High Speed and Fast Rail

[Mr X]

If it is only needed in the future, don't build it until the future comes.

That's the type of thinking which got us into this current mess.

[#Metro]

Well buy shares in Clem 7 and AirportLink then. 

Just because it is rail and China has it, doesn't always mean it is a good idea.

[frereOP]

I am against concrete fiestas simply because that money invariably turns $$$ for service into tonnes of concrete which doesn't carry pax. Some people seem to think that building infrastructure for the sake of building infrastructure is a good thing. It is not. Clem 7 (BCC lost $773 million dollars on that - and the PR at BCC is so good they escaped being nailed and fried.

Sorry TT but that is the very narrow minded and uninformed economic illiterate commentary that pervades the thinking of politicians. Yes, Clem 7 doesn't make money (too few cars to cover the operating costs) but the funding model proposed was too politically unpopular (Clem 7 free with a congestion tax for the city of Brisbane).  However, there is a benefit to the community as a whole through reduced surface congestion and the flow-on benefits of that.  People who don't even use the tunnel are benefitting from it and not contributing to the cost - they should! Without it, they would be stuck in traffic jams burning more fuel and wasting precious time. Factor those costs in (my chargeout rate is $200/h) and Clem 7 is a no brainier. It is also a no brainier that a rail tunnel would have been even better value.

[frereOP]

Aircraft already run at up to twice the speed of HSR and are faster and point to point. There's only terminal infrastructure to maintain.

Sorry TT, the cost operating aviation in this country is more than just building terminals and runways. The cost is enormous, I ought to know, I am a pilot.

It's not about one or the other, it's the appropriate mixture of both. What aircraft don't do we'll is service regional areas in sufficient capacity. That's why Newcastle and Canberra are pushing hard for HST.

[#Metro]

Sorry TT but that is the very narrow minded and uninformed economic illiterate commentary

That's your opinion, but is not necessarily fact. You are right there are benefits, but the size of those future benefits in cash terms is far far far below the cost to drill the hole in the first place. $773 million dollars is a LOT of money to lose and just with a fraction of that funding, Brisbane could have bene saturated in decent PT.

Infrastructure is NOT service. Only when building roads does service not matter, and this is exactly the unconscious hidden thinking pervading these projects - motorist thinking.

The purpose of HSR is to carry people and lots of them, not provide a coverage service. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/12/19/will-high-speed-rail-save-the-cities-and-develop-the-regions/

Far more benefit would be realised if that money was spent on fixing up city transport systems, second sydney airport etc. And then there are buses - totally neglected facet linking up regional towns. You can't build HSR to every or even a large amount of towns, and yet there is a road to each one.

[#Metro]

It's not hard to see what the problem is:
Sydney to Melbourne

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/100-ticket-to-ride-the-highspeed-rail-to-sydney-20110803-1ibp8.html

PASSENGERS could pay less than $100 for a three-hour journey from Melbourne to Sydney using the federal government's proposed high-speed rail link along the east coast.

So three hours and $100 eh? Look what I found on an aircraft ticket website - for $65 bucks and just over half and hour in a plane you can do the same trip. Even if you add baggage charges, it is still cheaper AND faster. (Trip time is just over half an hour, daylight savings applies to the times below). I'd rather spend ~ 40 billion on something else please.




http://images.theage.com.au/2011/08/04/2535246/729_rail-420x0.jpg

[somebody]

I am against concrete fiestas simply because that money invariably turns $$$ for service into tonnes of concrete which doesn't carry pax. Some people seem to think that building infrastructure for the sake of building infrastructure is a good thing. It is not. Clem 7 (BCC lost $773 million dollars on that - and the PR at BCC is so good they escaped being nailed and fried.

Sorry TT but that is the very narrow minded and uninformed economic illiterate commentary that pervades the thinking of politicians. Yes, Clem 7 doesn't make money (too few cars to cover the operating costs) but the funding model proposed was too politically unpopular (Clem 7 free with a congestion tax for the city of Brisbane).  However, there is a benefit to the community as a whole through reduced surface congestion and the flow-on benefits of that.  People who don't even use the tunnel are benefitting from it and not contributing to the cost - they should! Without it, they would be stuck in traffic jams burning more fuel and wasting precious time. Factor those costs in (my chargeout rate is $200/h) and Clem 7 is a no brainier. It is also a no brainier that a rail tunnel would have been even better value.

Sorry, but I would call the $773m BCC kicked in the public paying something for it!

[frereOP]

I would call the $773m BCC kicked in the public paying something for it!

And that's exactly how it should be- Paying for it via the taxation system. That way everyone contributes because everyone benefits. Not just those who use it.

Problem is, politicians like promising lower taxes and more rebates. You can't have it both ways.

[SurfRail]

^ Virtually nobody benefited from the Clem7.  It is a massive boondoggle and a criminal waste of $773m of council funds.

BCC is in a much worse fiscal state than the State Government and has been for a while, and that is only going to get worse with them bearing most of the financial risk of Legacy Way (of course the feds inconceivably gave them some money for this).

[SurfRail]

There is certainly a benefit with that expenditure, but the question is really whether that could have been better spent elsewhere.  My answer will be 'yes'.

[Jonno]

We have shown time and time again that these roads simply encourage the existing population to drive more and nothing to do with growth! 

Tell the residents of Bowen Bridge and Kedron about their improved livability!!!

The RACQ, car manufactures and polies have you brain washed "Roads are Progress!!!"

[Golliwog]

I'd say that that the tunnels will be useful, but they need to be paired with the unpopular idea of then re-prioritizing the surface roads for PT (i.e. bus lanes, queue jumps, etc). Basically exactly what didn't happen with Airport Link and the Northern Busway section between Federation and Truro Streets.

[Mr X]

If you want to see what a city where the core road network came before any PT, look no further than cookie cutter American cities like Oklahoma, Atlanta, Houston etc. complete policy failure. Or how about Johannesburg, though it's issues are far harder to solve.

[Jonno]

Actually.

The answers are:

Is the traffic convertable to PT most of this traffic is YES. Almost 75%.
Does it help the liveabilty of the city by being a by-pass, No - Not one single bit. Liveability is not a city choking on congested traffic.
Does the city need a core road network yes and in many cases a core road network is more important over core PT. Even the countries with the best PT system and HSR in world, have good road networks because they are the backbone of a city. - The most livable cities in the world have a core road network that has pedestrian, cyclist and PT prioritiesd over cars. No tunnels destrying inner city suburbs.   
Do I support the continued expansion of the core arterial road network as a combination of PPP toll roads No, because if the true cost of roads was user pays (aka Airport Link plus the indirect costs) no one would use it. If people knew the true cost of driving they would all be screaming for PT, bikeways and complete streets.

[ozbob]

Fox News Latino --> Spain completes high-speed rail link with France

[Stillwater]

High speed rail to Australia's potential new economic development zone, anyone?  http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/northern-exposure-as-tony-abbott-goes-troppo/story-fndo1uez-1226572126324

[somebody]

High speed rail to Australia's potential new economic development zone, anyone?  http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/northern-exposure-as-tony-abbott-goes-troppo/story-fndo1uez-1226572126324

No, we'll continue to fly and drive like we always do. Qld NCL could however do with a bit more of a shake up to get the RTT to CTT average speeds up from the current 80-90km/hr to 120-130km/hr.

I agree that we'll still fly.

With the NCL bits north of Gympie have probably had enough money spent on them, with most of the worst kinks knocked out.  It's Beerburrum-GYN which can do with some work.

[ozbob]

BBC News --> Malaysia-Singapore high-speed rail link planned

[ozbob]

Shanghai Daily --> Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway records 100 mln passenger trips

[#Metro]

I think proponents of HSR need to get off the fantasy train ASAP. It is a lot of money for little or no benefit over what we have now or even improved bus and air services. Planes can travel up to 2x faster than even the fastest HSR trains available currently.

There is scope for Paris RER style services in Melbourne and Sydney if the country and city rail networks are separated IMHO, these can be served by MSR services and would be a good fit for the urban form (low density sprawl, longer distances) that we have. In terms of Brisbane, there is no scope for this other than to the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coasts

[ozbob]

From the ABC News click here!

Albanese warns high-speed rail costly, disruptive

Albanese warns high-speed rail costly, disruptive

Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says he supports the concept of a high-speed rail link along Australia's east coast, but has painted it as costly and environmentally disruptive.

Mr Albanese revealed some details of the project in a speech to the Sydney Institute last night, warning it may be too noisy and environmentally damaging to be a viable alternative.

He said the proposed rail link from Melbourne to Brisbane would involve more than 140 kilometres of tunnelling, much of it in Sydney.

Mr Albanese said it needed to be built in a "substantial corridor" up to 200 metres wide, and in an almost straight line.

"It's not going to be able to go around every area that people might have a problem with due to a flora and fauna issue," he said.

"The high-speed rail line has got to go in a straight line."

He added the noise level from a passing train would be up to 100 decibels.

But he says he is not arguing against it.

"I would like to see it happen, but people need to examine it based upon the facts," he said.

But the Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt thinks the minister has different priorities.

"Australia and Antarctica are now the only two continents in the world where there is no high-speed rail project underway and I worry that if we leave it up to Labor, the penguins are going to beat us to it," he said.

He said environmental and community concerns could be resolved.

"As these projects are developed, there will always be discussions about the most appropriate route and so on and environmental consequences that have to be weighed up. These are the debates that we're going to have."


Second Sydney airport

In his speech last night Mr Albanese also said the Government was making progress towards resolving the question of a second Sydney airport.

"Firstly, we need strong political leadership and a bipartisan approach," he said.

"This requires a recognition that saying no to a second Sydney airport is saying no to jobs, no to economic growth, and no to Sydney's future position as a global city."

He said the Government was inching towards identifying a suitable site.

"Our major infrastructure challenges like Sydney's second airport will not go away, they will only become more urgent," he added.

The Opposition says it is up to the Government to put forward a proposal before it decides on its own policy - despite several high profile frontbenchers advocating the need for a second airport.

New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell would prefer a high-speed rail link to Canberra's airport, which is also supported by the Greens.

Mr Albanese said that may change when the next stage of a study into high-speed rail is released in the next couple of months.

Australasian Rail Association chief executive Brian Nigh says high-speed rail is desperately needed.

He says while there would be noise and disruption, it must go ahead.

"The fact is that people that don't want a second Sydney airport because of the noise," he said.

"The fact is no matter what infrastructure particularly high-speed rail, you'll have noise.

"People want the new infrastructure but they tend to object to it for all sorts of reasons. We can't do that. Sydney needs new infrastructure desperately."

[HappyTrainGuy]

^ Virtually nobody benefited from the Clem7.  It is a massive boondoggle and a criminal waste of $773m of council funds.

BCC is in a much worse fiscal state than the State Government and has been for a while, and that is only going to get worse with them bearing most of the financial risk of Legacy Way (of course the feds inconceivably gave them some money for this).

By itself its not that great but when linked with the AirportLink tunnel it becomes a brilliant little thing. Only problem is the double whammy when you see how much the toll bill is. Would be far better if the two could link up and provide a "discounted toll" for those that go along the whole thing.

[ozbob]

ABC Radio 702

Support for high speed rail

--> http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/03/05/3703503.htm

3 hours. That's how long it could take to get from Sydney to Melbourne on a high speed train line linking up Australia's east coast. And the Federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese supports the concept but acknowledges there'll be some hurdles to get over.

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Gippsland puts its case to host rail line

[minbrisbane]

That's got to be a joke right?  They must have printed early, April 1st is a few weeks away.

It's clearly an inferior alignment, not only cost wise but the timings would be shocking as well.  If at all, the existing line could be further upgraded to RFR quality and the capacity constraints in the Dandenong corridor should definitely be addressed. 

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Underground success: inside the world's longest tunnel

[somebody]

You don't need to go via Wagga Wagga if you are tunnelling under the Snowys.  It's an either/or.

[ozbob]

Gulf Times --> Thailand gears up for massive high-speed train project

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Waiting for a train that has yet to be built

Waiting for a train that has yet to be built
April 8, 2013 Adam Carey

Gen Okajima is waiting for a train. He knows it won't arrive soon, not even in the next few years, but he isn't feeling anxious or impatient. He says it will come once Australia is ready for it.

Mr Okajima, general manager of the Sydney office of Japan's biggest railway company, is waiting for the day Australia builds a high-speed rail line between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, the subject of a federal government study.

It is his job to ensure that when or if that happens, Australia uses Shinkansen, the bullet trains that carry hundreds of millions along Japan's great network of high-speed rail lines.

''Since the Shinkansen technology is a world-class system, we are proud as a nation,'' Mr Okajima said. ''And Australia is such an important friend to Japan we are looking to share its benefit.''
Advertisement

This partnership would include sharing research and development costs with the Central Japan Railway Company, Mr Okajima's employer. But the company has been waiting 26 years for high-speed rail to come to Australia. It opened its Sydney office in 1988. For now, its main line of business is exporting Australian wine and snacks such as beef jerky to Japan to be sold on the Shinkansen.

The company, which operates the world's busiest high-speed rail line between Tokyo and Osaka, has seen three high-speed rail proposals rise and fail since it came here.

''In democratic countries it happens all the time,'' Mr Okajima said. ''It is such a huge project, it needs to have a long, wide range of commitments from government to taxpayer.''

The latest high-speed rail proposal for the east coast would cost $61 billion to $108 billion to build and carry 54 million passengers a year by 2036, according to the study's phase-one findings. The second and final phase will assess its economic viability.

Mr Okajima is unsure if phase two will give the green light but predicted: ''In the near future, an Australian government will decide to build high-speed rail.''

He said this is because the nation's appetite for it is growing. The first push for high-speed rail in the 1980s was opposed by residents along the route and by environmental groups. But towns along the corridor now see high-speed rail as a ticket to economic growth, and environmentalists favour it as a less fossil fuel-intensive transport mode than road and air travel, he said.

The biggest sticking point is the huge cost, but on this matter the government ''should not be afraid to borrow'' as Japan did in the '50s to its ultimate benefit. ''The first stage should be some short distance, like Sydney to Canberra. Then we will realise how it can play a role in building the nation.''

[ozbob]

4BC High-speed rail, do we need it? Click --> here!

High-speed rail, do we need it?

4BC Mornings: Gen Okajima is the General Manager of the Sydney office of Japan's biggest railway company  is. He is waiting for the day Australia builds a high-speed rail line between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane- a wait that is in its 26th year.

Okajima is working towards Australia acquiring shinkansen "bullet trains" that have been carrying millions along Japan's great network of high-speed rail lines for almost 50 years

The latest high-speed proposal for the east coast would cost $61 billion to $108 billion to build and carry 54 million passengers a year by 2036, according to the study's phase one findings. The second and final phase would assess its economic viability.

Mr Okajima joins Greg Cary to discuss how high-speed rail would decentralise Australia's east coast and how the Japanese system would be altered and applied here.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Bullet-train plan picks up speed

Bullet-train plan picks up speed

    by: Amelia Harris, Steven Scott
    From: The Courier-Mail
    April 11, 2013 12:00AM

TRAIN passengers could travel from Brisbane to Sydney in less than three hours at prices similar to airfares under a proposed east-coast high-speed rail link, a study has found.

Express trains between the two capital cities would take two hours and 37 minutes, with passengers hurtling along at speeds of up to 350km/h.

The $114 billion, 1748km link would follow the coast between Brisbane and Sydney and then head inland between Sydney and Melbourne.

The link would include connections to Canberra and the Gold Coast and regional stops including Shepparton, Albury Wodonga and Wagga Wagga.

Part two of the Federal Government's high-speed rail report released today found:

The link be built and operated in two stages - Sydney to Melbourne and Brisbane to Sydney.

Construction could start as early as 2022, with the first section opening in 2030 and the final in 2053;

Up to 84 million people could use the train each year by 2065, more than half of who would normally fly;

The Melbourne to Sydney leg is expected to be the busiest; with about 19 million trips a year;

Governments would have to fund the majority of the upfront costs, with the estimated real financial rate of return expected to be 0.8 per cent.

A 67km tunnel would need to be built around Sydney.

The study, which was promised by Labor at the 2010 election, has been put to state governments for comment.

Federal Transport and Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese said high-speed rail had the potential to be a "game changer" but also posed technical, logistical and financial challenges.

"That's why we must take a deliberate, thoughtful approach and this report provides a comprehensive analysis on which an informed public debate is now possible," Mr Albanese said.

The report also found commuters could travel from Brisbane to Coffs Harbour in one hour and 11 minutes, Brisbane to Newcastle in two hours and 28 minutes and Brisbane to the NSW Central Coast in two hours and 43 minutes.

East coast travel is forecast to double from 152 million trips a year in 2009 to 355 million trips by 2065, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Public consultation on the report, which was prepared by a consortium lead by consultants AECOM, is open until June 30.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> High-speed train built 'in two decades'

[ozbob]

ABC News --> Report puts brakes on high speed rail project

[ozbob]

612 ABC Brisbane Mornings

Final part of high-speed rail study released today

11 April 2013 , 9:22 AM by Sally Rope

The Federal Government is today releasing a final part of the study into high speed rail.

Linking the east coast of Australia by rail is expected to cost 140 billion dollars, and wouldn't be ready for use until 2030.

Dr Matthew Burke is the senior Research fellow at Griffith University's Urban research program...

Click --> here!

[colinw]

Fairfax -> High-speed rail link would be viable

[ozbob]

http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2013/April/aa069_2013.aspx

Final High Speed Rail Study Released

Media Release
AA069/2013
11 April 2013

High Speed Rail (HSR) connecting the nation's East Coast capital cities has the potential to be a game-changer, transforming the way Australians live, work and take holidays.

It also has the capacity to better integrate our regional and metropolitan communities, ease congestion on our roads as well as provide a new foundation for a low carbon, high productivity economy.

Already this technology is being rolled out across the globe with clear economic, productivity, lifestyles and environmental benefits.

That's why this Federal Labor Government commissioned a landmark study in 2010 investigating HSR in Australia, and today I'm releasing in full the second and final report.

This landmark study fulfils a key 2010 election commitment, and reflects our vision and determination to move Australia and its economy towards a low carbon, high productivity and even more prosperous future.

The report identifies a potential route for HSR between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane. It estimates the costs and benefits of HSR, and investigates a raft of issues including construction, patronage, environmental, and urban and regional development.

The study concludes that once fully operational, HSR could carry 84 million passengers each year, with express journey times of less than three hours between Melbourne and Sydney and between Sydney and Brisbane. Such a network has the potential to deliver a net economic benefit and generate sufficient revenue to cover its operating and asset renewal costs.

But equally, HSR would be a monumental endeavour, with very real technical, logistical and financial challenges. That's why we must take a deliberate, thoughtful approach and this report provides a comprehensive analysis on which an informed public debate is now possible.

To this end, I am today initiating a comprehensive program of public consultation and debate on the role HSR could play in Australia's transport future. As part of this, I am inviting feedback and views on the report and its findings from all interested parties by 30 June 2013.

The full report and feedback forms are available at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/hsr

My Department's HSR Unit is also embarking on detailed consultations with industry, local governments and community groups.

I am also establishing a high level HSR Advisory Group to work along with the HSR Unit in directly advising the Government on key industry and community issues arising out of the report.

Attached is the list of members.

Lastly, I have written to the Premiers of Queensland, NSW and Victoria, as well as the ACT Chief Minister, seeking their formal views on the report and nominations to a new Ministerial Group charged with coordinating the next steps for HSR across jurisdictions.

Attached is the list of members.

The report was prepared for the Federal Government by a consortium led by AECOM and comprising Grimshaw Architects, KPMG, Sinclair Knight Merz, Acil Tasman, Booz & Co and Hyder.
High Speed Rail Advisory Group—Membership:

    Lyn O'Connell (Chair)
    Deputy Secretary, Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport
    Tim Fischer AC
    Former Australian Deputy Prime Minister (1996–1999) and former Ambassador to the Holy See (2008–2012)
    Jennifer Westacott
    Chief Executive, Business Council of Australia and former Director-General of NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources
    Sue Holliday
    Former Director General of NSW Planning (1997–2003) and current member of the Urban Policy Forum
    Peter Newman
    Professor of Sustainability at Sustainability Policy Institute of Curtin University and Infrastructure Australia Board member
    Bob Nanva
    National Secretary, Rail, Tram & Bus Industry Union
    Jenny Dowell
    President Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils

Ministerial Group—Membership:

    Scott Emerson
    Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads
    Terry Mulder
    Victorian Minister for Public Transport and Roads
    Gladys Berejiklian
    NSW Minister for Transport
    Simon Corbell
    ACT Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development

[colinw]

Fairfax -> High-speed rail: the studied art of not getting things done

[ozbob]

The Greens --> High speed rail - let's get on with it: Bandt

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Feds must cough up for fast rail: NSW govt

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Newman wants Bruce Hwy improved first