High Speed and Fast Rail

[Golliwog]

I would think it would just be a slower route. Theres always going to be a need for some extra capacity, and not everyone is going to need to use the high speed route.

Even if the HSR does use the inland route, I think if anything they would be building new tracks along side (feel free to correct me if wrong). My understanding is for high speed rail you need very high quality level track, which with our long distance trains is hardly ever the case. The options would thus be to either take the current track offline to improve the quality of the track or to but in a high quality track next to it. Not to mention the differing corner radii and tilts different speed services would have.

[O_128]

Tramtrain can you just do the study please rather than these idiots, maybe we should consider writing some sort of study ourselves im sure many members would love to collaborate

[#Metro]

 

Rail BOT could thrash out ideas about the HSR and submit that to the study. At the moment it doesn't look like the kind of study where you have forums and the like, it looks like a "closed door" study where "experts" are hired to do things and then the report lands on the desk of the relevant minister and then gets announced. Unfortunately, I'm a non-expert...

Australia is more than capable of building infrastructure like this. Indeed, Australia has done something similar before with the Darwin-Adelaide railway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide%E2%80%93Darwin_railway

While the railway still operates and apparently there are more services on it now, it was done as PPP BOOT scheme. And like all PPP schemes of late, whoever owned it went bust. This seems to be a common theme with many PPPs- they go bust, suffer financial near-death experiences, there is some perverse back-door subsidy or lower service quality. Examples include (AirTrain fare ripoff)/Lane Cove Tunnel/Clem7 etc. The HSR in Taiwan (its private, perhaps the only one out off all the other HSR projects so far) has suffered financial near-death experiences, and then had state money poured into it anyway, completely defeating the logic of having it as a PPP in the first place.

On reflection IMHO it is quite possible for Australia to build a HSR network. The whole thing won't magically happen- it will probably be an incremental thing that grows and extends slowly over many decades. Rome wasn't built (or construction financed) in a day.

It's strange how many PPPs projects get into trouble. It seems counter-intuitive for a private company to get the numbers and management of the cash so wrong and so consistently wrong. What is interesting, from Wiki is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail

In 2008, the second year of operation, revenues fell barely short of THSRC's expectations a year earlier of a doubling first-year results.[91][94] Meanwhile, interest payments and depreciation charges remained high.[114] THSRC and the government blamed an unreasonable financial structure, high interest rates, and a depreciation period set at 26.5 years, much lower than the estimated service life.[115][114][116]

Its probably riskier financially to have the private sector do this. The government has the upper hand when it comes to financing large long term projects, simply because its credit rating is so good and ease of getting large amounts of cash is easier from the public sector.

[#Metro]

The 'soft' aspects are often overlooked in favour of the technology and engineering aspects. IMHO its often economics, finance and politics (and the competence/incompetence at these 3 things) that kill projects like this, not the engineering or technology.

IMHO the pre-requisites would be:

* A clear idea of what the "purpose is". The fact that this is a HSR study, and not a "How can we improve long distance transport in Australia" study is a bit worrying. Reasons like "Paris is doing it" is NOT good planning. "Let's copy Paris" syndrome seems to
be popping up in a lot of places...

* A clear set of alternatives (do nothing/more roads/better air transport/tilt-trains)

* Clear organization and communication. There are a lot of stakeholders here. This would be best handled by the creation of a national authority like the NBN Co to build, finance and organise and manage the infrastructure over its lifetime.  Different states have pursued a piecemeal approach to long distance rail transport (at least in passenger services) in the absence of co-ordination from above which sees Queensland run tilt trains on narrow gauge, NSW run country link on standard gauge etc etc. This isn't so much of a problem now but if you are talking about a national system and you consider that state operators would probably have to stop running their trains they do now and freight services might run on the track, all these issues come into play.

* Competent modeling and experience- Kippa-Ring and the road tunnel projects in Brisbane seems to show that you can get almost any number you want pop out of the "results end" for the cost benefit bit so long as you feed in biased or flawed assumptions in the "in" end. This must be avoided.

* The private sector will inherently come up with different numbers to the public sector on a large project like this, reflecting the different views of benefits and different ways of raising finance. IMHO private sector can be involved, but it should be a publicly controlled and financed project from the outset like the NBN. (The caveat being IF it is viable...)

[#Metro]

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

Single use rail traffic – the proposed high speed rail system would be used by high speed passenger traffic only. Mixed use traffic would potentially result in a reduced ride quality for passengers and increased maintenance problems due to the varying vehicle characteristics. Should freight trains require passage along the corridor, additional lines would need to be added adjacent to the high-speed passenger lines. Existing passenger lines could also be converted exclusively to freight use once high speed lines are operational, ultimately allowing for full grade separation along the east coast. An alternate solution was considered for managing mixed traffic including segregated operation or the addition of existing infrastructure. One possible option is to operate freight services at night when passenger demand is lowest.

[Stillwater]

From the federal minister's media statement..... the bolded and underlined text is my emphasis.  I'd say there is enough opportunity for RailBOT, and anyone else (stakeholders) for that matter, to make a submission:

The study will be managed by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport.  It will draw on expertise from the public and private sectors, as well as international experience, growth forecasts and other contemporary data.  Stakeholders will be consulted and contribute views through a formal reference group, which will include representatives from relevant Commonwealth, state and territory agencies and other key stakeholder groups.

[frereOP]

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

Single use rail traffic – the proposed high speed rail system would be used by high speed passenger traffic only. Mixed use traffic would potentially result in a reduced ride quality for passengers and increased maintenance problems due to the varying vehicle characteristics. Should freight trains require passage along the corridor, additional lines would need to be added adjacent to the high-speed passenger lines. Existing passenger lines could also be converted exclusively to freight use once high speed lines are operational, ultimately allowing for full grade separation along the east coast. An alternate solution was considered for managing mixed traffic including segregated operation or the addition of existing infrastructure. One possible option is to operate freight services at night when passenger demand is lowest.

This is AECOM's view of the world and this was their design assumption.  There are issues with running freight on HSR but they are not insurmountable

[#Metro]

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature1346/



Running freight HSR will have much bigger benefits from an economic perspective than just moving people. AECOM's people-only assumption should be challenged.

[colinw]

I can see some value for incorporating time sensitive freight (& post) on HSR services, but for regular container trains I doubt it would be energy efficient

The name of the game for efficient freight operation is conservation of momentum - keep 'em rolling at a moderate speed (80 km/h to 120 km/h) with a minimum number of speed restrictions, because every time a freight train brakes to a lower speed or a halt it incurs a huge energy penalty to get back up to speed again.

I agree with an incremental approach to developing HSR.  Start with Sydney - Canberra or Sydney - Melbourne.  Brisbane & Adelaide can come later.

An east coast HSR network is not necessarily going to provide a corridor suitable for incorporation of lower speed freight only lines either.  High speed trains (TGV, etc.) are relatively light and have a high power to weight ratio, and high speed lines tend to be engineered with minimal curvature but some quite severe gradients (1 in 33 or steeper). 

[colinw]

Sydney Morning Herald: Sydney Airport to hit critical capacity within eight years -> click here.

Sydney Airport to hit critical capacity within eight years

Heath Gilmore | November 8, 2010

DEMAND from airlines to use Sydney Airport will mean the 80-flights-an-hour cap will be breached within eight years, if allowed by the federal government.

The pressure on Sydney Airport's capacity will reach a critical point years before work on alternatives such as a second airport or very fast train proceed.

Qantas and Virgin have been lobbying government for the changes to the cap limit if a second airport does not proceed. Both argue that quieter planes make it possible to scrap the night curfew, with Qantas arguing jets should be allowed to land but not take off.
Advertisement: Story continues below

A record number of international and domestic aircraft used the airport last financial year, with a forecast yearly growth of 2.3 per cent.

It is expected an extra 200,000 flights a year will move through the airport by 2029, relying increasingly on big body planes such as the Airbus A380 or the planned Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

...

[colinw]

ABC "The Drum: High speed rail: back on track? -> click here.

High speed rail: back on track?

By John Thompson



After 25 years on the drawing board, it's easy to be cynical about the Federal Government's recent announcement that high speed rail (HSR) is "back on the national agenda".

Currently the fastest passenger trains in Australia are the QR Tilt Train in Queensland, the Regional Fast Rail in Victoria and the Transwa Prospector in Western Australia, which all travel at up to 160 kilometres per hour. These are considered "medium speed" services.

HSR, as it has been talked about since the 1980s, refers to trains that travel at more than 200km/h. Based on services in Europe and Asia (up to 350 km/h), a trip between Melbourne and Sydney would be cut from 11 hours to about three; and between Sydney and Brisbane from 14 hours to 3.5.

...

[ozbob]

From the BBC News click here!

High-speed rail link London to Folkestone is sold

5 November 2010 Last updated at 11:50 GMT

High-speed rail link London to Folkestone is sold

The UK government has sold the London to Folkestone high speed rail link to a Canadian consortium for £2.1bn ($3.4bn).

The consortium will take over a 30 year lease on the track and stations.

Analysts had been expecting the rail link, known as High Speed one (HS1), to be sold for a price of between £1.5bn and £2bn.

Eurostar trains to Paris and Brussels and Southeastern's Japanese-built Javelin trains operate on the track.

Other rail companies are also planning services to mainland Europe.

'Great news'

HS1 has been run by London and Continental Railway under the control of the Department for Transport.

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the concession would lead to more services on the high speed line

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the deal with the Canadian consortium of Borealis Infrastructure and the Ontario Teachers' Pension fund was "great news for taxpayers and rail passengers alike".

"It is an enormous amount of money and is a big vote of confidence in UK plc and a big vote of market confidence in the future of UK high-speed rail," he said.

Addressing concerns that a key part of UK infrastructure is now in foreign hands, Mr Hammond said the UK government continued to own it and set the relevant regulations.

More operarors

HS1, which cost more than £5bn to build, became fully operational in November 2007.

The route, which runs from London St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel, has stations at Stratford, east London, and Ebbsfleet and Ashford in Kent.

It is expected that the sale will open the line to more train operators.

German rail operator DB recently did a test run for one of its high-speed ICE trains by taking them through the tunnel and on to St Pancras.

[Stillwater]

While the tilt train is CAPABLE of doing 160 km/hr, for what proportion of the journey to Cairns, or over what distance or section of track does it actually reach that speed?  What are the comparable figures for Victoria's fast regional train and WA's Prospector?

I think you will find that the speed capability of The Prospector and the fast regional trains is put to better use over a proportionally longer part of their total distance travelled.

Thus, while Queensland Rail boasts it has a fast tilt train (true), it does not wring the maximum performance out of that train by virtue of the condition of the track it has to use.

It's like trying to get maximum speed out of Ferrari while driving it over the unsealed and corrugated Gibb River Road.

[somebody]

638km in 7h25m gives an average speed of 86km/h.  Doh!!

Pretty sure the max speed in revenue service is 170km/h for the electric.

[ozbob]

http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Media%20Releases/10-11-02_HighSpeedRailForAustralia.pdf

1 November 2010

High Speed Rail for Australia: Now is the Time

The Australasian Railway Association (ARA) today welcomes the Terms of Reference of the Labor
Government's High Speed Rail Study. The Terms of reference is an initial step which will guide the $20
million study for high speed rail. The feasibility study will assess economic benefits and financial viability
of a new high speed rail network connecting the cities along the East Coast of Australia.

"The ARA welcomes the Terms of Reference and applauds the Gillard Government for embarking on
such a transformational infrastructure project that will significantly benefit Australia's social and
economic prosperity," said Mr Bryan Nye, Chief Executive Officer of the ARA.

The introduction of high speed rail in Australia has been investigated twice previously in 1980's and
1990's however it has become clear that a number of external factors are now making the case for high
speed trains in Australia stronger than ever.

The Sydney‐Melbourne corridor is the third busiest air route in the world. There are more than 70 flights
each way every day between the two cities. Sydney‐Brisbane is also a busy air route by world standards,
particularly if flights to the Gold Coast are included in a combined Sydney‐South‐East Queensland
corridor. High speed trains with a normal operational speed of 350 kph, as currently operating in China,
will make a non‐stop Sydney‐Melbourne journey time of 3 hours possible. A high speed rail network is a
more environmentally friendly option than increasing domestic air services.

"High speed trains have outstanding environmental and emissions credentials and offer an alternative to
the use of traditional fuels as they become scarcer and more expensive. They are reported as being
between six to nine times as energy‐efficient as aircraft in passenger kilometre terms," said Mr Nye.

In addition to its environmental benefits, high speed rail will also provide capacity relief for Australia's
major Airports, significant economic stimulus and employment opportunities as well as help boost
regional development and tourism. The high speed rail network will also promote accessibility between
regional centres and major cities and provide our passengers with comfort, door‐to‐door, reliable
services for all passengers.

"The first high speed trains entered service 45 years ago in Japan. They are being constructed or actively
planned in many countries around the world including Argentina, Poland, Morocco, Turkey, Iran, China,
Portugal and India. If there is a time for Australia to have a high speed rail, it is now," concluded Mr Nye.

###

[frereOP]

One of the big environmental factors counting against HSR in Australia is the risk of collision with megafauna - something that is not an issue in Europe.  Even fencing the line would require a fence several metres high to prevent kangaroos from hopping onto the line.  Collision with any of these animals (especially kangaroos and wombats) would spell disaster for a reasonably light train travelling at 350ph.  The only solution is to use Shinkansen technology by building the line on an elevated right-of-way but this would be horrendously expensive.

Does anyone have any information on the frequecy of collision of trains with these kinds of animals?

[Gazza]

Some interesting discussion over at Skycscraper city in the OzScrapers section on HSR routes in and out of Brisbane....
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=966040&page=50

My 'tunnel free solution' for getting through Brisbane was an Airtrain style viaduct down the Pacific Motorway median, right to the CBD, where trains cross the river next to the Captain Cook bridge and come in at a glass box terminal on the rivers edge, with linkages to Albert Street Station:


The above option is blue on this map. The green option follows the Gateway in order to reach the Sunshine Coast, with Brisbane CBD services heading along the surface at Cosmile and through a tunnel under Bulimba to Bowen hills and onto the Ekka alignment.
Red is the direct 'long tunnel' option, with the route running under the CBD to an underground station at Roma St, and then on to the Trouts road corridor.
Orange follows the Pacific Motorway, but veers off at Dutton park and shares tracks into Roma St.


Another user (Marki) then did a fantastic map of further options:

[#Metro]

Ok, so the numbers are not yet in on HSR viability; however, IMHO, the route deviating towards the Airport looks good. By then the concession on Airtrain should have expired as well and a parallel runway built. An integrated terminal could be set up there. It would also only be a short bus ride to the cruise terminal as well.

The preservation of the alignment could also look at whether there was also space for a slow-speed freight link following the gateway alignment, which has been discussed on the forum a few times.

The orange, blue and red options would probably be slower options because they are in residential areas and probably would require extensive resumptions. I would also favour keeping the passenger / freight / HSR networks separate to allow for future growth. The other options implicitly are passenger focused, but the green option will allow the option of future extension to the port of Brisbane for high speed freight in the future- the other options do not allow this.

[#Metro]

' Boganlea ' 

[Gazza]

The orange, blue and red options would probably be slower options because they are in residential areas and probably would require extensive resumptions.

Actually, its in a freeway median, so zero resumptions would be needed. The idea is to have the track on an elevated viaduct down the median.

Personally, I think a CBD station is the way to go. The whole selling point of HSR is CBD to CBD travel, so if you are imposing an extra 25 minutes to get from an Airport station to the CBD you'll kill it's attractiveness a bit.

[#Metro]

I'm for the Airport integrated option if it ever goes ahead. That way it can be extended further north without too much trouble.
People will travel further if the service at the other end is high speed and quality.

[#Metro]

Does this HSR corridor pass the Gold Coast?
Because if it does, you could jump on a train at Gold Coast and zoom to BNE.
Airtrain, if it is still private by then, will go broke with that kind of competition because the HSR would be much faster.

[Golliwog]

No they wouldn't. Airtrain doesn't get their profits takign passengers from the Gold Coast to BNE. They get it from taking passengers to BNE. Yes the patronage would drop as GC customers  would probably use the HSR (although maybe not, as it would have its own exorbitant price) but thats most certainly not their only market.

[#Metro]

It will be very interesting when Airport Link CRT opens!

[colinw]

I hate the idea of HSR stations being stuck out at airports.  The whole point of HSR is to offer the fastest possible downtown to downtown journeys, and sticking the HSR line out in the sticks at an airport won't do the job.

Far better to integrate it into an existing major terminus like Roma St, Central or Spencer StSouthern Cross, where the full range of local services are available as feeders, including a frequent aiport service.

By all means include a stop at the airport if it just happens to be along your way, but don't deviate the HSR line out of its way to serve an airport.

[ozbob]

Especially when aviation has a time limited future ....

[#Metro]

Far better to integrate it into an existing major terminus like Roma St, Central or Spencer St Southern Cross, where the full range of local services are available as feeders, including a frequent aiport service.

Ok, but just pointing out that will mean an escalation in $$$ and time which may price it into oblivion.
The results of the study should be interesting.

Some reading: http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/hsr-feasibility-study-what-should-it-address/

[colinw]

Some reading: http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/hsr-feasibility-study-what-should-it-address/

Interesting ... I just read a few articles on that site and when it comes to rail proposals (HSR, Doncaster, Rowville) it always seems to end up damning them as a waste.

[#Metro]

It is a good blog, well grounded in evidence, research etc. Yes, it tends to be fiscally conservative in its approach.
However, there are always two stories to the numbers you know. The numbers can be right, but the interpretation of what those numbers mean might not be.

I like the criticism of the Melbourne Airport proposal rail link on the basis that "Brisbane and Sydney both suffered financial difficulties". Um hello, you CAN have a service that is profitable AND cr*p! At least this time around Melbourne will hopefully NOT be constructing their rail link as a PPP.

As much as I like the ideas of PPP's, why is it that almost every PPP suffers from near-financial death experiences and compromises and botchings? (Airtrain being the poor service hours and the fare rip-off).

[somebody]

I like the criticism of the Melbourne Airport proposal rail link on the basis that "Brisbane and Sydney both suffered financial difficulties". Um hello, you CAN have a service that is profitable AND cr*p! At least this time around Melbourne will hopefully NOT be constructing their rail link as a PPP.

I don't know what the problem with Sydney's airport line was.  It's always been a good service.

[#Metro]

I don't know what the problem with Sydney's airport line was.  It's always been a good service.

I've never understood what the problem was either! I used it and I thought it was a godsend!
Seriously, the "financial difficulty" argument is pretty weak. They were PPPs, something that always seems to go chronically wrong, no matter what the project is.
Even more puzzling, its hard to explain why PPPs have these problems! The Taiwan HSR AIUI was a PPP and it had all sorts of problems.

If you really really want PPP, then the alternative (but still controversial) approach would be to build the thing, and then AFTER it is built, privatize it or lease it off. Under this model, the government would do the design, organise building (private sector contractors build it) and operate it for a short while and then sell it or lease it off.

Of course, this has to be weighted against the public-only option as well.

[somebody]

I wonder if a subsidised skybus would be good bang/buck.  But then, is the fare for that really a problem?  I doubt it.

[Gazza]

Ok, but just pointing out that will mean an escalation in $$$ and time which may price it into oblivion.

Hence my idea of putting the terminus over the river next to the Riverside Expressway....Doing something like that would be significantly less compared to the cost of tunneling, so it's probably the lowest cost solution. Plus it would be such a stunning way to enter Brisbane...Imagine flying over the cars below on the Pacific Motorway, then suddenly crossing the river and 'coming in to land' by it's edge.

This is the tradeoff between putting the station at the airport versus in the CBD.....
If its in the CBD, you impose an extra 25 minutes of travel for those bound for the airport.
If its at the Airport, you impose an extra 25 minutes of travel for those bound for the CBD.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the CBD travellers who are more important.

My favoured solution is to leave the Sunshine Coast out of HSR in the beginning, since to service them will add significantly to the cost of the project...Either by having to tunnel in and out of the CBD, or by having to bypass Brisbane via the gateway, and then service the CBD via a spur (Which also introduces the need to tunnel under the river on both the spur to the CBD and on the gateway river crossing)
My solution is just to increase the scope of CAMCOS, and do it properly...really get those coastlink trains running as fast as possible, and people would switch from Coastlink to HSR in the Brisbane CBD.

[#Metro]

This is the tradeoff between putting the station at the airport versus in the CBD.....
If its in the CBD, you impose an extra 25 minutes of travel for those bound for the airport.
If its at the Airport, you impose an extra 25 minutes of travel for those bound for the CBD.

I'm sure there are merits either way. We come to different answers because we value different things. My thinking is the resumptions and the potential for freight access. I also think the riverside expressway and the area beneath it is a complete eyesore that I would not want visitors seeing. Then there is the issue of the high density buildings on either side of the Captain Cook Bridge and the visual aspect of the elevated HSR link. CRR via bridge got rejected in favour of a tunnel; one of the reasons (out of many) was visual impact on the river and city views. I would think a HSR would have a similar impact, unless a really creative way were found to make it look acceptable (this is not impossible).

[#Metro]

My favoured solution is to leave the Sunshine Coast out of HSR in the beginning, since to service them will add significantly to the cost of the project...Either by having to tunnel in and out of the CBD, or by having to bypass Brisbane via the gateway, and then service the CBD via a spur (Which also introduces the need to tunnel under the river on both the spur to the CBD and on the gateway river crossing)
My solution is just to increase the scope of CAMCOS, and do it properly...really get those coastlink trains running as fast as possible, and people would switch from Coastlink to HSR in the Brisbane CBD.

Oh no, please don't leave the sunshine coast out again! CoastLink though seems like a good idea. So should we leave out the Gold Coast on that same basis??? Doesn't seem ok... there are places further north (like Gladstone/Cairns etc) that one day may become viable, so the option should be kept, even though it might not ever be exercised.

[Gazza]

So should we leave out the Gold Coast on that same basis???

As the saying goes....Be on the way!
You can guarantee down at the other end of the network Geelong will be left out of any HSR proposals too in the first instance, as will Woolongong when it passes through Sydney.

CoastLink though seems like a good idea.

Basically, what it comes down to for me is the travel times you'd get on a properly done Coastlink, versus a 'duplicate' HSR system.

there are places further north (like Gladstone/Cairns etc) that one day may become viable, so the option should be kept, even though it might not ever be exercised.

I'd just build the entire Gateway alignment section when that time comes, though a freight bypass along that route would be a good driver, and they could do two track pairs, one for HSR and one for Freight.

I also think the riverside expressway and the area beneath it is a complete eyesore that I would not want visitors seeing.

I'd package it with a full urban renewal project...Think 'northbank lite'.
I mean, i reckon it could be acceptable if the bridge was "beautiful", and it could be sold to taxpayers on the basis of the cost savings compared to tunnelling.

[#Metro]

I would like to see what Fares_Fares has to say about this!
Otherwise, these are good reasons...

[Stillwater]

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia's vision is for High Speed Rail to terminate (for the time being) just inland from Noosa, so a Sunny Coast terminal is envisioned.

http://www.infrastructure.org.au/Content/veryfasttrains.aspx

High Speed Rail competes with air travel.  Sunny Coast-Sydney and Sunny Coast-Melbourne is the main business of the Sunshine Coast Airport, where the council is about to spend $250 million on an east-west runway to take international flights also.  For the same reason as Newcastle is touted as a possible 'second Sydney' airport, it's feasible that international flights would land at Maroochydore, where people could holiday (airport between Maroochydore and Noosa) or they could travel by fast rail to Brisbane.

Of course, CAMCOS is planned to go to Sunny Coast Airport.  I will be near death then.  HSR to Sunny Coast, wherever it terminates, is a proposition because of the large population node and the no. of people who would want to travel there from down south (no, not Brisbane).  Remember, SC gets 2.7 million visitors a year.

As for the Brisbane station location?  Around the world, these tend to be outside the traditional CBD area.

[Golliwog]

Slightly off-topic but I like the look of the Riverside expressway. It looks a little crazy with all the on and off ramps but I think thats part of why I like it, theres method to the madness. Plus I'm an engineer so I like odd things. Although my inner transport engineer is telling me how its horribly designed for an 'expressway' as a proper motorway discourages people from using it for short distances, yet how many people hop on it just to get from Hale St/North Quay to another CBD street a few blocks further along?

As for the station in the river idea, I like it although how many platforms are you thinking? How far into the river is it going to go? I think you would find just as much opposition as the Northbank plan did. Would it be better to just keep it above the expressway and have the station bump up against where the first off/on ramps are?

[Stillwater]

HSR a long shot, price wise.  All that's been proposed atm is reservation of a corridor, preferably on land not over water.  (Refer Ted Smout Bridge cost.)