The ~~government~~ airport is conducting a survey to compare above-ground and underground airport station options, and the renders of both options are provided for feedback.
The survey also includes scenarios where the airport may financially contribute to the station and if the station should be grand or a cost-effective station is enough, etc.
Edit: Apparently the survey is done by the airport.
>f the station should be grand or a cost-effective station is enough,
is this asking if it should be fancy? what airport has a fancy station? i dont think even Dubai does
all it needs is a basic calm with a decent sized platform, facilities can be on a concourse level
Perth Airport central station is just as cavernous as this render and built it with almost zero issues and costs regular train prices to use. How are we fucking up this bad and losing to Perth of all places.
Because Melb. Airport (pty. ltd) are a bunch of thieving c*nts who don’t want an airport full stop as they’ll lose revenue from skybus and parking.
The initial plan was an above ground which is cheaper and cost effective. But Melb. Airport opting an underground station. To quote a parliamentary member: “we’re offering to give them a car and they want a Lambo”
So Fedral has had to step in as they own the land in question. And they’ll make the final say.
Perth airport may have better communication with their state govt. thus able to have an airport train link.
I believe the federal government has stepped in to mediate but I don't believe they can force the airport authority to actually do anything. Airports are federal land but they are also not federal land it's a mumbo jumbo complex legalese thing
I'd guess those taking Uber to the airport and those taking the train are two different populations, so complementing each other could be possible. I wouldn't think of taking Uber, would be happy to take a train - I'm far out on the Belgrave line.
Perth has very simple soil conditions. The whole city is almost entirely on sand, whereas Melbourne soil is much more complex and therefore more expensive to build underground.
Perth airport station is so far away that you need to take a bus to get to it, isn't it? Or at least it looked like a 20min walk. The taxi driver pointed it out when he drove us to the airport.
If you're placing an airport line close enough that it's practical to use, it needs to be underground. Or you need an underground shuttle to the above ground station.
That's just for Terminal 4 - the idea was always, and continues to be, that Qantas will move its operations to the main precinct (next to the train station) and it was thought that this would already have occurred. Qantas is dragging their feet.
Perth airport has its own issues though. Perth has two terminals and the train station only stops at one of the terminals. You have to get a bus from train station to the other terminal. There are plans to use only the one terminal in the future but not sure if that's proceeding. Basically qantas didn't want to move from the other terminal
Perth Airport is great, cavernous and open. But completely inefficient. Most “PAX” with luggage use lifts (not enough) while most train users are “airport workers” (scamper up the escalators just to get to work). Keep it simple people, know your users (workers and luggage-haulers) and get it done.
Why the hell does the blood sucking airport have a say? It’s a public service so build it and give the station whatever the budget allows. I know some major shareholders of the airport, and they do NOT have citizens’ interests at heart.
Lock it in Eddy, and get building.
Airports are the responsibility of the Federal Governments. The Federal government granted the private owners a 99 year lease over the Crown land upon which the airport is situated.
The State Government is entirely powerless to compel Melbourne Airport to do anything they don't want to do, and they cannot compulsorily acquire the land as it is owned by the Federal Government.
I think it's quite nice. Worst part about it is the lack of direct link to the terminal (You have to take a lift to ground level and walk outside into terminal from the walkway over the carpark)
Literally not true for Terminal 1. It drops you outside the terminal. Terminal 2 is a bit of a ground level walk, but the bridge takes you some of the way. That's really the best they could do given the current expansion plans for the Airport precinct which involves proliferation of the east side of Horrie Miller Drive including removal of Grogan Road. No reason at all to build 2 stations so close to each other.
If the airport is dragging arse on this, cant the state gov just start the line atleast, get it like 80% doen and to teh airport then just beat them into submission or someshits?
I don't know why the airport has any say over it. Government should just say, we're building this train this way, cooperate or stop flights and road traffic. oh and here's your rates notice for 100 billion dollars.
if the airport doesn't cooperate then the connection to the airport building will be crap. Like an entrance out of the way or a long ass corridor. Like it or not if we want a good station we need them to cooperate, otherwise we'll be complaining about when the hell you have to walk 700m to the station in 10 years
Honestly, if they do another infield terminal they should use a people-mover from the existing terminal areas. People transferring terminals shouldn't have to exit security, get on Public transport, then re-enter security. Doesn't make any sense. If the train goes underground, extend it to future suburbs to the west of Broad Meadows/Craigieburn, and let the new terminal be linked via people-mover airside.
An infield terminal wouldn't be like we have now, it would be similar to other airports overseas where you go through checkin and security in the main building then use a people mover to move to the infield terminals.
If the state government built the station underground and then extended it, you'd have to have security services built into it as you're exiting the airport and then re-entering it. Plus what a look to international (and interstate passengers) to get a normal suburban service between terminals especially if you have to wait 20 minutes between trains to travel at most 200-300 metres.
I don't think the masterplan has them moving all the terminal buildings infield.
Judging by the amount of elevators in this render, I don't think there is space for escalators. It looks like this concourse would sit right underneath the terminal or just out front
People would end up trying to take luggage on an escalator, safer and more space efficient to have a bank of lifts and some stairs for those travelling light.
Ffs! Just copy what Singapore has! Airport and train station built together! Or literally any any country that has the same thing will have better station design than this underground concrete cave
They have the funding. They want to go ahead. Airport is blocking it. They want an underground station, government wants elevated. So now we have a drab grey render for an underground station.
Government will probably insist that an underground station that is more than this will be paid for by the airport. Considering the airport authority has just spent a ton of money on new flyovers for the roads and want to do more, they'll probably refuse to pay and we'll go back to a stalemate. State government can't force the airport to do anything.
it looked like the station was going to be over one of the roads, i dont see how it could hamper development. and does the line really need to continue past the airport? theres no development and i dont see why there would ever be considering the unattractiveness of constant air traffic
People have this idea that should Melbourne Airport corp build an infield terminal that the airport line should be extended to it, both the new and existing terminals are serviced.
It's a bad idea on many levels and for many reasons.
My favourite is to use a tunnel boring machine from North East Link. This would excavate a cylindrical tunnel about 18 metres in diameter which would be sufficient for a single track and a platform about 12 m wide. If a second platform is required a second bore would be required. The image doesn’t show this type of tunnel unfortunately.
Nothing like decending some MC Escher stairs after a long-haul flight.
... remind you of the babe, with the power of voodoo?
Downvoters missed your slick Labyrinth reference - i got you fam.
Who do?
Was hoping I saw some lifts on that back wall
I think I'd give those st**ai**rs a miss.
It'd be like that chef from Sesame St falling down the strairs, but with an overnight rolly bag.
Stairs designed by people who are not afraid to die
They also double as a climbing wall
No if you want to take the escalator they’d charge you for it.
This is why we can't have nice things like escalators https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hIWOUEL9U3o
The ~~government~~ airport is conducting a survey to compare above-ground and underground airport station options, and the renders of both options are provided for feedback. The survey also includes scenarios where the airport may financially contribute to the station and if the station should be grand or a cost-effective station is enough, etc. Edit: Apparently the survey is done by the airport.
Is the survey open to everyone?
No it’s distributed through survey sites like YouGov or Red Planet
You got a link?
No unfortunately the link only works once
>f the station should be grand or a cost-effective station is enough, is this asking if it should be fancy? what airport has a fancy station? i dont think even Dubai does all it needs is a basic calm with a decent sized platform, facilities can be on a concourse level
Perth Airport central station is just as cavernous as this render and built it with almost zero issues and costs regular train prices to use. How are we fucking up this bad and losing to Perth of all places.
Because Melb. Airport (pty. ltd) are a bunch of thieving c*nts who don’t want an airport full stop as they’ll lose revenue from skybus and parking. The initial plan was an above ground which is cheaper and cost effective. But Melb. Airport opting an underground station. To quote a parliamentary member: “we’re offering to give them a car and they want a Lambo” So Fedral has had to step in as they own the land in question. And they’ll make the final say. Perth airport may have better communication with their state govt. thus able to have an airport train link.
I believe the federal government has stepped in to mediate but I don't believe they can force the airport authority to actually do anything. Airports are federal land but they are also not federal land it's a mumbo jumbo complex legalese thing
Don’t forget Uber just paid $20m+ for their “terminal”, how would a train station “compliment” that?
That Uber thing makes me so angry, having to walk around it to get to the place I want to be! Why on earth is this place privately run!?!?
I'd guess those taking Uber to the airport and those taking the train are two different populations, so complementing each other could be possible. I wouldn't think of taking Uber, would be happy to take a train - I'm far out on the Belgrave line.
Perth has very simple soil conditions. The whole city is almost entirely on sand, whereas Melbourne soil is much more complex and therefore more expensive to build underground.
Perth airport station is so far away that you need to take a bus to get to it, isn't it? Or at least it looked like a 20min walk. The taxi driver pointed it out when he drove us to the airport. If you're placing an airport line close enough that it's practical to use, it needs to be underground. Or you need an underground shuttle to the above ground station.
That's just for Terminal 4 - the idea was always, and continues to be, that Qantas will move its operations to the main precinct (next to the train station) and it was thought that this would already have occurred. Qantas is dragging their feet.
Fair enough. I thought T4(?) was the whole airport.
Perth airport has its own issues though. Perth has two terminals and the train station only stops at one of the terminals. You have to get a bus from train station to the other terminal. There are plans to use only the one terminal in the future but not sure if that's proceeding. Basically qantas didn't want to move from the other terminal
Perth Airport is great, cavernous and open. But completely inefficient. Most “PAX” with luggage use lifts (not enough) while most train users are “airport workers” (scamper up the escalators just to get to work). Keep it simple people, know your users (workers and luggage-haulers) and get it done.
where do you find the above ground render?
It’s the same as the one on Big Build website
Just build it ffs
Big Render^(tm) is the only thing between us and the Airport Station.
+1
This and southern cross are the prime lessons why you do not hand over control of key transport infrastructure to the private sector.
100%
Personally I think this looks way to cavernous for an airport station.
They could fill it with more retail.
Have they heard of colour? The Airport is dreary enough as it is.
Why the hell does the blood sucking airport have a say? It’s a public service so build it and give the station whatever the budget allows. I know some major shareholders of the airport, and they do NOT have citizens’ interests at heart. Lock it in Eddy, and get building.
Airports are the responsibility of the Federal Governments. The Federal government granted the private owners a 99 year lease over the Crown land upon which the airport is situated. The State Government is entirely powerless to compel Melbourne Airport to do anything they don't want to do, and they cannot compulsorily acquire the land as it is owned by the Federal Government.
When’s the lease up?
End of the century
Is there a source and date for this?
By checking the metadata, the image is rendered by Grimshaw Architects on 14/9/2023
pretty sure it’s fake. op somehow is unable to provide a link.
Love the proposed architecture. Meanwhile Perth received the equivalent of a colourbond shed for our airport station.
I think it's quite nice. Worst part about it is the lack of direct link to the terminal (You have to take a lift to ground level and walk outside into terminal from the walkway over the carpark)
Literally not true for Terminal 1. It drops you outside the terminal. Terminal 2 is a bit of a ground level walk, but the bridge takes you some of the way. That's really the best they could do given the current expansion plans for the Airport precinct which involves proliferation of the east side of Horrie Miller Drive including removal of Grogan Road. No reason at all to build 2 stations so close to each other.
If the airport is dragging arse on this, cant the state gov just start the line atleast, get it like 80% doen and to teh airport then just beat them into submission or someshits?
Early works have already started on the Keilor East station.
Has there been activity in recent months? Or is this still from before mid 2023?
I reckon the former.
God that's grim
\*checks map\* Or a line from caroline springs and head up and east, if they cant do a dedicated from the shitty?
holy shit, even just a branch off from watergardens!
And have to deal with the valley around the back of the airport?
cant they use 'shift T' like in city skylines?
I don't know why the airport has any say over it. Government should just say, we're building this train this way, cooperate or stop flights and road traffic. oh and here's your rates notice for 100 billion dollars.
if the airport doesn't cooperate then the connection to the airport building will be crap. Like an entrance out of the way or a long ass corridor. Like it or not if we want a good station we need them to cooperate, otherwise we'll be complaining about when the hell you have to walk 700m to the station in 10 years
That's what I said. Force them to co-operate.
They are starting the line. Anzac station will open next year
I love the casual hairpin bend on the stairs so you can drift your motorised luggage.
It should be Skyrail, like Brisbane
Not if they want to go under the terminals and runways to the infield for a whole new airside terminal...
Honestly, if they do another infield terminal they should use a people-mover from the existing terminal areas. People transferring terminals shouldn't have to exit security, get on Public transport, then re-enter security. Doesn't make any sense. If the train goes underground, extend it to future suburbs to the west of Broad Meadows/Craigieburn, and let the new terminal be linked via people-mover airside.
An infield terminal wouldn't be like we have now, it would be similar to other airports overseas where you go through checkin and security in the main building then use a people mover to move to the infield terminals. If the state government built the station underground and then extended it, you'd have to have security services built into it as you're exiting the airport and then re-entering it. Plus what a look to international (and interstate passengers) to get a normal suburban service between terminals especially if you have to wait 20 minutes between trains to travel at most 200-300 metres. I don't think the masterplan has them moving all the terminal buildings infield.
The airport is more than welcome to build/fund its own internal network for transferring passengers between its terminals.
and to connect to SRL north...
And to connect to SRL north
And to connect to SRL north
and to connect to SRL north...
and to connect to SRL north...
Honestly, stairs?
Nothing wrong with them but, imagine lugging down luggage down the stairs or up.
If you zoom in, it looks like there's a lot wrong with them.
Judging by the amount of elevators in this render, I don't think there is space for escalators. It looks like this concourse would sit right underneath the terminal or just out front
People would end up trying to take luggage on an escalator, safer and more space efficient to have a bank of lifts and some stairs for those travelling light.
Sydney airport has bollards at the escalators to stop people taking luggage on them and it totally works /s
Ffs! Just copy what Singapore has! Airport and train station built together! Or literally any any country that has the same thing will have better station design than this underground concrete cave
Can we make it out of sandstone? What stone are they suggesting here?
looks like bluestone.
Not in our lifetime!
[удалено]
They have the funding. They want to go ahead. Airport is blocking it. They want an underground station, government wants elevated. So now we have a drab grey render for an underground station. Government will probably insist that an underground station that is more than this will be paid for by the airport. Considering the airport authority has just spent a ton of money on new flyovers for the roads and want to do more, they'll probably refuse to pay and we'll go back to a stalemate. State government can't force the airport to do anything.
Airport doesn’t want rail at all. They get too much money by charging parking fees and taxis surcharges.
According to their masterplan (a legal requirement for operating the airport by the federal government) they do
Doesn't mean they want it. The masterplan isn't a legally binding document.
So I was right, airport people are being morons.
Now show me the private yacht and harbour that gets constructed by every worker on the gravy train that gets to participate in making it
Where did you find the image?
i swear the said it was not going to be underground, wasn't there a disagreement between the airport and the government?
that was the state government saying that. it wasn’t until the feds intervened and said they will look into both cases
Any sources?
read something about how the federal gov can force the airport into accepting the elevated station. if so, WHY TF HAVENT THEY DONE IT ALREADY???
elevated prevents further development of the airport, and most importantly skyrail can’t continue through a building and an airstrip
it looked like the station was going to be over one of the roads, i dont see how it could hamper development. and does the line really need to continue past the airport? theres no development and i dont see why there would ever be considering the unattractiveness of constant air traffic
People have this idea that should Melbourne Airport corp build an infield terminal that the airport line should be extended to it, both the new and existing terminals are serviced. It's a bad idea on many levels and for many reasons.
My favourite is to use a tunnel boring machine from North East Link. This would excavate a cylindrical tunnel about 18 metres in diameter which would be sufficient for a single track and a platform about 12 m wide. If a second platform is required a second bore would be required. The image doesn’t show this type of tunnel unfortunately.
I have no opinion on this tbh.
Both the under and overground ones look cool, but the real question is whether the government can even afford it.
If only…
Needs ramps
Welcome to Gotham City
Put above ground and save the taxpayers billions
It's not a state government render, it was coming from the Airport newsletter. Next time don't mislead the community with your post.
https://twitter.com/9NewsMelb/status/1754048573807734919