Prev
Next

First build the rail corridors, then the fast trains

Brendan Lyon

by Brendan Lyon

12 Aug 05:50am

Must Reads

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies! - this is a caption

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies!

81

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil - this is a caption

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil

102

A few good men and The Gaps they face - this is a caption

A few good men and The Gaps they face

45

Filed under: Development, High Speed Rail, Infrastructure, Trains, Transport

101 comments

The concept of high speed rail travel was dismissed by 19th century scientist Professor Dionysius Lardner, who warned that “passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia”.

This Chinese train goes quicker than a plate of siu mai at yum cha

The passage of time (and the development of physics) has proved Lardner wrong, with the proliferation of extensive high speed rail networks on every inhabited continent - except for Australia.

That’s not to say it has not been considered here. Far from it. Australia has been through at least three serious considerations of High Speed Rail (HSR) in the past 30 years.

However the complexity and cost of HSR has meant that these proposals have never resulted in progress toward the delivery of a fast train network – or even a broad consensus about the route and role that HSR could play in Australia’s transport mix.

Last week, Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese released the first phase of the Federal Government’s High Speed Rail study. This report identified high level corridor options and indicative cost estimates for a network spanning from Melbourne to Brisbane.

Some commentators have seized on the network cost estimates to argue that it is beyond Australia’s reach. There is some merit in their argument, and it’s easy to baulk at the $108 billion price tag.

After all, Australia is still grappling with more fundamental infrastructure issues, like basic public transport links in growth areas and the provision of a dual carriageway highway to link its three largest cities.

But no one is arguing for the immediate delivery of an entire East Coast HSR network.

There is however a sensible and prudent case to be made for the identification, analysis and protection of the long, straight land corridors that will be required if we are ever going to consider HSR. If we don’t identify and protect the high speed corridors, then we may well find that HSR proves perpetually elusive, with the required land lost to other developments.

If we are going to improve long-term infrastructure planning, then we need to give proper consideration to HSR as part of our long-term infrastructure strategy.

As Australia grapples with accommodating a much larger population, reducing carbon emissions, easing urban congestion and solving the decades old second Sydney airport issue, now is the time to finally resolve and progress HSR in this country.

All indications are the population growth in Australia is going to be very significant over the next 40 years. The Federal Government estimates that Australia will house more than 36 million people by the middle of this century.

On a business as usual basis, a staggering 90 per cent of this growth will occur in existing urban environments; with Sydney and Melbourne each to house more than 7.5 million people by 2050. In just 15 years, the Sunshine State’s tiny south east corner will house the equivalent of Queensland’s total current population.

Connectivity between our regions and cities offers the opportunity to drive profound changes to the way Australian’s live and move across the east coast.

In Europe, the development of HSR has driven significant economic and social development in regional centres serviced by HSR. Regions on the High Speed Rail network have measurably higher employment, compared to regions beyond the HSR catchment.

Obviously, the ability to travel between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane by fast rail would provide a low emission and competitive alternative to air travel on these sectors; but inter-capital transport is only part of the equation.

Last year, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and AECOM released a major study into the role HSR could play.

Under the scenario we looked at, people could enjoy the enviable lifestyle of Queensland’s Sunshine Coast – and be just 31 minutes from their office in downtown Brisbane. In Victoria, people could live on the Murray River and be at work in Melbourne in less than an hour.

HSR offers a real game changer for commuters in Australia’s capital cities; and provides an opportunity to deal with housing supply and lifestyle constraints in the face of population growth.

Importantly, HSR could also resolve the long debate about the location of a new airport for Sydney. HSR could connect Sydney to an existing airport at Canberra or Newcastle in well under an hour. This would save some $15 billion in development costs for a new airport – and substantially improve the economic case for the delivery of the first segment of an eventual east coast High Speed Rail network.

HSR could offer other benefits too. Presently, the entire east coast freight network is clogged up by a lack of train paths through Sydney. There are important projects that will alleviate these challenges in the short and medium term.

But over the longer term, if we shift passengers onto a new HSR network, we could dedicate the additional capacity on the existing rail network to freight, getting hundreds of millions of tonnes of freight off our highways, in turn easing urban congestion and markedly increasing the productivity of the national freight supply chain.

This Commonwealth Government’s study is important because it lays the ground work for an extensive and detailed economic analysis of the options and case for HSR.

Developing a High Speed Rail network in Australia will undoubtedly be complex – but done well, it offers the opportunity to transform our regions and our cities and take a huge step toward delivering an even more liveable, sustainable and prosperous Australia. The first step demands the identification and preservation of the corridors that will be needed.

Most commented

273Modern Christians can trump Bible thumping fundies
271Class war: sounds crazy but it just might work
266Even New Zealand supports gay marriage
263Climate change and the crisis of communication
257Tell it to the court, Craig
24212 bigger issues than gay change and climate marriage
222Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
214Voters won't forget the way Labor has conducted itself

101 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • The farmer says:

      06:12am | 12/08/11

      Would be a handy way of decentralising our population out of the already over crowded east coast capitals, attracting residents all along the rail corridor, & would ease the housing affordibilty crisis to no end….

      Reply

    • Coxy says:

      06:37am | 12/08/11

      Nah. We don’t want all the feral idiots out here. If anything they should put fences around Melbourne and Sydney to stop the stabbing, drug using, skinny leg jean wearing, BMW driving, rioting, tree hugging, corona drinking idiots infesting the only good bits of Australia left.

    • Gregg says:

      07:52am | 12/08/11

      @The farmer,
      Nice theory but why would you have residents attracted all along the rail corridor for there ain’t so many into Train Watching !
      Oh, you mean putting in a lot of stations and then how much will that slow the train service?
      And as for housing affordability, what makes you think councils and developers along with builders all out for a slice of the pie will not have housing prices up?
      Checked what they are in coastal regional locations?

    • Adam diver says:

      08:02am | 12/08/11

      High speed rail can’t have a whole bunch of regional stops otherwise it defeats the purpose. More thoughts of grandeur all we need now is to power it by solar panels and it’s complete

    • Michael N says:

      10:29am | 12/08/11

      @Adam diver. It could have a few ‘select’ regional stops, for example: Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Newcastle and Gosford (on a Brisbane to Sydney leg). Similarly you could throw ONE of Sydney’s satellite cities (Parramatta/Liverpool/Mittagong) into the Canberra to Sydney leg. Perhaps also Goulbourn? The negligible addition to the journey (say 5 minutes per stop - including accelaration and deceleration times) would bring immeasurable benefits to the system en masse and would do exactly what The farmer suggests, and exactly what must be done to make this scheme a success. If we can make the commute form these places viable from a ‘timeliness perspective’, the cost benefits of living in these locations will go along way to decongesting our major cities. Bring on an Australian HSR - stat!

    • Jane2 says:

      11:03am | 12/08/11

      @Adam, why not, they do it throughout the UK and Europe. They stop at only one stop in each of the major towns/cities. You can live in Cornwell and be in the London CBD within 1 hr. The UK commuter belt is now huge thanks to their HSR

    • Geoffrey Chaucer says:

      12:28pm | 12/08/11

      As part of a feasibility study into high speed rail transport between Sydney and Melboune, a French delegation, including a contingent from Alstom, came to Australia in the late 1980s to make an assessment.

      After investigating for two weeks, they came to the conclusion that in order to recover the $10b investment (at that time) over 10 years for a TGV service, every man, woman, and child in this country would have to make two return Sydney-Melbourne trips every year. Then, they packed their bags and went home.

      The cost of the rolling stock itself was small by comparison with the cost of the track infrastructure and its maintenance. Largely due to terrain, climatic conditions, and budgetary constraints in Australia, track maintenance is the Achilles’ heel of our existing railways operations. When it comes to high speed rail, corners can not be cut on track maintenance without catastrophic consequences.

      Despite the medium speed design capability of the XPT fleet (yes, we claimed it could do 180 kmh and it certainly can), today this service still operates at restricted speed because of the poor standard of the tracks.

      Caveat emptor.

    • w. says:

      12:36pm | 12/08/11

      @ Adam diver and Michael N

      Why not have 3 or more trains on the same track?

      You could have 1 train travelling from Sydney to Brisbane express (1 stop half way) and another train (leaving 10 minutes later) from Sydney to the Central Coast return, while at the same time have a train going from Brisbane to the NSW north coast return .

      Now if there were 2 lines side by side….

      I did some calculations from news reports online and the $108 billion figure is (exactly) a 50% markup/km on the amount of $ China is paying for it’s HSR.

    • Bruce says:

      05:14pm | 12/08/11

      Build it, and they will come !!

    • Al says:

      06:18am | 12/08/11

      If governments are serious about regionalising the east coast further and reducing strain on people in the biggest cities, HSR is a must. Between this and improved broadband, the barriers to people shifting out and around some fantastic parts of this country are lessened. I love living 100km out of sydney but am only able to due to a flexible employer that allows me to do my early morning shift job from home. It should be an option for more folks IMO.

      Reply

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:57am | 12/08/11

      Not a bad idea, but I wonder if building more cities is a better way to do it?

      Sydney is already dangerously overcrowded, and Melbourne’s not far behind.  Can’t we develop somewhere else?  It’s not like we haven’t got the coastline.

      (Apologies in advance for any naivety inherent in my post smile )

      Reply

    • Willie Mac says:

      08:21am | 12/08/11

      I’m all for it, but how would you get businesses to move there?

      Following the success of Springfield, in SEQ they’re currently building a few commuter towns for Brisbane (Flagstone, Yarrabilba, Ripley Valley) but it’s hardly the same thing.

    • ibast says:

      08:26am | 12/08/11

      Just need to repopulate existing rural centres.  These centres have been suffering because of the bleed of people.  They should have said 25 years ago in Sydney, “that’s it.  It spreads no further”.  But the governments have had there snouts in the trough.  Yes it would have driven up land prices but it would have bounced against a wage ceiling and rural economies would have been stimulated due to the influx of people.  And our new premier has continued the trend.

      Within days of obtaining power O’Farrell release 19000 blocks of land on the outskirts of Sydney.  19000 houses without public transport on our roads having to travel towards the city for work, retail and recreation. 

      We’ve got to stop encouraging people to move to the outskirts of the major centres and encourage them to move to regional area.  HSR forms part of that solution.  A cash grab on land on Sydney’s outskirts doesn’t.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:14am | 12/08/11

      I look at the NBN, and I see ways to encourage businesses to move to those areas.

      You’d have to use incentives, sure.

      Recently, some enterprising soul bought “Cambridge Park”.  In Tasmanian terms, it was a huge thing, near the airport, with a Harvey Norman and a Mitre 10 and a bunch of specialty shops.

      The enticed them there by offering free rent for a year.

      It employs hundreds of people and thousands go there every weekend to shop for stuff for the house, because most of the speciality stores are furniture, housewares and lifestyle shops that offer what HN and Mitre10 don’t but are close enough.

      It’s really quite good and easy to get at, because it borders the highway.

      If they can do it in Tassie, they can do it in spades on the mainland - just matters of scale, really.

    • Super D says:

      09:24am | 12/08/11

      You might not be able to get businesses to move immediately but you could certainly shift the government.  In many US states the major city is not the home of the state government.

      I would certainly like to see a Future Abbott government move the ABC to regional a area, perhaps outside Alice Springs.  The Department of Climate Change could be used to boost the non-mining economy of the pilbara!

    • The Other Martin says:

      11:07am | 12/08/11

      Move the public sector jobs out of the capital cities into the regional centers and the private sector will follow. We have a model in the development of Canberra. The problem is that is relies on government to make sensible, long term decisions. There is a not a good ‘track’ record here (excuse the pun). Again we have a model in the development of Canberra. Why is Canberra where it is? Anyone think this is a good idea or simply reflects the egotism of governments?

    • Jane2 says:

      11:07am | 12/08/11

      “Sydney is already dangerously overcrowded, and Melbourne’s not far behind” Have to laugh. Anyone who has ever been overseas would know that our cities are very very far away from having that label 8)

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      11:29am | 12/08/11

      @Mahhrat.  I agree with you re develop elsewhere.  What I can’t understand is why NSW does not do what VIC started to do, which is to encourage business to move to regional areas by means of tax concessions etc.  I would prefer to work elsewhere rather than commute from Gosford every day to the city, and I am reasonably close.  But why would any company go to the expense of moving if there is no gain?  Any concessions I would have thought would pay themselves by way of less unemployment, public housing etc.  Just a thought.

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:38pm | 12/08/11

      Re overcrowding:  What, it’s not “dangerous” because other cities are even worse?  Que?

      I figured out once that if I put a dollar value just on the time I save in the difference between commuting living in Hobart vs Melbourne, I’m $13000 a year better off.  Then of course there’s the value of that time spent with my family.  Multiply by infinity and let me know, eh?

      I reckon it’s dangerous NOT to have that level of balance available as much as possible.

      The Public Service idea is a good one.  DSTO Scottsdale is a fantastic (if small) example of this.  I’d go back there tomorrow if I could.

      It’s not just the money, it’s the whole lifestyle.  I live in Hobart because I get to balance my work and life how I want, not how some meaningless policy hides how it’s really dictated to me. 

      If you think about it really hard, why are you living int he big city?  Most people say it’s for the “Opportunity”.  The reality is that it’s for the “Money”.  The minute you do something solely for the ca$h, it should be waaaay down the list of priorities.

    • Robert says:

      02:46pm | 12/08/11

      NSW is is desperate need of being decentralised. Why double the size of Sydney when it is already suffering from growing pains. Instead of 12 million people in Sydney NSW would be far better off with 6 big cities of 2 million people and HSR linking these centres vital. Expand Coffs and Armidale to the north, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga to the west and create a new city along the south coast.

      More important than this though is much better water management. We have to stop pumping billions of water out into the ocean and build a piping and processing plants in the same grid so that no town is ever reliant on local supplies of water.

    • me my mo says:

      07:44pm | 12/08/11

      @Willie Mac: follow Chinas lead and create special economic zones (SEZ) with different(lower) taxes, wages laws, etc.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      06:58am | 12/08/11

      I have traveled HSR in several countries and done hundreds of journeys in the last years.

      I suggest Australia should focus on HSR for journeys less than 300kms. Thus Sydney to Canberra is almost the limit.  Australia does not have enough people to justify the high costs of HSR for longer distances. It is best to leave it to budget airlines to move large number of people, say between cities like Sydney and Melbourne.

      We should focus on Sydney as a NATIONAL HSR project and let it be the model for future projects around other capital cities.

      Also the Sydney HSR could be used to link to a new airport which should be located between Sydney and Canberra and serve both cities.

      Western Australia already is doing extremely well with its Perth to Mandurah rail service.

      By having this more modest and practical objective it is more achievable. Let the future generations worry about HSR for longer distance travels.

      Reply

    • L. says:

      07:39am | 12/08/11

      Yep.. That does make sense, except I’m not sure if there is enough traffic between Syd and Can to even justify that.

      Seeing how the Melb to Syd air corridor is the busiest in the world, that is probably where your market is.

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:52am | 12/08/11

      Hey, now THAT is not a bad idea.

      One super airport, with HSR connecting Sydney via Airport to CBR and back.  Hell, you could probably go to Newcastle as well.

    • Paul C says:

      07:56am | 12/08/11

      Excellent proposal, Dr Goh - why don’t you do us all a favor - come back to Australia and give these Labor clowns some guidance.  The have lost their way on so many things now and keep coming up with these distractions.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:08am | 12/08/11

      I don’t think anyone is advocating the fact that there is a high demand of people going from Brisbane to Melbourne and will use HSR to do so.

      I believe it is being advocated along the lines that it will be part-journeys that will be most popular. But this still means building the entire network as most people want to travel a few hours. The longer distances will be rarer. But there are many centres where significant travel will occur between them.

      Yes, it does mean that you do it piecemeal. No-one expects that $108b will be spent in one year. It will be incremental and has to be incremental.

      But why should Sydney be the only place to start getting it and why only to Canberra? There’s nothing in Canberra of any real note or interest…...

      Also, the decentralisation thing is something to really consider.

      Sydney isn’t overcrowded (it’s not even a big city). It’s just poorly serviced for infrastructure.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      09:08am | 12/08/11

      @ L. says: 07:39am | 12/08/11

      Thanks for your comments.

      I think one of the most important factor for a HSR between Sydney and Canberra is to build a much bigger airport then the present Sydney airport. Maybe we could even build TWO airports one to service BUDGET airlines from OVERSEAS !!

      We need to do this quickly and mount a big campaign then to get tourists from China, India and Indonesia.

      On the HSR between Melbourne and Sydney we should watch what is happening to the Shanghai and Beijing HSR which covers a distance of 1300kms versus 963kms between Melbourne and Sydney.  Anyway it is best done much later.

    • Gregg says:

      11:13am | 12/08/11

      @Doc,
      Stuff Sydney and lets use somewhere like Geelong/Ballarat to Melbourne as a test or Gold Coast to Brisbane as the engineering required and costs of that and land corridor purchases for both of those will be far less than what it would be for getting into Sydney.

      My own experience on the fast trains in Europe is that they are very expensive compared to charges Albanese has claimed and also what budget airlines in Europe are.

      Population wise for greater area and tourism, you’re looking at a ration nearing 100:1 for Europe: Australia and that alone is a ready reckoner on what a waste of $$$ this is.

      Also have a look at what bankruptcy path the original Bullet train development wnt through.

      Compare Apples with Apples and you’ll see Australia should just not be in the race and like the NBN, political dreams of something nice is just a nightmare for Australians.

      Wake up Dreamers

    • Jane2 says:

      11:15am | 12/08/11

      @L Canberra to Syd on Qantas - 1 plane every hour, always full. On Virgin the same story. There is the traffic for an hourly service and it would save you, the taxpayer, a fortune as most travellers on those planes are public servants.

      CBR may be a backwter but its airport gets a good workout every day.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      12:08pm | 12/08/11

      @ Gregg.

      Are you stirring up the Melbourne and Sydney rivalry? Sounds that you are a Melbourne resident. I suggest you look at Perth Mandurah train as a good model for Melbourne to Geelong.

      My Melbourne expat friend works in Nanjing and lives in Shanghai a distance of 290 kms and the bullet train takes about one hour five minutes for his daily journey. I think Sydney and Canberra is about 290kms.

      The more important factors are to build two large airports in between.

      Better still also build two big cities as well along the route. That region of Australia is very liveable.

      Have you flown Air Asia recently? It is now the No 1 budget airline in Asia. 

      If we do it right with two big new airports in the HSR route between Sydney and Canberra and one of these airports to service BUDGET international airlines we can achieve a tremendous growth in our tourist industry.

    • Matthew says:

      12:29pm | 12/08/11

      They should start with a Sydney-Canberra-Newcastle line see how it goes and use that as a justification to expand to Melbourne first and then up to Brisbane (and beyond?  Maybe even to Adelaide).

      If it turns a profit then it can pay for itself.  If it doesn’t but increase growth in regional areas and eases the pressure on Sydney then great.  If it doesn’t do either then consider it a small failure and try some new things (with the existing rail lines) to see if they can get it to work.

    • w. says:

      01:50pm | 12/08/11

      @Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia.

      Rubbish!

      Did you not read the article?

      “Importantly, HSR could also resolve the long debate about the location of a new airport for Sydney. HSR could connect Sydney to an existing airport at Canberra or Newcastle in well under an hour.”

      If you found some time to travel back to Australia you would find that Canberra airport has been positioning itself to BE Sydney’s second airport for almost a decade. The last building in this process is going up right now (google it), and NOT having to build a second airport for Sydney would save the country $billions.

      You also say “Thus Sydney to Canberra is almost the limit.  Australia does not have enough people to justify the high costs of HSR for longer distances”

      What?

      Further enquiries (I’m sure you can google this as well) would also show that the air route between Sydney and Melbourne is the 5th? most congested in the world.

      The “more modest and practical objectives” you espouse sound so much like the Coalition’s ideas when it comes to high speed internet in this country it is almost laughable.

      You are showing that you are just as out of touch and behind the times as the moronic Liberal Party front bench.

    • Gregg says:

      02:06pm | 12/08/11

      @Doc,
      Haven’t travelled with AA Doc but Tiger is probably similar and I’ve used them a fair bit in the past not that all this is relevant nor the Sydney Vs Melbourne bit for a Queenslander and if you know anything of the Australian terrains you’ll not question the costs associated into Sydney as against Melbourne or Brisbane.

      We should be minimising any White Elephant trial cost.

      As for Perth to Mandurah, having a train that runs partially in the median strip of the freeway is far from being a HSR in a 200 metre wide protected easement.

      Re: ” Better still also build two big cities as well along the route. That region of Australia is very liveable.

      If we do it right with two big new airports in the HSR route between Sydney and Canberra and one of these airports to service BUDGET international airlines we can achieve a tremendous growth in our tourist industry. “

      Seriously Doc, get the hand of the dick and get back to planting tomatoes.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      02:45pm | 12/08/11

      @ w

      I have really a crazy year traveling through many countries. I also spent 20% of my time in Australia this year.

      I have covered about 60,000 kms so far and have about another 20,000 in the next four weeks. Half of my travel to date been mainly by trains slow and very fast.

      I have not been to Canberra airport recently but I had used it many times before. Yes if it can be upgraded fully then it can serve Sydney with HSR in place.

      Do you know of any studies how much is the current Sydney Airport land worth if it is turned into housing?

      I think and I have said the biggest growth in aviation is Budget Airline travel. If we have a HSR and a big Budget Airline Airport between Sydney and Canberra I think that would make a difference.

      To me you sound like the dreamers who support things like the carbon tax and do not take the trouble to check what is happening in the real world.

      The budget air fare,  which I just checked, between Melbourne and Sydney for flights next week is A$95.

      I have a Rule of Thumb which works quite well in practice. To make comparisons between services in China and Australia use a one to one conversion rate rather than the official exchange rate which is one dollar A$ to 6.7 yuan.

      On the bullet train between Beijing and Shanghai the fares go from 555 yuan to 1500 one way. You have to charge more than A$500 for a HSR ticket between Sydney and Melbourne. So stop dreaming about HSR for Sydney and Melbourne for at least another 40 years. It may be more practical to dream about the usefulness of the carbon tax, if you like dreaming.

    • Robert says:

      02:55pm | 12/08/11

      Dr B S Goh

      Yes Sydney to Canberra is the prime candidate for the first HSR link

      The problem with the rest of your comment is that Sydney Airport is already at capacity. As we have seen recently air travel is also at the mercy of weather and more rarely volcanoes. Trains could be run on a much more regular schedule. Sydney Airport is also subject to a curfew where HSR could operate 24 hours a day.

      Let’s also not forget that with peak oil production reached unless a synthetic cost effective fuel can be sourced air travel is likely to become more expensive, while electric HSR can be powered by renewable alternatives once we wean ourselves off coal.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      03:25pm | 12/08/11

      @ Robert.

      You are right. A very big unknown factor is the price of oil. It looked terrible before GFC in 2008. But please note that USA is now using 6.9 bi8llion bushels of corn each year to make biofuel. This is enough to feed 350m people.

      @ Gregg .

      I support your views in general here that a HSR can become a big white elephant in Australia. That is why I think hard of side projects which may make a difference here for a HSR between Sydney and Canberra.

    • w. says:

      04:19pm | 12/08/11

      @Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia

      Your reply is even more confusing.

      Sydney airport turned into housing? Lol, I truly think you have lost it doc.

      And you are still advocating that $billions of dollars be spent on an airport between Sydney and Canberra!!
      “I think and I have said the biggest growth in aviation is Budget Airline travel. If we have a HSR and a big Budget Airline Airport between Sydney and Canberra I think that would make a difference.”

      LOL Why waste billions on another airport that’s just dumb?

      That and the advocation of more budget airlines instead of HSR is the queerest argument I have seen or heard in decades.  HSR could get you from Sydney to Goulburn in an hour but you say people should line up at airports and get on a plane instead? hahahahahahahaha

      Oh and what has the value of the land at the Sydney Airport (for housing???)  got to do with High Speed Rail?  really strange one there doc. Straight out of left field

      And last but not least this gem where you start getting personal:

      “I have a Rule of Thumb which works quite well in practice. To make comparisons between services in China and Australia use a one to one conversion rate rather than the official exchange rate which is one dollar A$ to 6.7 yuan.

      On the bullet train between Beijing and Shanghai the fares go from 555 yuan to 1500 one way. You have to charge more than A$500 for a HSR ticket between Sydney and Melbourne. So stop dreaming about HSR for Sydney and Melbourne for at least another 40 years.

      What? One dollar equals one yuan? Do you not understand how stupid that sounds / is?

      I may be dreaming but your arguments are “out their with the fairies” weird.

      Wait another 40 years indeed.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      05:29pm | 12/08/11

      @ w. says: 04:19pm

      If you look around the World most major airports are now used on 24 hr basis and they are located far from big cities.

      Changi Airport in Singapore is the third position of Singapore Airport in the past 60 years. Narita Airport which serves Tokyo moved there about 40 yrs ago. The new Airport in Kuala Lumpur was also moved away from the city. Hong Kong Airport was moved from a scary position in the city in the past 20 years..

      Sydney Airport is the biggest bottleneck to our tourist industry. If you never been to UK you expect to visit London first. So this is the case with overseas visitors to Australia. Their first destination is Sydney.

      Sydney is the No 1 tourist destination. This is especially so for Asians as they love to visit big cities.

      If we have have a huge new Budget Airlines airport for INTERNATIONAL travelers to come to Sydney I believe our tourist industry will boom for the next 30 to 40 years during the period when China and India grow to and approach the limits of their Economic status.

    • Gregg says:

      08:03pm | 13/08/11

      @Doc,
      That BS IN your name is becoming ever more applicable
      ” If you look around the World most major airports are now used on 24 hr basis and they are located far from big cities.

      Changi Airport in Singapore is the third position of Singapore Airport in the past 60 years. “
      Airports distances from cities varies so much and to say most major airports are far from big cities is absolute nonsense and certainly not the case for Singapore or Hongkong.

      Sure, new airports get developed in some countries that are further out than original airports but you are talking for cities much big than those we have in Australia.

      Just get it into your head that we are not Asia, nor Europe and the more you do comparisons will just make you look even more stupid.
      Even with the China latest train cost, so what!
      What are the VFT costs in Europe which has a closer labour force structure to what we have in Australia?

      You’ll find it is nothing like doing a 300 km. trip for $100 let alone that for Melbourne to Sydney.

      Blokes like Lyon and Albanese are just full of shit.

    • Tracker says:

      07:19pm | 29/12/11

      Railways to airports don’t work but are always thrown in when people dream about a HSR. With current employment costs and the enormous cost to maintain a HSR in Australia (who has a pretty bad reputation when it comes to maintaining infrastructure) there is no chance I would risk my life on it, I will stick to my car thanks.  I believe there is a ghost train from the City (Sydney) to the airport but I have never seen it.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      06:58am | 12/08/11

      I have traveled HSR in several countries and done hundreds of journeys in the last years.

      I suggest Australia should focus on HSR for journeys less than 300kms. Thus Sydney to Canberra is almost the limit.  Australia does not have enough people to justify the high costs of HSR for longer distances. It is best to leave it to budget airlines to move large number of people, say between cities like Sydney and Melbourne.

      We should focus on Sydney as a NATIONAL HSR project and let it be the model for future projects around other capital cities.

      Also the Sydney HSR could be used to link to a new airport which should be located between Sydney and Canberra and serve both cities.

      Western Australia already is doing extremely well with its Perth to Mandurah rail service.

      By having this more modest and practical objective it is more achievable. Let the future generations worry about HSR for longer distance travels.

      Reply

    • Paul C says:

      07:52am | 12/08/11

      It never ceases to amaze me the number of journalists that label the High Speed Rail (HSR)  “Low Emission”.  Unless these rail-riding, super fast white elephants are going to be solar powered, they are going to suck massive amounts of power from the coal burning, carbon taxed, high polluting electricity grid.

      Sure, if the train is going to run express from Brisbane to Sydney, the quoted time of three hours might be achievable, but has anyone factored in all the stops the HSR is going to make along the way in order to make the touted “HSR corridor growth” materialise?

      Personally, I love the idea of a gleaming white train, gliding across the country side, but seriously - is it worth $108 billion price tag?  This thing will never make money and will be a perpetual drain on the government treasury for many, many years to come.

      On a side note, who ever came up with the term HSR, why can’t we go back to the original tag of VFT (Very Fast Trains) from the 80’s - of hang on, that might remind people why that proposal was dumped.

      Reply

    • Dylan says:

      08:53am | 12/08/11

      HSR does still chew through energy (be it grid electricity or diesel fuel) but the emissions emitted are definitely much lower than that of air travel.

      So it’s a lot more polluting moving 1000 people in a jumbo jet propelled by jet fuel than it is to have the equivalent on fast rail.

      Plus, by the time we eventually (if we ever) get a VFT, hopefully a lot more of the grid’s electricity will be from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels.

    • Nick says:

      12:02pm | 12/08/11

      incorrect. If we use superconductivity to utilise maglev trains the energy consuption is incredibly efficient as only the 100m portion of the track the train is actually on uses electricity to induce hugely strong magnetic fields whilst the train over it. It can then be switched off until a new train comes along. Compared with planes and coal trains it is incredibly efficient

    • Paul C says:

      12:32pm | 12/08/11

      Gee Nick, they are only spending $100 Billion, not $100 Trillion.

    • Ian1 says:

      08:10am | 12/08/11

      I think the taxpayer is already beyond annoyed at seeing their wealth being funneled towards very specific interest groups.
      Every major infrastructure project is just the ALP way of siphoning YOUR tax dollars into the hands and super funds of the unions they are in cahoots with.
      To think, how many lives would have been saved (the poor pensioners who’ve died) waiting in an ambulance for an emergency bed if ANY of the ALP’s kerfuffles (pink bats, BER, etc.) had gone into health.  Or how many homeless could have been rescued.  Or how much improved our public lives could have been!

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:38am | 12/08/11

      Yeah, how dare they spend any of the middle class welfare dollar on infrastructure. Save it for the pork barreling and vote buying…....

    • Ian1 says:

      01:14pm | 12/08/11

      Shane from Melbourne - Well, rather than schemes that go nowhere and adding to the cost of inflation for everyone, they could be adding emergency department beds and doctors and nurses.  At least then they would have some forward thinking and be preparing for the onslaught of the baby-boomers on the health system. 

      All the ALP/Green waste says to me, is that they are less interested in saving lives, and more interested in lining their own pockets.

    • JP says:

      04:00pm | 12/08/11

      Yes, we could have put BER into BHR (building the health revolution). And had the same outcome. Or BHR (building the household revolution - somewhat similar to the NINJA loan scheme, and look how that turned out). Or BIIFR (building the illegal immigrant free revolution), where we have patrol boats that are incapable of forcibly removing people from our soil because other countries won’t take them, spouting off about sovereignty or some garbage like that.)

      I even forgot BNSR (building the national security revolution - where we build submarines that leak or planes that fall out of the sky)

      Any effort in any industry by a government HAS TO BE inefficient. If free markets won’t touch it, you have to pay a premium to do it yourself as a government. It’s also a truism that a government won’t be rewarded for mere effectiveness by any opposition or media here - it doesn’t serve the needs of the opposition; and it doesn’t sell copy for the media.

      All of this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to be efficient and have good policy; just that you have to recognise that perfect efficiency and effectiveness are both beyond a government’s capabilities, and below the standards demanded by the opposition and media.

    • Gregg says:

      08:38am | 12/08/11

      Brendan, I’m wondering whether you are just a grinning government goon or a real dunce on planning for there are some outstanding statements you make which I thought someone as CEO of Infrastructure Australia would look at far more closely, some examples for instance:
      . ” But no one is arguing for the immediate delivery of an entire East Coast HSR network. “
      That bit is bloody obvious and anyone who thinks an entire route (lets call it rather than a network ) is going to be built inside 20, 30 or even 100 years given our population and skilled peoples is an idiot.

      ” There is however a sensible and prudent case to be made for the identification, analysis and protection of the long, straight land corridors “
      Some identification and analysis might at least show what is known by any person who has travelled between Melbourne and Brisbane and that is you will have to go a ways inland to find much in the way of ” long straight land corridors “
      I would hope your analysis might show that they are regions not too many people will have any preference for living in, HSR or not.
      And then, please do not forget the temperature variations and do consider researching any problems elsewhere when the NH has a heatwave.

      . ”  If we are going to improve long-term infrastructure planning, then we need to give proper consideration to HSR as part of our long-term infrastructure strategy. “

      What a classically inept statement for what you are saying is that HSR is such a given when I would have thought far more needs to go into analysis as part of any preliminary studies to be so certain.
      Lardner was wrong too you know.

      ” As Australia grapples with ........ now is the time to finally resolve and progress HSR in this country. “
      Is your mind as closed as Lardners on this for I would have thought a further waste of money should at least be spent on indepth analysis first.

      ” All indications are the population .............of this century. “
      Significant as a % for Australia but relatively insignificant as a % of global growth and should not much more effort go into what water is going to be available.
      You do know do you not that desalination and retreatment plants are consumers of enormous power and that is another area on which some better government analysis needs to occur.

      ” On a business as usual basis, .......by 2050. “
      Well how about all you fat cats do some analysis on business as usual for a HSR alone is not the answer.
      ” In just 15 years, the Sunshine State’s tiny south east corner will house the equivalent of Queensland’s total current population. “
      Tiny! , tiny compared to what when from the Border to Bundaberg is about 450 km.

      ” In Europe, ”  and guess what, we are a long way from Europe and will never be anything like it!

      ” Obviously, the ability to travel between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane by fast rail would provide a low emission ”
      And where will the power come from?

      ” and competitive alternative to air travel “
      possibly!

      ” Under the scenario we looked at, people could enjoy the enviable lifestyle of Queensland’s Sunshine Coast – and be just 31 minutes from their office in downtown Brisbane. “
      Perhaps the SC or GC are good locations for indepth analysis and if something was to be progressed, to test the viability.
      Like how many people from either location for instance work right in the CBD and then just what is the potential for work opportunities.

      Have you studied the Bullet Train history to see how the original operators went bankrupt.
      Has your European research shown what the costs/km. of construction are in the topography such as the great divide?, what are the operating costs? and what the fare structures are? - some big surprises in store no doubt.

      ” In Victoria, people could live on the Murray River and be at work in Melbourne in less than an hour. “
      Tony Burke might tell you about water supplies and then of course the mosquitoes are big enough to carry you away before a flood comes!

      ” Importantly, HSR could also resolve the long debate about the location of a new airport for Sydney. “
      A Sydney issue and the airport is still functioning after this long time.
      Capping planes and population can save $15B.

      ” This Commonwealth Government’s study is important because it lays the ground work for an extensive and detailed economic analysis of the options and case for HSR.”
      You have said it is a given and this study is just more BS again at the behest of the Greens.

      ” The first step demands the identification and preservation of the corridors that will be needed.”
      That first step will hopefully confirm the BS.

      Reply

    • hugh says:

      09:03am | 12/08/11

      Coupled with the NBN, the HSR is another vital step in decentralising the East Coast cities.
      To all those fake financial conservatives (tea party-esque people that have no idea about financial markets etc - yet are psychotically in love with capitalism and the use of free markets) - for an infrastructure project this large, private enterprise cannot undertake it, and fully requires government planning and spending to implement it.
      How dumb are many people that complain about any money being spent in this country?? The NBN is a waste of cash!!! idiots. Clearly they have no idea how this will change the business landscape (especially for professional services firms). While the rate of return on the project is supposed to be nil - the inherent gains in productivity and social inclusion fully outweigh those big dollar costs.

      The same goes for the HSR.
      Big scary amounts of cash - but huge gains in productivity (as nominated in this article), along with providing a greater transport network between regional hubs and major cities - which leads to greater social inclusion and expanded employment opportunities.
      It assists with so many of those government “too hard basket” issues - housing affordability, regional inclusion, regional employment, airport security wankers, CO2 reductions (jet fuel emits more than the electricity), urban sprawl.

      If we ever did a cost benefit analysis on Sydney Harbour bridge, the thing would not have got past preliminary stages
      Sometimes we just need to harden up, and spend the cash.

      We are one of the least leveraged countries in the world…. for what? Why are we so miserly? Not every infrastructure project needs to meet NPV of 0 - there are many benefits out there.

      No to fix that pesky water issue

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      10:17am | 12/08/11

      Another complete load of BS Hugh.

    • hugh says:

      10:36am | 12/08/11

      Hey gregg - nice foresight you’ve got there

      Seriously, thats not australia, thats not even Mexico

    • Robert says:

      03:16pm | 12/08/11

      With you 100% Hugh. NSW needs to be decentralised and it cannot happen without HSR and a problem to the water situation. We should never be in a position like we were a few years ago where a major centre like Goulburn is getting its water by trucking it in.

      Imagine a HSR that could run along huge water pipes connecting these centres. Now there’s a vision for the future

    • Jim says:

      09:10am | 12/08/11

      If the government built it it would be way too expensive. XStrata have the monopoly on the Mt Isa to Townsville rail line…a few years ago many of the smaller miners approached the government to at least build some loops so more than one train could be on it at a time. The price per kilometre as suggested by the local MP was incredible, well over $1M/km.

      Now I’m in NSW and the place I work at are looking at a 15km loop, using private contractors. The cost is coming back at around 10% of what the government would pay.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      10:12am | 12/08/11

      Good point Jim. Government is seen to be a cash cow. You watch people milk a project for every possible variation, consumable, extra. The sh*t just doesn’t fly in private enterprise. It has developed a bit of a culture. You can’t really blame business, as that is the way the game is played, but why does govt allow such waste? Even down to the fact that the staff approving the invoices relating to the over priced works being over paid. Its a shame, because it is our money being wasted.

      Having shifted from contracts in a GOC to Private Enterprise, the difference between attitudes toward expenditure, planning etc are unbelievable. Even down to when we travel. Here, everyone does everything they can to reduce costs, at GOC - you got $80 a day for food. You didn’t have to spend that, but you still got $80 added to your pay every day you were away, because you had to by a coffee, a sandwhich and something for dinner that day (umm, you still have to feed yourself at home!). Then, you got an entertainment allowance. Its absolutely rediculous.

      It should be the other way around.

    • F.W.G. says:

      09:27am | 12/08/11

      I just wish they would fix our wodonga melb rail link,it’s been none operational for 2years

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      09:37am | 12/08/11

      Can you imagine the photo opportunities associated with spending millions to reserve a rail corridor?  Neither can the pollies which is why it won’t happen.

      The idea that a government would do something that far sighted is laughable.  Why would they plan the route, take all the heat from the greenies defending spotted newts, regional constituents annoyed that the train comes to close / not close enough and all the other nonsense to not actually put in place a plan to build the thing?

      Any sensible politician will be happy to keep this at the concept stage forever, to be trotted out as regularly as the flag or republic debates to supply a little grand vision to their manifestos.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      09:50am | 12/08/11

      Melbourne-Albury-Sydney for high speed rail to start with. Given that Melb-Sydney has one of the worlds most congested air corridors, it would appear that this would be the best opportunity for a profitable and highly utilised service.

      Reply

    • Transport Economist says:

      10:00am | 12/08/11

      High Speed rail, just like the Sprinfgfield mono rail , is a con.

      The financial case is non -existent. It can only be supported through massive tax- payer subsidies which cannot be justified.

      The economic case is also non-existent.

      Just where is the productivity benfit going to come from?

      Time savings? - Well no people who are time poor will always fly.

      Higher productivity from greater trade and specialisation as between Sydney Melbourne and Brisbane?

      Hard to fathom. Communication links are already well established. HSR does does not carry freight.

      Maybe greater numbers of tourists between cities - probably a zero sum gain and hardly a driver for a national mortgage head ache.

      Drive decentralisation. Decentralisation is the catch cry of the luddites who are frightened of modern cities not the economists. Cities drive prosperity by the concentration of literally tensof thousands of inter-linked businesses and specialiation. If you can’t see that the urbanisation of man over 5,000 years drove the advancement of mankind then you need to do some serious reading. And decentralised centres probably increase costs, not reduce them as people (and freight) make longer journeys (which can’t be served by HSR) and services and specialisations are dispersed. (Ever wondered why those shocking doctors ended up in Bundaberg and Bega).

      So why is it on the agenda?

      Maybe the construction lobby, pollies who reach for the “visionary” solution which can be sold to a public that doesn’t have the time or expertise to be critical,

      Maybe it is a co-incidence but a project with the same price ticket (but almost certainly with superior economic case) was mooted by the Productivity Commission this week - a national disability support scheme costing $6 billion a year. ( the same as the interest bill for VFR).

      Perhaps not as many ribbon cuttings opportunities and fact finding missions to galavant about Europe or Japan but certainly far more important to our national well being.

      Reply

    • David says:

      03:18pm | 13/08/11

      And what if aviation fuel increases by 300% in the next 5 years?

    • CynicalGoatWA says:

      09:04pm | 13/08/11

      “And what if aviation fuel increase by 300% in the next 5 years”........What, you mean like our electricity prices will probably do??

    • Anna C says:

      10:03am | 12/08/11

      While I love the idea of HSR because it would mean we could de-centralise our population, I think that the cost is just too high.  This government does not have a good track record when it comes to implementing their policies and I fear that the cost of the HSR would blow out even further.  Sadly I think that this proposal will remain just another pipe dream kind of like Sydney’s elusive second airport.

      Reply

    • Stockinbingal roo says:

      10:06am | 12/08/11

      Sydney to Newcastle first, if it works expand.

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      11:12am | 12/08/11

      Sydney to Newcastle via Gosford and Sydney to Wollongong.  You wouldn’t even need to clear a land corridor as it could be all done by tunnel. Much, much less NIMBY resistance too and cost effective these days.

    • Anon says:

      10:10am | 12/08/11

      I very much doubt the $108b figure quoted is even a fraction of what it would cost. Who is going to pay for all of this?

      A Shinkansen-style rail network in Australia would be awesome. Amazing. Excellent. ...if someone else paid for it. Not my taxpayer dollars that could better be spent on hospitals and the NDIS, thank you.

      Reply

    • Thirsty says:

      10:13am | 12/08/11

      Now I might be a little niave, but couldnt Australia strive for something like a fully intergrated transport plan, both commuters and freight
      Build a HSR line from Brisbane to Melbourne, with stops at Gold Coast, Grafton, Newcastle, Central Coast, Western Sydney, site of new airport, Canberra, Vict Border and Melbourne
      Build a completely new airport in Sydney southern highlands that will serve both freight and all commuters
      Have a metro style driverless train from Western Sydney to CBD, leaving every 5 minutes so that people dont have to have timetables etc, they can just turn up and know they can catch a train
      Open up existing rail corridor for freight, having freight hubs at Central Coast, Newcastle, Taree, Grafton, etc, with road transport from these hubs to take freight to customers place of business (ie, no long distance truck movements)
      On a typical freight train, stack the containers so that the carriage can be simply let loose at the freight hubs, there wouldnt even be a need for the freight train to slow down…just let the carriages loose 500 metres before rail junction, momentum would then bring carraiges into siding
      Scrap present Sydney airport, open up for residential, solve all problems of air traffic noise, congestion that airport brings inner suburbs, can alleviate population pressures on western suburbs etc etc
      Am I just a dreamer, or does something like this sound too easy (costly though…)

      Reply

    • CBR says:

      10:30am | 12/08/11

      “On a typical freight train, stack the containers so that the carriage can be simply let loose at the freight hubs, there wouldnt even be a need for the freight train to slow down…just let the carriages loose 500 metres before rail junction, momentum would then bring carraiges into siding”

      Am I the only one who can see significant problems with this proposal?


      And with all of your above proposals - who is going to pay for it? Who? And how? You’re as bad as the bloody Citizens Electoral Council with their pie-in-the-sky (and money-grows-on-trees) idea for an Australia-wide mag-lev network.

    • truthnotfaith mike says:

      11:08am | 12/08/11

      NZ Auckalnd talked about rail transport many years back, same discussion and gripes. Leave until popultion and necessity forces it.  But now it too expensive and impracticle but needed. Only way to make it anywhere near economic is to do it now. Percentage increases in everything over the next 30 years will make it massively impracticle then. And then, we may not be in BOOM times like now. In fact, coal will have done its dash and we shall be third world fossil fools.

      Reply

    • Thirsty says:

      11:09am | 12/08/11

      @CBR
      The letting loose freight carrages is in place now all over the world, its just our “lucky” country who cant seem to grasp simple productivity gains available
      As to the cost, our roads now take up about $50 Billion every 10 years to maintain (due to upkeep, increasing capacity due to lack of other options). If we can save 25% of this due to taking long distance trucks off our roads, as well as reducing commuter traffic in and around our cities, it would a simple step of re-directing what we already have, as well as increase in government revenue due to huge productivity gains
      Im not talking about an Australia wide mag-lev network, I am talking about an east coast network where 80% of our population lives and works

      Reply

    • CBR says:

      02:24pm | 12/08/11

      We can barely get our freight trains running fast enough to have momentum, let alone “letting loose freight carriages”. Duplicate and improve the freight track first, and THEN deal with that.

      Increase in government revenue? Maybe in 150 years. An east-coast network at all is mental given the population density. 80% of Australia’s population may live along the coast, but it’s a miniscule population. Japan has a stupidly higher population density than us and even their HSR network relies on government subsidies to function.

      It’s just not going to happen. Once again, who is going to pay for it? $108b. $108 BILLION. And you can be damned sure the cost overruns would make it a whole lot more than that.

    • Fletch says:

      11:47am | 12/08/11

      Government…planning…long term….?

      They just don’t seem to fit into the same sentence.

      Reply

    • BenC says:

      11:50am | 12/08/11

      @Brendan: Great article.  Whilst I would worry if it was this particular government trying to construct the HSR, planning is essential now. Corridors can close, as quick as look at them!
      But has the feasibility study been done on this?  I am sure there are very valid reasons why we *could* do this, but should we?  I see that Labor is talking about a study.  Is this looking at HSR as an option to a mix, or is it again trying to prove a conclusion (ie: provide the government with its argument for the solution) rather than ask a ‘requirement’ question like: “What is the best transport mix for Australia along the eastern seaboard?”
      I am sick and tired of seeing government ask questions that they have already determined what the answer is.
      “Big picture” debate is severely lacking in this country.  We constantly are being ‘treated’ to short-term political opportunism to meet a 24x7 media cycle.
      Where are all the great town planning visionaries?  I don’t want a pretty flower decorations at a major city roundabout or fake hotel buildings on a tollway - I want the men and women like the type that conceived the Snowy Mountain Scheme or the Great Ocean Road to come out of the woodwork, set an agenda and argue the case.  Using media or a blog is a poor substitute to promotion of an idea and the mounting of a genuine discussion/debate, to convince the masses of your point of view.  That is not a go at you @Brendan for this topic at all - but we need more discussion (ie: Town Hall-type meetings/debates) on these types of topics.  I appreciate there is a general sense of apathy within the community to attend these types of meetings, but the Wheeler Centre here in Melbourne is doing some good work to advance the cause (albeit with a bias)

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      11:56am | 12/08/11

      The thing I find most interesting is all the calls for the where it is to go and where it is to stop. If it stops too much, it will be pointless. They can’t afford a thousand trains so it is going to have to miss a few stations. Cairns to Townsville takes six hours on the train. Under four to drive. If it didn’t have to stop Gordonvale, Babinda, Innisfail, Tully, Cardwell, Ingham and every other tincy town along the route, people would still catch normal trains. I would - I would rather an opportunity to be a passenger, get out of my car and read a book for $50. But if it is going to take over two hours more than it would take me to drive, I’m driving or flying.

      I think the decisions based on where and when it will stop will be the biggest issue and cause the most fighting.

      Reply

    • Rossco says:

      12:22pm | 12/08/11

      100 Billion for HSR? that isnt economical at all. This is a joke. Australia doesnt have the population or the demand for HSR, even in 50 years time.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      01:33pm | 12/08/11

      HAHAHAHA

      Julia sure fooled you guys.

      Why even talk about it. To be built it has to be economically viable. We do not have the population mass vs land size to warrant it.

      It is so far beyond non commercially viable it is a dream.

      Just stop it.

      How about getting reliable public transport in all our major cities. There is an objective that is achievable and can be justified from a environmental point of view.

      HSR is a fantasy in the form it was talked about. May as well stop now.

      Reply

    • Coop says:

      02:42pm | 12/08/11

      MarK… you old cynic you.

      Havent you been told? These days announcement is achievement mate. 

      Here we have an announcement of a hypothetical which is especially satisfying.

    • MarK says:

      03:32pm | 12/08/11

      True Coop true.

      It is like the disability announcement which was an announcement that Labor might, sometime in the future, perhaps, maybe and on the balance of probabilities have a discussion with the states about it all. Well they think they will.

      Now that is reform eh.

      Or the Aged Care announcement which amounted to announcing that such a thing existed and it was important.

      Another blockbuster reform right there.

      Or the budget surplus Labor “delivered” in 2013 is now just an objective….LAWL.

      I love these guys. They lie about stuff they haven’t even done yet as if it is a good thing.

      It is hilarious.

    • C02 is weightless says:

      01:44pm | 12/08/11

      “The concept of high speed rail travel was dismissed by 19th century scientist Professor Dionysius Lardner, who warned that “passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia”.

      Haha, that sounds like something Tony Abbott would say!.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:35pm | 12/08/11

      The main argument against HSR is the Australian Rail Track Corporation.

      Reply

    • Whitehall ( Maroon) $140 Monopoly says:

      02:43pm | 12/08/11

      Since 1788 , Australia has been a very slow, very dull, and very backward country ! Australia has lived in the 18th Century since taking over Stone Age Australia. Victoria is the advanced state as it lives in the Victorian era.
      The very fast trains will speed up the pace of Australia so that Australia can advance to the 21st century from the 18th Century!

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      03:02pm | 12/08/11

      Now I know those from NSW, Qld & some in Vic regard SA & WA & the NT as the arse-end of the country - never mind the benefits of the mining boom in WA & the promised but never achieved one in SA bring to the rest of the country!
      OK, most people live on the East Coast.
      WA is far away & there already is quite a fast train to there but why should WA not also have a VFT to the East?
      Why is SA always left out? The capital town, Adelaide is only 700-odd kilometres from Melbourne which is about the same as Mel-Syd or Syd-Bne so why not extend the VFT to Adelaide. It has been reported that there are people living in NSW who travel into Sydney every day & spend hours going in both directions.
      Melbourne is expanding & could do with a nice “Dormitory Suburb” within a few hours & Adelaide would be ideal!. A ideal place to rest & sleep! Let’s face it there’s precious little else to do there is there? The Vic Government would not even have to provide Water, Electricity, Gas, Public Transport etc. You will need, indeed you must have, a car for what Public Transport there is is appalling. As Victorians earn more than SA people they will be well able to pay the highest taxes in Australia so that won’t be a problem will it?
      Oh! railway people don’t wait for any action by the State ALP Government of South Australia for it doesn’t even have a Premier any more! Just a lame-duck, loathed person who won’t get out - despite his own Party ordering him to! His replacement is weak & indecisive & was selected for us by a union-boss. Just like the current Australian Prime Minister was!!

      Reply

    • Dirk Hartog says:

      09:28pm | 12/08/11

      @ Lyon
      “The passage of time (and the development of physics) has proved Lardner wrong, with the proliferation of extensive high speed rail networks on every inhabited continent - except for Australia.”

      Sorry, but that’s not quite correct, unless North and South America have suddenly become depopulated.

    • Bill Gorman says:

      04:21pm | 12/08/11

      The article and many of the comments make the VFT, proposal sound like a magic pudding; the solution to all of Australia’s urban problems.  Dream on.  Try fixing the urban rail networks first.  As for decentralisation, it has never worked and, moreover, I can’t think of a single technological innovation since the steam railway that has caused a shift away from capitals - rather the opposite occurs.  And you can include the much spruiked NBN in that too.

      Reply

    • Big Al says:

      08:04pm | 12/08/11

      $108,000,000,000.00! What benefit will this give Australia? We already have infrastructure in place to move people and freight around.

      Believe it or not you can travel in one hour, yes only one hour between Sydney and Melbourne in relative comfort.

      How much would it cost daily to use a HSR to travel to the city everyday. It would only be affordable to relatively high income earners.

      This money could be better spent on building a decent highway system from Cairns to Adelaide. Build a decent highway to Orange and a highway spur to Wagga etc. If this is in place people and business will move and decentralise Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Remember no business no population.

      Australians historically are independent and own their own motor vehicles, why force people into inefficient government public transport. Have a look at Europe and all the countries that operate High Speed Rail, most of them are going broke and somethings are going to give in those countries. Will it be the safety of those expensive HSRs?

      If you want to make effective public transport build an underground within a 5km radius of each major city. Once you exceed the 5km limit our city population densities are to low.

      Reply

    • DragonLass says:

      05:03pm | 14/08/11

      Actually you can’t travel in one hour between sydney & melbourne, unless you have a private jet.  It takes a minimum 3 hours - the 1 hour of flying time; 30 minutes each side to load and unload the plane; another 30 minutes to be at the airport before boarding, and 30 minutes once you land in melbourne to actually get to the city centre.

      High speed rail is a point to point proposition - it would leave from Sydney Central station and come into Southern Cross in melbourne, in about the same time as flying, and would be much more convenient for business people as you could use a laptop for the entire time of the train journey.

    • BundyGil says:

      01:58am | 13/08/11

      Unfortunately it’ll never happen . When you have the conservatives against any sort of government infrastructure investment, high speed rails links would require commitment over many electoral cycles and the conservatives would kill it off every time they got in power..
      Conservatives know the price of everything, the value of nothing.

      Reply

    • Victoria Cooper says:

      02:56am | 13/08/11

      Brendan, Brendan, Brendan - do some research - start with geography, then demography, then do a little bit of economic research. Ideally, HSR would be lovely, I would love it, but it just isn’t feasible. As for China - again do some research - do you know what level of debt this project has created for China? There has already been one major accident due to poor maintenance!! How many dead people is a HSR network worth? The current rate of usage is far less than what they need to break even. One Chinese economist predicts the need to repay the loans for the construction will have global economic consequences. There is a huge debate and discussion online about the long term consequences of the investment in HSR in China and they have 1.3 billion people! How on earth were you allowed to publish such ill informed, under researched drivel? If this were a high school essay you would fail. You are clearly eminently qualified to work for News Limited.

      Reply

    • Bilbo says:

      11:30am | 13/08/11

      An upgrade of current rail infrastructure to current Australian best practice (e.g. track straightening and duplications plus tilt rolling stock ) could deliver considerably faster service for a fraction of the cost quoted for the HSR which of course would be built by large civil contractors with a history of not keeping within budget. If properly planned and executed the simple upgrade would deliver much better value for money than a big HSR project.

      Reply

    • John thw Zombie says:

      01:02pm | 13/08/11

      Can we pls stop saying it is a project for the whole of Australia and calling the Australian network. It shoould be renamed what it is, the Eastern Australian rail network and it is only good for Eastern Australians. Funny how they did not even bother including SA, WA and Tas in the study.

      Considering WA is the most isolated state in the world wouldnt it be good to open it up by having a fast rail that will take you from Perth to Adelade then to Melbourne. This will be worth it as compared to flights in the Eastern states it will be a cheaper option as it costs nearly 600 and this is the cheap rate to fly from Perth to Adelaide or Melbourne.

      Reply

    • Caracatus says:

      02:06pm | 13/08/11

      Oh for crying out loud!  Purchase some tilt trains, electric or diesel/electric, from either Qld, or from O/S, and run them from Syd to Mel, and Syd to Bne.  No, we won’t get 300km/h services, but it would have to be better than the XPT.  The long straight corridors can come later.  With the change of NSW state government, maybe, just maybe, the old infrastructure just might get upgraded, and the tilt train could go even faster!

      One of the alleged stumbling blocks was that some of the curved tunnels could not handle the tilts.  But I know of several tilt trains in Europe have the capability to not tilt, when required.

      Hell, invite Sir Richard, and Virgin Rail to bring some of their UK tilt services here.  Just stop all the bull-puckey, and just get on with it.

      I rode the XPT for from Syd to Bne (before they rather stupidly decided to stop all services at Casino; again, infrastructure costs, Railcorp let the structures, bridges etc, degrade).  Most uncomfortable trip imaginable, even after I tried subsequent trips in so called First Class.  Same damned uncomfortable seats, maybe a couple extra inches of leg room.  I listened to some pollie at the time claim that the THIRTEEN hours to Brisbane by the XPT was a “commuter service”.  I’m sorry, say that again?  A “commuter service”?

      Reply

    • marley says:

      03:15pm | 13/08/11

      I think, before we worry about buying faster trains, we need to upgrade the tracks.  A super duper fast train will still run like a milk train on the tracks we have now.

    • Russel says:

      12:05am | 04/01/12

      There’s actually nothing stopping us designing our own fast trains with built in tilt capabilities so that they can also achieve higher speeds on existing tracks.

      As I said before you’re likely to end up with high speed trains running on conventional tracks even in a fully developed HSR network.

      Places like downtown Woolongong, Newcastle, the Central Coast.

      It may even make sense to run the high speed trains onto the conventional track in places like Brisbane and Melbourne simply to offer better connections and to reduce the cost of stabling and extra platforms.

      And even before the network is fully developed it’d pay to take advantage of high speed trains that can offer faster speeds, and much more creature comfort on conventional tracks well outside the HSR network itself.

    • Ray says:

      03:05pm | 14/08/11

      HSR is simply uneconomical—there are insuficent passengers to make it pay.

      One can only hope that the Government does not go for THE TRIFECTA,, VIZ.
      . the highest retail internet tariffs in the world, thanks to an uneconomic NBN;
      . the highest carbon tax in the whole world, thanks to a crazy Labor Govt being conned by pseudo- climate science;
      . the highest inter-city rail fares in the world.

      Reply

    • Eddy says:

      05:00pm | 14/08/11

      Australia has been blessed with an abundance of natural gas, instead of giving the stuff away at bargan basement prices,(Aussies have to pay top dollar for their own gas) we should be using this resource to solve our many transport problems.
      In the case of rail, (and in particular the Transcontinental railway, which is running to capacity these days) needs to be DOUBLED, that is one track eithe way allowing trains to travel in BOTH directions at once.
      There is no scientific or engineering reason, why such a line could not be High speed and powered by electricity driven by strategically placed natural gas turbines.
      Such a system would be CLEAN/GREEN/QUIET/FAST and provide engineering expertise Australia badly needs. It would also establish a manufacturing base for such an industry within Australia, thus JOBS for Australians.
      Materiale for such a project would also be sourced within Australia, again, benefiting ALL Australians.
      Reasons why such a prject will NEVER be allowed to see the light of day ?
      All of the above industries keeping profits within Australia, simply not on people.
      Check out the Hoo Haa spouted with the fiberoptic broadband system, a paltry project in comparision, says it all IMHO. Talk people is cheap, and our pollies LOVE to TALK.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      12:05pm | 22/08/11

      Simple math - $108bn - 2,000km = $54m per Km - what a load of rubbish. Maybe we would demonstrate some seriousness in the project if we realistically looked at the true projections.

      Reply

    • dumass says:

      10:47am | 23/08/11

      It will never happen, particularly with so many uni-dimensional thinkers bleating “it will never break even”.

      Did the Snowy River Scheme break even?
      Does the Hume Highway break even?
      Does the war in Afghanistan break even?

      Sometimes, nation-building requires infrastructure that has other “strategic” benefits - like permitting decentralization, easing overcrowding on other tracks and roads, reducing greenhouse emissions.

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      08:45am | 12/09/11

      The cost of building High speed rail is no more than a fleet of Noisy Collins class Subs, and in the end the nation will derive an ongoing benefit. and the money stays in Australia, rather than be distributed overseas

      Reply

    • Charity Box says:

      09:23pm | 08/10/11

      A 900kmh jet takes 45 minutes to do Sydney-Canberra + your travel time to and from airport + minimum check-in cut-offs becomes a 3 hour experience for a 245km trip.  Even a moderately fast train (maybe the XPT at the designed for 180kph) can do better.  But big-business, transport lobbies and their supply chain models have Governments over a barrel. ‘Just in Time’ overnight road-freight provisioning ‘in’, freight transport by rail to regional depots ‘out’. Investment in rail infrastructure ‘out’, over-enginerring of roads to handle ever-increasing trucked-freight ‘in’. Move the model to rely on private truck owner-operators burdened by huge borrowings on prime-movers and now the industry relies on ‘battlers’ trying to earn a wage and support a family making reform or large-scale return to rail almost impossible - big business doesn’t carry the truck-fleet burden and government doesn’t have to support rail. And we all get our supermarket shelves stocked overnight, everynight - lucky us. Very sensible.

      Reply

    • Russel says:

      10:45pm | 03/01/12

      Time and time again we put the cart before the horse. Build cities and then worry later about the transport corridors. Finally we have a government with the vision to plan for something long before its needed. Bravo!

      A few thoughts are in order here..

      Cost:

      There is clearly something wrong with the basic per Km costings embedded in AECOM’s initial report and if you drill down into the report where it all goes wrong is in its justification for the cost of tunneling ($100M per Km in rural areas, $180M per Km in urban areas).

      AECOM does not attempt a from-first-principles costing of tunneling. Instead it cites a small selection of past projects. You can find it in Table D-8 of the Phase 1 report. The examples chosen include the the Gotthard base tunnel - over 2.4Km deep in places through mostly solid granite - and the Epping Chatswood rail tunnel - there are too many things wrong with that to even begin here.

      Remember what is going on here is a bit odd. They’ve basically gone and done a fairly lazy cost analysis and then a much more extensive analysis of how you could pay for that cost in fares. The latter is actually better researched. But what we really need here is more study into how to actually build the thing well, and cost effectively through good engineering - even research.

      What we need is more detailed study on how to get the engineering done well and within a given cost. In fact what we need is a Snowy-Hydro like company specifically tasked with an actual tunnel and told go out and build it and build it to a price. In my view the CBD to Parramatta tunnel (see below) would be the ideal task.

      Basic errors in assumptions:

      Wollongong would be well served by a spur line connecting with the main HSR line south of Campbelltown. This option has many benefits including dealing with the escarpment issue (tunnel) once. But the Phase 1 report simply does not consider this option at all - it got hung up considering Woolongong as a through station.

      Sydney station is assumed a terminal station in the report. Why? If this were a through station you don’t need so many platforms. Have a look closely at the costings. Much of it is for real estate.

      The same applies to Brisbane and Melbourne stations.

      There is a better answer for Sydney. First build a fast (180Km/hr) train line from the CBD to Parramatta, thus solving several long standing problems. This would now integrate with the overall Sydney system. Then build the main HSR line so that it intersects with this new fast line either at Parramatta or at Olympic park (creating a platform hop for commuters but keeping the systems separate). Now you have a “Sydney” station for the HSR network that is a through station and is vastly less expensive to build.

      Again, the assumptions embedded in the Phase 1 study meant this simply was not considered.

      The danger here is that the Phase 2 study will fail to step back and take a hard look at basic assumptions and instead end up with something that isn’t optimal because it just hasn’t been thought through carefully.

      Cut and fill mentality:

      The study as it stands simply models what happens when you cut through hills and fill in valleys. The best you could say for this approach is its conventional. Nowhere is consideration given to modern and possibly soon to be available construction methods including extensive use of light weighted precast viaducts.

      Phase 2 if it is to be successful needs to consider carefully a lot of non-engineering issues and deal with potential land use clashes in a civilised and proactive way. Who knows what will happen. My problem here is the department responsible has been incredibly opaque in its handling. It doesn’t give feedback to submissions and there is no simple forum for the public and engineers like myself to discuss the details. All we are told is we get to do that after Phase 2. Lets hope Phase 2 is done really well, but I have my doubts about AECOM, who tend to gold plate things and don’t seem to be able to think outside the box. Just google for “HS2 arup” and you’ll see an example of what good design should look like.

      Reply

    • Russel says:

      11:57pm | 03/01/12

      Just some general comment on the theme of where a HSR line should go to and in what order it should be constructed.

      One thing you have to keep in mind is that there’s a huge difference between the cost of running a rail line, even a high speed one, over relatively open country and the cost of getting the rail line into, or rather under, the major cities.

      Its a wise idea to start with the Sydney to Newcastle link. The reason is the combination of population and proximity. That’s precisely why the study has such a focus on that section.

      I’d actually go at it in this way.

      Firstly, go and form a company like Snowy Hydro, or NBNco. Staff it with experts and tell it to go and build the Sydney CBD to Parramatta tunnel. But tell it that it must do so for under $50M per Km (for actual tunnel) or report back as to why its not possible. You’d be amazed what happens when you get real engineers in charge.

      So in the first couple of years we could have a rail line operating at peak speeds of 180Km/hr from Sydney CBD to Parramatta with a stop at Olympic Park. The whole trip in under 15 minutes.  In so doing we’ve solved a bunch of long standing problems including having a relief line for the CBD. And we’ve established a pool of expertise and better ways to build and cost the rest of the project.

      Now comes the big tunnel. From Liverpool to Ourimbah stopping at Olympic Park. Passing near to Brooklyn and past the west of Gosford - obviously with a bridge at the Hawkesbury.The suggestion here is there are economies of scale in such a project - once you’ve got a tunnel boring machine and all the supporting infrastructure you might as well use it.

      Such an alignment allows an easy connection to the conventional track just to the west of Woy Woy and also at Ourimbah. And what you then do is run high speed trains onto the conventional tracks (not the other way around) in order to connect Woy Woy and Gosford. Now you can open the Central Coast to high speed services. It even makes sense at this point to speed up the Newcastle service by changing trains at Gosford.

      Next you extend the HSR main line north and create a spur line that runs into Broadmeadow (major station in Newcastle) via the existing corridor through Warrabrook. You’d also end up with a station near the junction of the F3 and the Hunter Expressway (Cameron Park).

      Next you extend the HSR main line south through Campbelltown and continue on the way to Canberra. At this stage you can commence a spur line to Wollongong.

      So basically you open it up incrementally.

      Beyond this I’d imagine the next steps are from Brisbane to the northern rivers (Robina and Ballina) and from Melbourne to Albury. What you’re actually doing is displacing cars from busy freeways more so than competing with air traffic.

      Eventually you can complete the missing links through Coffs Harbour and through Wagga. A lot of this is in open country and (well, relatively) inexpensive. Eventually you have a network where the intercapital trains actually travel all the way from Melbourne to Brisbane, merely stopping briefly at the “Sydney” station.

      As for potential stops, there is no real conflict here. The Phase 1 study wisely broke it down into inter-capital, regional and then “commuter” services. The latter being Newcastle - Central Coast - Sydney. Having Woolongong, Campbelltown and Liverpool in the network means being able to extend the “commuter pattern”.

      Incidentally what this also does is make much of south western Sydney a lot more commuter friendly.

      You can also run a more direct Wollongong - Olympic Park - Newcastle service.

      As for the NSW coast, the key points are probably going to be Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. Then you might add Taree, Ballina and then there’s an argument for one or two other places. The point here is you never actually run an “all stations” train. And you certainly design your way to allow high speed intercapital services to pass through. Indeed Coffs Harbour itself might have to use a spur line.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 02:26PM

.@GQMagazine profile of Justin Bieber. Really well written. WARNING: It's about Justin Bieber. http://t.co/NELebjMB

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 02:18PM

Government to consider a Greens call for a national anti-corruption body #auspolhttp://t.co/mrkCu9HQ

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 02:08PM

@speedmouse I ask myself that everyday as I bask in my tasks.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 01:56PM

I was responsible for this headline. It was quite difficult to think up. http://t.co/q5rnWpLM

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

by Paul Toohey

5

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s political demise have been greatly exaggerated and his tactical genius is…

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

by Anthony Sharwood

115

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

by Richard Marles

75

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed