4 Aug 2011: Australia: High speed rail will be needed

[ozbob]

Media release 4th August 2011

Australia: High speed rail will be needed

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers welcomes the release of the East Coast Very High Speed Train Scoping Study today (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The world is moving forward with a rail revolution.  It is time that Australia joined it. The scoping study is the first step on the path to a high speed rail transport system.  Electric rail, high speed as well as freight and urban/interurban heavy rail systems and light rail is the way forward for a sustainable transport future."

"It is sensible to begin to identify the high speed rail corridors and preserve them now.  This will save billions down the track and further facilitate an outcome."

"A RAIL Back On Track Member recently had the opportunity to travel on a high speed rail journey in Spain.  He summed it as ' ... I am quite humbled by my experience of Spanish rail.  This is a country that knows what needs to be done, and is not messing around doing it ... ' (2)"

"High speed rail is expensive, but the savings in terms of reduced road trauma, lowered environmental impacts, and fuel and road  and other infrastructure savings, means can Australia afford to not move forward with high speed rail?"

References:

1. http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/exex_summary.aspx

2. Madrid to Barcelona & return http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6478.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Discussion --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3200.msg64798#msg64798

[O_128]

Julia has a very important decision to make here, If she committed to HSR from sydney to canberra by saying it would be partially funded by the carbon tax then everyone including me would forgive her. HSR will only get more expensive the more we put it off. Also remember if we take out debt now we can pay it back we won't be able to in 30 years when are mining industry is finished.

On top of that the 3 governments need to begin identifying and preserving routes in there respectable cities to allow for an easy implementation of HSR.

[SteelPan]

Building this pie-in-the-sky project, at this time, makes no sense and I believe the recent "study" to be nothing more than a govt driven smokescreen, to help cover-up the ongoing neglect of Australia's existing interstate rail infrastructure.  Easier [and cheaper] to float silly dreams than seriously address real national rail matters.

There are many "real world" national rail projects the govt (alone and where possible, in partnership with the private sector) should action ASAP - example, the long discussed Inland Railway - such projects will produce 24/7 economic tools to help better drive the Australian economy.

The fast train concept is many years off for Australia 1) we simply don't have the population base  2) it's a passenger service concept and they rarely, if ever, make viable returns, certainly not in a nation of say 25-30m by the time it opens.

YES for rail, but let's focus on our "real world" interstate rail needs first!

[SurfRail]

Building this pie-in-the-sky project, at this time, makes no sense and I believe the recent "study" to be nothing more than a govt driven smokescreen, to help cover-up the ongoing neglect of Australia's existing interstate rail infrastructure.  Easier [and cheaper] to float silly dreams than seriously address real national rail matters.

There are many "real world" national rail projects the govt (alone and where possible, in partnership with the private sector) should action ASAP - example, the long discussed Inland Railway - such projects will produce 24/7 economic tools to help better drive the Australian economy.

The fast train concept is many years off for Australia 1) we simply don't have the population base  2) it's a passenger service concept and they rarely, if ever, make viable returns, certainly not in a nation of say 25-30m by the time it opens.

YES for rail, but let's focus on our "real world" interstate rail needs first!

That is why they are carrying out a feaso, which looks beyond the extremely blinkered "is it profitable" viewpoint.  If the feaso says it stacks up economically for the country, it should be built.

The ARTC network is something else and doesn't require anything near the same scale of investment to make significant improvements.

[SteelPan]

Building this pie-in-the-sky project, at this time, makes no sense and I believe the recent "study" to be nothing more than a govt driven smokescreen, to help cover-up the ongoing neglect of Australia's existing interstate rail infrastructure.  Easier [and cheaper] to float silly dreams than seriously address real national rail matters.

There are many "real world" national rail projects the govt (alone and where possible, in partnership with the private sector) should action ASAP - example, the long discussed Inland Railway - such projects will produce 24/7 economic tools to help better drive the Australian economy.

The fast train concept is many years off for Australia 1) we simply don't have the population base  2) it's a passenger service concept and they rarely, if ever, make viable returns, certainly not in a nation of say 25-30m by the time it opens.

YES for rail, but let's focus on our "real world" interstate rail needs first!

That is why they are carrying out a feaso, which looks beyond the extremely blinkered "is it profitable" viewpoint.  If the feaso says it stacks up economically for the country, it should be built.

The ARTC network is something else and doesn't require anything near the same scale of investment to make significant improvements.

Firstly, I didn't use the word "profitable" in my post - a high speed rail project in Australia will never - EVER - be for profit.  Australian rail transport in any form only enters the viable realm (profit or subsidised) when freight is the primary driver of the service - never people!

ARTC could be another network in another galaxy, but it's still all Commonwealth of Australia taxpayer dollars that would be wasted on this high speed fiasco.  I'm all for BIG rail growth, but let's focus on what should be done first, not some $100b fantasy!

[SurfRail]

Firstly, I didn't use the word "profitable" in my post - a high speed rail project in Australia will never - EVER - be for profit.  Australian rail transport in any form only enters the viable realm (profit or subsidised) when freight is the primary driver of the service - never people!

ARTC could be another network in another galaxy, but it's still all Commonwealth of Australia taxpayer dollars that would be wasted on this high speed fiasco.  I'm all for BIG rail growth, but let's focus on what should be done first, not some $100b fantasy!

Passenger rail transport is not profitable because it is not run to be profitable.  Change that with a better business model, better governance and service quality and you can fix that, or at least improve cost recovery to more satisfactory levels.

Basically, I don't see why the 2 goals of building an HSR and upgrading the ARTC system are mutually exclusive.  We will have a mineral resources rent tax spilling money into the coffers soon, and our national debt position is really very minuscule.  It is very short-sighted to simply dismiss an HSR as mythical - it certainly will be unless we start looking at ways to deliver and fund it now.  The 2 goals are hardly in the same timeframe anyway.

[SteelPan]

Passenger rail is not run to profit, because it can't be (particularly in a country the size of Oz with the population it has).  Look at airlines, they struggle worldwide and fall into receivership like snow in winter.  Hence the old financial joke - "what's the quickest way to turn a billionaire into a millionaire - have him buy an airline!"  Triple all that for investing in passenger rail!  Look at the USA, similar size country, huge, well heeled population, very slow to embrace passenger rail improvements - genuine HSR is a possible for the future - maybe.  Amtrak runs at a govt backed loss!

There is simply not the money in moving people, by rail, bus or plane.  (you really believe Qantas, Virgin and the now flopped Tiger can really turn a dollar on the discount fares they flog?)  People want comfy seats, service, food, entertainment, a blanket, the baby bottle heated etc, etc, etc.  Freight: grab a parcel, put in the freight car and take it off at the other end - where do you think the money can be made?

A $100b HSR system, makes as much sense to Oz as hundreds of overpriced, mostly vacant school halls, now forming the backbone of an "education revolution" - yeah, in the 1950's they might have!

YES to rail - no to blowing a $100b on HSR.

[Jonno]

Why must rail be profitable or feasible within an inch of it's life whilst road transport is subsidized up the wazoo or supported by dodgy contesting busting hopes!! Focus on best outcome for the investment.

[O_128]

Why must rail be profitable or feasible within an inch of it's life whilst road transport is subsidized up the wazoo or supported by dodgy contesting busting hopes!! Focus on best outcome for the investment.

Totally agree, its double standards.

Another thing I've noticed is the parkway stations, when the project is costing 100billion dollars why not just build light rail to link the parkway stations to the town centre? Heck it will add 1 or 2 billion to the total cost and give cities like coffs harbour a big breathe of life.

[Stillwater]

The project is doomed.  These words from the report: "Five governmental jurisdictions would need to be involved in an EC VHST. Furthermore, there are policy issues in relation to rail systems that go to the core of Australia's federal system of government. All five Governments would need to be totally committed to a project of the scale of an EC VHST and would need to contribute political, administrative and financial support. All five Governments would need to be involved in establishment of an entity adequately resourced to create an EC VHST. The entity and the project would need their own policy framework as none exists at present at any level of government. In addition to such policy addressing the transport and development aspects of a VHST, there are environmental policies which would provide a context for development and operation of a VHST system. Other environmental policies define national goals and objectives which a VHST could help to deliver."  It is virtually impossible to get five governments in Australia to agree on anything.   

[SurfRail]

Passenger rail is not run to profit, because it can't be (particularly in a country the size of Oz with the population it has).

I'd rather have an expert assess that than simply dismiss the possibility outright. 

Look at airlines, they struggle worldwide and fall into receivership like snow in winter.  Hence the old financial joke - "what's the quickest way to turn a billionaire into a millionaire - have him buy an airline!" Triple all that for investing in passenger rail! 

Funny that our main 3 carriers do not fall into this basket, and that QANTAS in particular has outperformed virtually every flag carrier over the past decade.  Having a large portion of the domestic travel market and a better governance structure will do that for you. 

I see no reason why HSR could not be profitable if it poaches some of this patronage away.  Airlines are not going to be able to keep flying at current levels of service forever anyway, and people will still need to travel up and down the east coast.

Look at the USA, similar size country, huge, well heeled population, very slow to embrace passenger rail improvements - genuine HSR is a possible for the future - maybe.  Amtrak runs at a govt backed loss!

You can't be serious.  Amtrak runs at a loss because the service is crap – slow, infrequent, expensive.  The comparison does not obtain to an HSR.  Even the ACELA service isn't especially fast.

There is simply not the money in moving people, by rail, bus or plane.  (you really believe Qantas, Virgin and the now flopped Tiger can really turn a dollar on the discount fares they flog?)

Wrong.  There are several profitable bus routes in South-East Queensland.  The 199, most of the other BUZ routes, the Gold Coast Highway services etc.  There are plenty of rail networks overseas that generate enormous profit because they are intimately connected to land use, provide good levels of services and are better managed.

If the airlines could not turn a profit, they would not exist.  QANTAS is not government funded, nor are the other airlines.  Please reconcile this with your statement?

People want comfy seats, service, food, entertainment, a blanket, the baby bottle heated etc, etc, etc.  Freight: grab a parcel, put in the freight car and take it off at the other end - where do you think the money can be made?

Both.

A $100b HSR system, makes as much sense to Oz as hundreds of overpriced, mostly vacant school halls, now forming the backbone of an "education revolution" - yeah, in the 1950's they might have!

Apart from the fact that releasing so much public money into the market at the time of a global financial meltdown for construction of assets that needed virtually no town planning approval and could be built virtually straight away stimulated the economy and helped us ride out the worst of it.

We can debate the efficacy of this particular move rather than others (like investing more in the ARTC and ports), but this seems like nothing more than a political swipe at the current government.

[somebody]

I'd point out that Warren Buffett (I believe) has commented that the total amount of money made in the aviation industry is negative.

I don't want to be too negative about HSR, although I tend to believe it needs to be maglev to work in this country.  The fact is that the priorities are elsewhere, or perhaps that is my opinion.

Every jurisdiction in Australia doesn't have a reasonable train frequency!

[SteelPan]

My comments simply are, that HSR, in a nation of 20-30m people, is simply not viable as an operational argument.  YES, it will stimulate industry during construction, YES, the train technology itself is now much more viable (cheaper), but there simply isn't a viable market and the taxpayer will be making a HUGE subsidy to keep the services going.

I'm all FOR advancing rail, but we have billions upon billions of dollars in rail projects already on the waiting lists - these must get priority over the fantasy of HSR.

That's not being negative, just practical.

Seriously, can you honestly see the Feds committing to a ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR HSR Project?  In addition, to just about every other long waited for urban and regional rail project across the country?

[Mr X]

the taxpayer will be making a HUGE subsidy to keep the services going.

News flash. The QLD rate payer subsidises PT in SEQ by 75%.... that's pretty huge

[Mozz]

the taxpayer will be making a HUGE subsidy to keep the services going.

News flash. The QLD rate payer subsidises PT in SEQ by 75%.... that's pretty huge

That is the quoted figure however how the 75% figure is calculated is pretty much a mystery I understand.....

[SteelPan]

the taxpayer will be making a HUGE subsidy to keep the services going.

News flash. The QLD rate payer subsidises PT in SEQ by 75%.... that's pretty huge

EXACTLY - that's what I'm saying and the Feds won't go for it!

[SurfRail]

My comments simply are, that HSR, in a nation of 20-30m people, is simply not viable as an operational argument.  YES, it will stimulate industry during construction, YES, the train technology itself is now much more viable (cheaper), but there simply isn't a viable market and the taxpayer will be making a HUGE subsidy to keep the services going.

I'm all FOR advancing rail, but we have billions upon billions of dollars in rail projects already on the waiting lists - these must get priority over the fantasy of HSR.

That's not being negative, just practical.

Seriously, can you honestly see the Feds committing to a ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR HSR Project?  In addition, to just about every other long waited for urban and regional rail project across the country?

I can understand your position completely, but I think it is a bit misconceived.

It actually isn't a $100bn project.  It is several projects which when strung together results in $100bn of capital outlay over a very long period of time.  

I actually think $100bn in 2011 dollars over 20-30 years in several stages is perfectly manageable, and have trouble understanding why you think it might not be for a national government with our fiscal position.  That is only $3-4bn a year, a lot of which is likely to come from private funds.  If the project is ultimately structured to maximise the likelihood of recovery of capital expenditure, like the NBN has been structured, then it isn't even money down the sink.

I cannot think of anywhere outside of China where they committed to building 1,600km or more of brand new HSR track inside of 10 years, which is likely the longest any government is going to survive, so this will be a cross-generational project.  

[somebody]

I think a PPP is a bit misguided.  Therefore I reject the suggestion that any of the money could come from private funds.

[Stillwater]

There are lots of ways in which a project such as this would be attractive to the private sector.  That won't happen without governments kicking in a lot of money, for example, to buy the land along the corridor.  Private enterprise would rely on government to compulsorily acquire land.  State Governments would sell airspace above major city stations on the basis that the private sector builds the stations themselves.  It could be that the private sector could be concessions to build new inland cities at key locations along the track in return for paying for part of the track.  The options are both endless and enticing, although I agree that $100 billion is a big number.  What's important is that it is accurate and reliable, then the financial modelling can be built around that number.

[SurfRail]

I think a PPP is a bit misguided.  Therefore I reject the suggestion that any of the money could come from private funds.

There are many flavours of PPPs.  They have generally failed in Australia because they have been based on shifting risk away from government, meaning a private operator must protect its investment by making service cuts, upping tolls or the like.

Are you opposed to the way Gold Coast Rapid Transit is being delivered?

[O_128]

There are lots of ways in which a project such as this would be attractive to the private sector.  That won't happen without governments kicking in a lot of money, for example, to buy the land along the corridor.  Private enterprise would rely on government to compulsorily acquire land.  State Governments would sell airspace above major city stations on the basis that the private sector builds the stations themselves.  It could be that the private sector could be concessions to build new inland cities at key locations along the track in return for paying for part of the track.  The options are both endless and enticing, although I agree that $100 billion is a big number.  What's important is that it is accurate and reliable, then the financial modelling can be built around that number.

Im sure qantas or virgin could run services and make a profit not to mention integrating with there international service, makes sense to me and virgin runs a High speed service in the UK, just because it is government funded shouldn't mean its run by it.

[Arnz]

There are lots of ways in which a project such as this would be attractive to the private sector.  That won't happen without governments kicking in a lot of money, for example, to buy the land along the corridor.  Private enterprise would rely on government to compulsorily acquire land.  State Governments would sell airspace above major city stations on the basis that the private sector builds the stations themselves.  It could be that the private sector could be concessions to build new inland cities at key locations along the track in return for paying for part of the track.  The options are both endless and enticing, although I agree that $100 billion is a big number.  What's important is that it is accurate and reliable, then the financial modelling can be built around that number.

Im sure qantas or virgin could run services and make a profit not to mention integrating with there international service, makes sense to me and virgin runs a High speed service in the UK, just because it is government funded shouldn't mean its run by it.

Virgin Australia is only partly owned by Richard Branson (iirc 25%) those days, and Qantas isn't exactly making huge profits right now, considering they've been cutting back on international service and transferring the international "tourist" routes to Jetstar.  It could be argued that Jetstar subsidises most the QF Group operations those days.

[Golliwog]

I think a PPP is a bit misguided.  Therefore I reject the suggestion that any of the money could come from private funds.

An interesting way of funding I saw the other day was the company was being paid to build and maintain some railway (I forget what or where) but were kept out of the actual operations side.