossings could be removed
without
> having to hold out the begging bowl to the private sector.  If this proves
too
> difficult you could run the trains via Albion instead - but the single
track
> raises problems here.
>
> I don't believe it's necessary to compensate Transurban if a passenger
service
> to the airport materialises.  Freight service is a different matter.
>
> (Note: these are my views and my views alone.)
>
> Tony M.
>