2019 Election - Labor promises $1Billion for 'bullet train' land acquisition

 

News article: Labor promises $1 billion for high-speed rail corridor between Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne

Labor will attempt again to revive a long-held ambition to build a high-speed rail network linking Canberra to the east coast capitals, by committing $1 billion to secure land for a corridor to make it happen if elected on May 18.

  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
A few points
- If you run via Badgery's Creek, say good-bye to be competitive with Syd City to Mel City HSR vs Air. It will add 15-20min easy to the trip and likely many billions of dollars.
RTT_Rules
Terminating at Western Sydney Airport is a good idea - in the sense that it puts the nail in the coffin of the 'true' HSR dream and promotes discussion of Medium Speed Rail alternatives that do not prioritise more time-sensitive sensitive portions of the travelling market - such as business-class air travellers - to the detriment of overall project cost. If terminating at Western Sydney Airport was combined with a reasonably fast and constantly high-frequency metro service into the Sydney CBD it could be very competitive for a fair amount of the market - not all of it, but enough.

Alternatively the European model of using existing conventional tracks for inner-city station access and high-speed segregated routes outside of that could be considered in this context as well.

I agree with you that promoting the Badgerys Creek 'Aerotropolis' as an international hub for airlines is onanistic.

Sponsored advertisement

  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
A few points
- If you run via Badgery's Creek, say good-bye to be competitive with Syd City to Mel City HSR vs Air. It will add 15-20min easy to the trip and likely many billions of dollars.

- If you terminate at BC rather than close to Sydney CBD, you have definitely killed off the HSR project and why not just terminate at Tullamarine rather than run into the city?

- BC will by no means what so ever be  "a scale rivalling some of the biggest airports in the world", and even as equally unlikely "Western Sydney International will be Australia’s pre-eminent travel hub." Mascot will ALWAYS be Sydney's primary airport unless the govt forces otherwise. Its geographic position to the CBD and even Paramatta as well as 70% of the Sydney, Central Coast and South Coast populations will entrench this for years to come. Also remember when the bulk of Sydney's "Money", ie the frequent flyers lives", hint its not Eastern Creek.

Hub wise, no airport in Australia is not a International Airline hub. The days of nearly everyone in the country leaving for OS via Sydney apart from a few token flights from Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane are going fast. You can thank the long-range medium - large sized twin jets with ETOPS certification, ie B777 / B787 /  A350 and with QANTAS's project sunrise which will enable direct flights London - Sydney coming before BC is open, it will only grow further. Hell even the Kiwi's rarely fly via Australia anymore. when headed to Asia and Europe.

BC will be for at least another 30 years after opening a 2nd minor airport of Sydney without the limitations of a night curfew. It will have freight, some international during the night as well as during the day, discount airlines and some premium airlines.


So after flying on a discount airline to BC or arriving at Sparrow Fart on a international airline (when HSR will actually be closed anyway), why do you need a HSR connection? Where are you going that happens in such numbers such that to boost the numbers for HSR to make it viable?  

Paris has 60m living within a max 8h journey on a HSR.
RTT_Rules
Well...the article is talking about the year 2056 so at around the same time you yourself say HSR might be viable. At that time the Western Sydney Airport is planned to have a capacity of 82M pax per annum or soon after. In anyones language this is a large airport.

Cheers
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Well...the article is talking about the year 2056 so at around the same time you yourself say HSR might be viable. At that time the Western Sydney Airport is planned to have a capacity of 82M pax per annum or soon after. In anyones language this is a large airport.

Cheers
arctic
You can see how that projection is a tad extreme by looking at other airports today

1. Altanta - 104M
2. Bejing - 96M
3. Dubai - 88M
4. LA - 85M

82M at BC in 2056 + another 45-50M at Mascot means higher end growth rates.

However none of this changes the fact that with more point to point international flights and minimal hub and spoke, what would someone using BC airport need for HSR? With those sorts of numbers Canberra would be a significant destination point for international flights.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Well...the article is talking about the year 2056 so at around the same time you yourself say HSR might be viable. At that time the Western Sydney Airport is planned to have a capacity of 82M pax per annum or soon after. In anyones language this is a large airport.

Cheers
You can see how that projection is a tad extreme by looking at other airports today

1. Altanta - 104M
2. Bejing - 96M
3. Dubai - 88M
4. LA - 85M

82M at BC in 2056 + another 45-50M at Mascot means higher end growth rates.

However none of this changes the fact that with more point to point international flights and minimal hub and spoke, what would someone using BC airport need for HSR? With those sorts of numbers Canberra would be a significant destination point for international flights.
RTT_Rules
Not really, since its 40 year time-frame. 40 years ago Atlanta was about 15M pax per annum. The 82M value for Sydney came from here page 4. Either way Western Sydney Airport wont be the small facility you seem to keep talking about, when it opens it will have 10M Pax capacity.

As far as HSR is concerned, I would rather it come to the CBD, however if it were at Western Sydney Airport then obviously it wont be restricted to those pax exiting flights.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

What is your basis for 80bn for Sydney to Melbourne?
arctic
The new metro systems in Sydney that are going to cost $30 to $40+ billion and even Melbourne's proposed outer suburban loop at $50 billion and that is only going to be for about 100 kilometres of rail and 115km/h 1500vdc rail systems. Sydney to Melbourne is going to be 800km's or so and it will be a 300km'h vhst system that requires a much high spec of rail system to be used to allow 300km/h. At those numbers the $80-100 billion is extremely cheap.
  Ethan1395 Junior Train Controller

Location: An OSCar H Set
Been so busy I haven't been able to respond to this yet.

Anyway, my thoughts might be controversial and I'm not sure how many would agree.

But I feel that High Speed Rail is too much of a capital-centric project which will put the final nail in the coffin for hoping for any decent usable public transport outside of capital cities given the high price tag.

I remember reading some NSW vs Victoria discussions earlier in this topic, while I have never even been to Victoria (meaning I can't speak for it), NSW is my home, and I have noticed some big issues with the way public transport is run here, mainly:

-Sydney is the only place in NSW where public transport is improved on, meaning that if you want to want to be able to use public transport and get a job, Sydney is the ONLY place you can live, you have NO other choice, our other cities (Newcastle and Wollongong) have large enough populations to support public transport, but only get a pathetic excuse for a service.
-Public transport in our other cities is only run out of obligation, meaning money is wasted providing a poor service which almost no one uses, services are infrequent, don't connect, and the fares are competitive with petrol prices, meaning that these services are only used by pensioners, the elderly, students, and the unemployed.

Given the extremely high price tag of the high speed rail that I have read on this topic, I'm sure the NSW portion of the price alone could pay for the necessary upgrades to public transport in Sydney, as well as constructing public transport networks in Wollongong and Newcastle, which would help promote job growth in these areas, and take pressure off of Sydney, giving people choices in where they can live if they want to live in a CITY.
High speed rail on the other hand will require almost all of the budget for public transport and will just funnel more and more people into an overcrowded, and expensive Sydney, and ensure that our other cities never get treated as cities with public transport.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Been so busy I haven't been able to respond to this yet.

Anyway, my thoughts might be controversial and I'm not sure how many would agree.

But I feel that High Speed Rail is too much of a capital-centric project which will put the final nail in the coffin for hoping for any decent usable public transport outside of capital cities given the high price tag.

I remember reading some NSW vs Victoria discussions earlier in this topic, while I have never even been to Victoria (meaning I can't speak for it), NSW is my home, and I have noticed some big issues with the way public transport is run here, mainly:

-Sydney is the only place in NSW where public transport is improved on, meaning that if you want to want to be able to use public transport and get a job, Sydney is the ONLY place you can live, you have NO other choice, our other cities (Newcastle and Wollongong) have large enough populations to support public transport, but only get a pathetic excuse for a service.
-Public transport in our other cities is only run out of obligation, meaning money is wasted providing a poor service which almost no one uses, services are infrequent, don't connect, and the fares are competitive with petrol prices, meaning that these services are only used by pensioners, the elderly, students, and the unemployed.

Given the extremely high price tag of the high speed rail that I have read on this topic, I'm sure the NSW portion of the price alone could pay for the necessary upgrades to public transport in Sydney, as well as constructing public transport networks in Wollongong and Newcastle, which would help promote job growth in these areas, and take pressure off of Sydney, giving people choices in where they can live if they want to live in a CITY.
High speed rail on the other hand will require almost all of the budget for public transport and will just funnel more and more people into an overcrowded, and expensive Sydney, and ensure that our other cities never get treated as cities with public transport.
Ethan1395
The HSR rail cost from Albury to the Qld border cost will be around 75% of the proposed $120-140B price tag and I suspect this is under estimated.

So if we assume the govt will spend $80B on HSR, what could HSR buy for NSW in improving suburban PT and regional PT for the whole state including those west of the coastal plain.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
A few points
- If you run via Badgery's Creek, say good-bye to be competitive with Syd City to Mel City HSR vs Air. It will add 15-20min easy to the trip and likely many billions of dollars.
Terminating at Western Sydney Airport is a good idea - in the sense that it puts the nail in the coffin of the 'true' HSR dream and promotes discussion of Medium Speed Rail alternatives that do not prioritise more time-sensitive sensitive portions of the travelling market - such as business-class air travellers - to the detriment of overall project cost. If terminating at Western Sydney Airport was combined with a reasonably fast and constantly high-frequency metro service into the Sydney CBD it could be very competitive for a fair amount of the market - not all of it, but enough.

Alternatively the European model of using existing conventional tracks for inner-city station access and high-speed segregated routes outside of that could be considered in this context as well.

I agree with you that promoting the Badgerys Creek 'Aerotropolis' as an international hub for airlines is onanistic.
LancedDendrite
If HSR is forced to use the Sydney Suburban network, it will take 4h to get to Melbourne and be subject to numerous delays and poor reliability.

Some EU cities have much faster low speed rail almost to the city station. We used surface rail from Helsinki main station to go to the outer suburbs. The station is a terminus design, after the 1st station (equivalent of Redfern) it was doing +120km/h and holding. You would need to spend $20B or more to upgrade the western corridor to Paramatta to achieve that (not that I'm saying it doesn't need to happen, it should).

If you ignore BC airport for HSR, then HSR can run via the East Hills Corridor for which you can build a 2nd pair of tracks for HSR and Southern Highlands Regional all the way to East Hills fairly cheaply, then it gets more tricky but doable for most of the way and there is an option for two extra tracks from Wolli Creek right through past Eskinville. Again from the outer part of Sydney to here the average speed will not be HSR, rather mid 100's, so it will again add to the challenge to get to Mel in sub 3h forcing minimal compromise from Campbelltown to Broadmeadows.
  Ethan1395 Junior Train Controller

Location: An OSCar H Set
Been so busy I haven't been able to respond to this yet.

Anyway, my thoughts might be controversial and I'm not sure how many would agree.

But I feel that High Speed Rail is too much of a capital-centric project which will put the final nail in the coffin for hoping for any decent usable public transport outside of capital cities given the high price tag.

I remember reading some NSW vs Victoria discussions earlier in this topic, while I have never even been to Victoria (meaning I can't speak for it), NSW is my home, and I have noticed some big issues with the way public transport is run here, mainly:

-Sydney is the only place in NSW where public transport is improved on, meaning that if you want to want to be able to use public transport and get a job, Sydney is the ONLY place you can live, you have NO other choice, our other cities (Newcastle and Wollongong) have large enough populations to support public transport, but only get a pathetic excuse for a service.
-Public transport in our other cities is only run out of obligation, meaning money is wasted providing a poor service which almost no one uses, services are infrequent, don't connect, and the fares are competitive with petrol prices, meaning that these services are only used by pensioners, the elderly, students, and the unemployed.

Given the extremely high price tag of the high speed rail that I have read on this topic, I'm sure the NSW portion of the price alone could pay for the necessary upgrades to public transport in Sydney, as well as constructing public transport networks in Wollongong and Newcastle, which would help promote job growth in these areas, and take pressure off of Sydney, giving people choices in where they can live if they want to live in a CITY.
High speed rail on the other hand will require almost all of the budget for public transport and will just funnel more and more people into an overcrowded, and expensive Sydney, and ensure that our other cities never get treated as cities with public transport.
The HSR rail cost from Albury to the Qld border cost will be around 75% of the proposed $120-140B price tag and I suspect this is under estimated.

So if we assume the govt will spend $80B on HSR, what could HSR buy for NSW in improving suburban PT and regional PT for the whole state including those west of the coastal plain.
RTT_Rules
Nothing, absolutely nothing, which is why I'm against high speed rail, as I mentioned early on in this topic, just upgrade to medium speed rail (7 hours Sydney-Melbourne) and offer consistent fares half that of flying, as opposed to something which is more expensive than flying and would only cater to the wealthy business traveler.

I am in favour of spending $80B on:

  • Realignment of interurban and regional lines
  • New Sydney metro/suburban lines and light rail lines
  • Reconstruction of old lines in Newcastle (plus necessary additional lines), new stations on existing lines, light rail extension, and ferry network.
  • Extension of Port Kembla line in Wollongong to Warrawong and Shellharbour connecting back to main line, light rail network, and new stations on existing lines.
  • More public transport projects on any place that has the population to support it.


This would be more beneficial to the entire state, as opposed to spending $80B on a high speed rail which:

  • could only cater to wealthy business travellers
  • dump more people into expensive, overcrowded capitals
  • continue to ensure that Sydney is the only place in NSW where you can live if you want to get a job and use public transport
  • put the final nail in the coffin for any hope of ever getting dedicated public transport networks for places like Wollongong and Newcastle


Also, I think rail could still be competitive to flying even if the trip was 7-8 hours if fares were half that of flying and were consistently so, considering the total travel time flying is not that much quicker considering getting to the airport, check in, security, waiting at the gates, baggage claim, and getting back from the airport.
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Been so busy I haven't been able to respond to this yet.

Anyway, my thoughts might be controversial and I'm not sure how many would agree.

But I feel that High Speed Rail is too much of a capital-centric project which will put the final nail in the coffin for hoping for any decent usable public transport outside of capital cities given the high price tag.

I remember reading some NSW vs Victoria discussions earlier in this topic, while I have never even been to Victoria (meaning I can't speak for it), NSW is my home, and I have noticed some big issues with the way public transport is run here, mainly:

-Sydney is the only place in NSW where public transport is improved on, meaning that if you want to want to be able to use public transport and get a job, Sydney is the ONLY place you can live, you have NO other choice, our other cities (Newcastle and Wollongong) have large enough populations to support public transport, but only get a pathetic excuse for a service.
-Public transport in our other cities is only run out of obligation, meaning money is wasted providing a poor service which almost no one uses, services are infrequent, don't connect, and the fares are competitive with petrol prices, meaning that these services are only used by pensioners, the elderly, students, and the unemployed.

Given the extremely high price tag of the high speed rail that I have read on this topic, I'm sure the NSW portion of the price alone could pay for the necessary upgrades to public transport in Sydney, as well as constructing public transport networks in Wollongong and Newcastle, which would help promote job growth in these areas, and take pressure off of Sydney, giving people choices in where they can live if they want to live in a CITY.
High speed rail on the other hand will require almost all of the budget for public transport and will just funnel more and more people into an overcrowded, and expensive Sydney, and ensure that our other cities never get treated as cities with public transport.
The HSR rail cost from Albury to the Qld border cost will be around 75% of the proposed $120-140B price tag and I suspect this is under estimated.

So if we assume the govt will spend $80B on HSR, what could HSR buy for NSW in improving suburban PT and regional PT for the whole state including those west of the coastal plain.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, which is why I'm against high speed rail, as I mentioned early on in this topic, just upgrade to medium speed rail (7 hours Sydney-Melbourne) and offer consistent fares half that of flying, as opposed to something which is more expensive than flying and would only cater to the wealthy business traveler.

I am in favour of spending $80B on:

  • Realignment of interurban and regional lines
  • New Sydney metro/suburban lines and light rail lines
  • Reconstruction of old lines in Newcastle (plus necessary additional lines), new stations on existing lines, light rail extension, and ferry network.
  • Extension of Port Kembla line in Wollongong to Warrawong and Shellharbour connecting back to main line, light rail network, and new stations on existing lines.
  • More public transport projects on any place that has the population to support it.


This would be more beneficial to the entire state, as opposed to spending $80B on a high speed rail which:

  • could only cater to wealthy business travellers
  • dump more people into expensive, overcrowded capitals
  • continue to ensure that Sydney is the only place in NSW where you can live if you want to get a job and use public transport
  • put the final nail in the coffin for any hope of ever getting dedicated public transport networks for places like Wollongong and Newcastle


Also, I think rail could still be competitive to flying even if the trip was 7-8 hours if fares were half that of flying and were consistently so, considering the total travel time flying is not that much quicker considering getting to the airport, check in, security, waiting at the gates, baggage claim, and getting back from the airport.
Ethan1395
Thats a Bit NSW centric Hey? NSW is not the only place in the plan you realise. How about I take that 80 billion and spend it on Re-Converting Albury and Mildura Lines and making every Passenger service go at 300kmh
  Ethan1395 Junior Train Controller

Location: An OSCar H Set
Thats a Bit NSW centric Hey? NSW is not the only place in the plan you realise. How about I take that 80 billion and spend it on Re-Converting Albury and Mildura Lines and making every Passenger service go at 300kmh
Dangersdan707
It's a bit NSW centric because the $80B is only part of the entire cost of high speed rail, the other part of the total $120-140B could be used for Victoria and Queensland.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Making assumptions to respend the money into other projects isn't a fair comparison.

For example:

The Melbourne Metro Tunnel costs 11 billion dollars.

If we didn't build that and instead spent that money on multiple smaller projects, that would have a benefit more widespread than one single major project. 11 billion dollars could easily be spent on extending the train lines, upgrading the regional network further, or improving bus services. But this isn't a fair comparison.

Although the Metro Tunnel in itself would in itself benefit mostly a single corridor and release capacity on the network. The benefit would still be large, it's just it's more centralized and focussed, has a larger and higher capacity and faster travel time.

Another example:

This is why substituting the suburban rail loop for multiple widespread light rail projects as proposed by transport experts are in the same way. While the light rail projects would benefit more widespread than a single rail loop, this rail loop is more centralized and focussed and has a larger and higher capacity and faster travel time.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

My reply in bold in reply to your points Ethan,

  • Realignment of interurban and regional lines. I agree
  • New Sydney metro/suburban lines and light rail lines. I agree on metro but not so much on the expansion of the old system. The new system is so much easier to access for the disabled and platform screen doors make a significant improvement to safety.
  • Reconstruction of old lines in Newcastle (plus necessary additional lines), new stations on existing lines, light rail extension, and ferry network. I agree with light rail extension. The old lines are never going to be used for heavy rail again and all of them have been converted to bike trails and so chances are low even for a light rail solution. More buses is the solution most likely to succeed.
  • Extension of Port Kembla line in Wollongong to Warrawong and Shellharbour connecting back to main line, light rail network, and new stations on existing lines. This is a dream. More buses to stations with extra trains to port kembla is the more likely outcome.
  • More public transport projects on any place that has the population to support it. Agree but this doesn't always need to be a rail vehicle.
  Ethan1395 Junior Train Controller

Location: An OSCar H Set
My reply in bold in reply to your points Ethan,

  • Realignment of interurban and regional lines. I agree
  • New Sydney metro/suburban lines and light rail lines. I agree on metro but not so much on the expansion of the old system. The new system is so much easier to access for the disabled and platform screen doors make a significant improvement to safety.
  • Reconstruction of old lines in Newcastle (plus necessary additional lines), new stations on existing lines, light rail extension, and ferry network. I agree with light rail extension. The old lines are never going to be used for heavy rail again and all of them have been converted to bike trails and so chances are low even for a light rail solution. More buses is the solution most likely to succeed.
  • Extension of Port Kembla line in Wollongong to Warrawong and Shellharbour connecting back to main line, light rail network, and new stations on existing lines. This is a dream. More buses to stations with extra trains to port kembla is the more likely outcome.
  • More public transport projects on any place that has the population to support it. Agree but this doesn't always need to be a rail vehicle.
simstrain
Unfortunately, everything not Sydney related is a dream, you would think Newcastle and Wollongong are country towns with the pathetic excuse for public transport that the governments gives them. Ironically they don't want to spend the large sums of money to upgrade the services to something people can actually use, instead, they just spend money on maintaining services that people can't use.

In Newcastle, what's the point in having walking/bike trails when the city itself is completely unfriendly to walking and biking, wouldn't it be better to have a city with a public transport network that can be supported by people walking/biking to a station, also, if there is room, a bike path can always run alongside a rail line.
Anyway, I'm not saying rebuild the old lines right away, the first logical thing to do would be to have 15 minute local services and new stations in the places people actually want to go (like retail centres, health centres, education centres, and weekend destinations) as well as improving access to existing stations for pedestrians. As well as making these places less accessible to cars by improving pedestrian access (which usually means a slower car journey, and paid parking which can help fund public transport.

Buses are not a solution, buses never will run at 15 minute frequencies early morning and late night, meaning they will likely not encourage people to leave the car at home. Buses should be feeder services from areas which can't be served by rail, they should not be used instead of rail when rail can and has previously been run.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

This is not a debate where we should spend 80 billion dollars. It's not comparing apples with apples, it's not a fair comparison.

This should be talking about the high-speed rail itself and how it should be best be implemented. We all agree high-speed rail is part of an integral part of Australia's future regional public transport system. Not sure why you would redirect money on projects that are already been funded and ongoing by the state government. The Federal/State major agenda is trying to fund the high-speed rail route, why you guys so against an idea that would actually do good to Australia's economy and be a future investment for the next generation.

All the states want high-speed trains. Victoria, NSW, and Queensland all want a high-speed rail network and most people would agree this is a project of national significance. Why do you need to be so bitter and cynical about the project? The project will help out the country improve patronage on our regional rail network and you guys are stuck in the past with using airliners and roads and smaller investments that would do little improving the overall regional network across Vic - Queensland.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
This is not a debate where we should spend 80 billion dollars. It's not comparing apples with apples, it's not a fair comparison.

This should be talking about the high-speed rail itself and how it should be best be implemented. We all agree high-speed rail is part of an integral part of Australia's future regional public transport system. Not sure why you would redirect money on projects that are already been funded and ongoing by the state government. The Federal/State major agenda is trying to fund the high-speed rail route, why you guys so against an idea that would actually do good to Australia's economy and be a future investment for the next generation.

All the states want high-speed trains. Victoria, NSW, and Queensland all want a high-speed rail network and most people would agree this is a project of national significance. Why do you need to be so bitter and cynical about the project? The project will help out the country improve patronage on our regional rail network and you guys are stuck in the past with using airliners and roads and smaller investments that would do little improving the overall regional network across Vic - Queensland.
True Believers
Not True
What some are trying to say is that the HSR is a waste of money or at least not money well spent and doesn't solve many of the problems most seem to think it will.

What some are also trying to say is if you took that $80B (for NSW section) and then redirected to other projects that would not be funded for decades due to limitations in govt revenue, then what else could you achieve with that money? and in doing so how much beneficial the community would be better off.

So no, We all DO NOT agree high-speed rail is part of an integral part of Australa's future for regional PT. This statement alone from yourself demonstrates why it SHOULDN'T be built. You want to spend $100B so its convenient to get to a handful of cities of less than 100k between Mel and Bris. Noting that the HSR stations will be at closest +200km apart in regional areas.

HSR benefits maybe 20-30m users a year. The alt projects could benefit that a month and do more for pollution, quality of living, traffic congestion than HSR will ever do.

No one has said the regional areas should be neglected, MSR could be rolled out for a fraction of the price of HSR and support rail freight and interurban traffic as well. I think most people with some commonsense will agree that travel times of ~4h from the mid-point between our major east coast capitals + 2h travel time Can to Syd is more than acceptable for the population levels we have now and in 30 years time.
  viaprojects Train Controller



What some are also trying to say is if you took that $80B (for NSW section) and then redirected to other projects that would not be funded for decades due to limitations in govt revenue, then what else could you achieve with that money? and in doing so how much beneficial the community would be better off.

.
RTT_Rules


been there done it for NSW - now we have the metro and light rail and still waiting for the real projects that have been cancelled or killed off due to changes in government..

would like to see HSR but not linked to Newcastle or Wollongong or the airports...something like transport links to grow an area or avoid some problems ...
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE


What some are also trying to say is if you took that $80B (for NSW section) and then redirected to other projects that would not be funded for decades due to limitations in govt revenue, then what else could you achieve with that money? and in doing so how much beneficial the community would be better off.

.

been there done it for NSW - now we have the metro and light rail and still waiting for the real projects that have been cancelled or killed off due to changes in government..

would like to see HSR but not linked to Newcastle or Wollongong or the airports...something like transport links to grow an area or avoid some problems ...
viaprojects
HSR is a very expensive means to "grow" an area. You are basically building a the worlds most expensive railway technology to get people to live hundreds of km away and then provide a massive subsidy for their commute to work that could actually be faster than those living on the city fringe.

Sydney is difficult to expand due to its surrounding by National Parks, the sea and complex terrain. You need to get north or Newcastle and south of Moss Vale to have sufficent land at reasonable prices to have the "Qtr acre block" suburbia. Mel and Brisbane don't have these restrictions and neither does most of the rest of the major centres, so perhaps natural selection should be enabled to encourage business and govt agencies to move away from the constraints of the harbour city and just accept those who want to still live there will be moving to Australia's New York City, ie higher density housing longterm. Even then, MSR on an improved alignment can reach these outer locations within a 2h commute if required.

Moral of the story, you don't spend $100B to service a dozen rural locations with populations mostly less than 100k with HSR. No one else does and we shouldn't be the first.
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
At least with the land acquisition you will have a sound approach to build out the network in stages. Starting with Sydney to Canberra and then Melbourne probably makes the most sense.

Also assumes a route has already been chosen.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

This is not a debate where we should spend 80 billion dollars. It's not comparing apples with apples, it's not a fair comparison.

This should be talking about the high-speed rail itself and how it should be best be implemented. We all agree high-speed rail is part of an integral part of Australia's future regional public transport system. Not sure why you would redirect money on projects that are already been funded and ongoing by the state government. The Federal/State major agenda is trying to fund the high-speed rail route, why you guys so against an idea that would actually do good to Australia's economy and be a future investment for the next generation.

All the states want high-speed trains. Victoria, NSW, and Queensland all want a high-speed rail network and most people would agree this is a project of national significance. Why do you need to be so bitter and cynical about the project? The project will help out the country improve patronage on our regional rail network and you guys are stuck in the past with using airliners and roads and smaller investments that would do little improving the overall regional network across Vic - Queensland.
True Believers

No we don't all agree. Exactly how does it help out regional areas. Does it get product to market faster from regional areas? The train is the past. The airliner is the present and future. Regional areas don't need passenger rail. They need freight rail and a high speed network doesn't provide this.

If this new rail line can't do freight then the project is a waste of money and time.
  viaprojects Train Controller

 The train is the past. The airliner is the present and future. Regional areas don't need passenger rail. They need freight rail and a high speed network doesn't provide this.
simstrain


lets turn off the tap as we import fuel for the airliner ...

If this new rail line can't do freight then the project is a waste of money and time.
simstrain


last few TV shows about HSR have freight on passenger services  ( china and japan ) ... not talking about the slow freight .. special pallets for fast loading of the trains ...
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE


lets turn off the tap as we import fuel for the airliner ...

viaprojects
...and the trains and an endless list of other things that are imported.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
This is not a debate where we should spend 80 billion dollars. It's not comparing apples with apples, it's not a fair comparison.

This should be talking about the high-speed rail itself and how it should be best be implemented. We all agree high-speed rail is part of an integral part of Australia's future regional public transport system. Not sure why you would redirect money on projects that are already been funded and ongoing by the state government. The Federal/State major agenda is trying to fund the high-speed rail route, why you guys so against an idea that would actually do good to Australia's economy and be a future investment for the next generation.

All the states want high-speed trains. Victoria, NSW, and Queensland all want a high-speed rail network and most people would agree this is a project of national significance. Why do you need to be so bitter and cynical about the project? The project will help out the country improve patronage on our regional rail network and you guys are stuck in the past with using airliners and roads and smaller investments that would do little improving the overall regional network across Vic - Queensland.

No we don't all agree. Exactly how does it help out regional areas. Does it get product to market faster from regional areas? The train is the past. The airliner is the present and future. Regional areas don't need passenger rail. They need freight rail and a high speed network doesn't provide this.

If this new rail line can't do freight then the project is a waste of money and time.
simstrain
- HSR will not help regional Qld, no study has even considered going north of Brisbane and no one with a right mind would consider it.

- HSR will not help regional Vic, as no study has considered going anywhere else in regional Vic apart from the access via NSW to Mel.

- Planes are not the past, they are very much part of the future, look at the growth of the airline industry, everywhere.

- The focus to drag people off the profitable airline industry onto a govt subsidised rail should be a area of concern and sanity check.

- Sims, regional Australia along the major corridors do deserve better rail services than today and not just new shinny trains on 19th century alignment. Fix the tracks for all services!
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
- HSR will not help regional Qld, no study has even considered going north of Brisbane and no one with a right mind would consider it.

- HSR will not help regional Vic, as no study has considered going anywhere else in regional Vic apart from the access via NSW to Mel.

- Planes are not the past, they are very much part of the future, look at the growth of the airline industry, everywhere.

- The focus to drag people off the profitable airline industry onto a govt subsidised rail should be a area of concern and sanity check.

- Sims, regional Australia along the major corridors do deserve better rail services than today and not just new shinny trains on 19th century alignment. Fix the tracks for all services!
RTT_Rules

HSR will be a positive for communities on the corridor from Melbourne to Canberra where 1 hour journey times from the Murray River would not be out of the question.  The key to the development will be connections (as it is in Japan) between the HSR line and the V/Line feeder lines (regional lines) so it will also drive change in the v/line network.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

 The train is the past. The airliner is the present and future. Regional areas don't need passenger rail. They need freight rail and a high speed network doesn't provide this.


lets turn off the tap as we import fuel for the airliner ...

If this new rail line can't do freight then the project is a waste of money and time.


last few TV shows about HSR have freight on passenger services  ( china and japan ) ... not talking about the slow freight .. special pallets for fast loading of the trains ...
viaprojects

I have no idea what your point is on the first reply.


The slow freight is the freight we move in Australia. The vhst would not be connected to the existing network anywhere to move any freight whatsoever. Central, Southern cross and Roma street are not set up to handle any freight other then passenger luggage and so what the heck are you going on about in regards to moving freight.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules, Transtopic

Display from: