Greens call for a high speed rail link (1 Viewer)

[jennyfromdabloc]

If it was economically viable you'd expect to see companies and consortiums putting forward proposals.

In reality, the only proposals we've seen have been direct government proposals, or in response to calls for government tenders.

HSR will probably someday be viable in Australia as population grows, air fuel becomes more expensive and HSR technology becomes cheaper.

But in the mean time it can only exist if its an expensive government funded white elephant.

Also, if we do it now and have it under utilized for 10 or 20 years we'll have old technology when we actually need HSR. I'd like to see it built when it is viable, and built with the latest and best technology.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Oh yeah, that just reminded me of the most important thing. Most of the countries that use HSR also use a shitload of nuclear power. SO lyk ye

 

[Chemical Ali]

You know we're in trouble as a nation when the only party proposing visionary, job creating, nation building infrastructure projects are the fkn Greens

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You know we're in trouble as a nation when the only party proposing visionary, job creating, nation building infrastructure projects are the fkn Greens

The way to build a nation is to rob Peter to pay Paul to build something that neither Peter nor Paul thought was viable to build before the robbery.

 

[aussie-boy]

Highspeed trains use more energy (obviously) than normal ones. I said a millenium train carriage, which only holds maybe 125 people each. It was just an example for why aircraft can be cost effective.

HSR uses far less energy per passenger than air travel - a proven fact and not worth arguing about.

The thing is would you rather an at best 3-3.5 hr trip (including stops), or a 1-1.5 hour flight? Considering at the moment an airfare between Sydney and Melbourne can be had for around $50, until there is a carbon tax or the cost of Aviation fuel increases significantly I'm pretty sure most people will choose to fly.

1.The vast majority of corridor passengers are businesspeople/public servants. They don't choose how they travel, and their tickets cost a lot more than $50 (and are mainly contracted in bulk).

2. When you think about CBD-Airport travel time, check-in, security, boarding procedures - and compare it to walking directly onto the train from the street, you're talking about time savings of1-2hrs

If it was economically viable you'd expect to see companies and consortiums putting forward proposals.

In reality, the only proposals we've seen have been direct government proposals, or in response to calls for government tenders.

Disagree completely. There are several reasons why a private proposal wont happen:
*Private companies cant compulsorily acquire land along the route
*Private companies don't have access to existing stations/track/rail corridors
*the majority of the benefits are positive externalities (less pollution, regional development, alleviation of need to spend $bns on a new airport) - i.e. benefits only a Government can extract

We had a really solid proposal back in 2000 with the Speedrail consortium... it was a shame the Gov refused the requested tax concessions

 

[Optimus Prime]

he was asking why rail travel was so expensive compared to air. Also laying rails etc.

Also the extents of HSR that are on existing track aren't able to run at highspeed, it'd still take atleast 40 minutes to get out of Sydney without devoted lines. The cost of building a HSR system dwarfs that of a new airport a proven fact not worth arguing about.

 

[Chemical Ali]

The way to build a nation is to rob Peter to pay Paul to build something that neither Peter nor Paul thought was viable to build before the robbery.

Well, roads and schools are pretty nice, yeah.

EDIT: what i meant was more that something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme) would never get up today

 

[Optimus Prime]

yeah and rightly so because it ruined the river systems. The entire snowy system could be replaced by one single nuclear reactor.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

yeah and rightly so because it ruined the river systems. The entire snowy system could be replaced by one single nuclear reactor.

oh snap. <3 this guy.

 

[Chemical Ali]

same thing, nuclear reactors aren't economically viable compared to coal anyway

 

[Richard Gilmore]

Highspeed trains use more energy (obviously) than normal ones. I said a millenium train carriage, which only holds maybe 125 people each. It was just an example for why aircraft can be cost effective.

Not really. Each carriage behind the first carriage has almost zero wind resistance in front of it. There are probably reasons as to why aircraft can be cost effective, but I don't think that's one of them.

The thing is would you rather an at best 3-3.5 hr trip (including stops), or a 1-1.5 hour flight? Considering at the moment an airfare between Sydney and Melbourne can be had for around $50, until there is a carbon tax or the cost of Aviation fuel increases significantly I'm pretty sure most people will choose to fly.

Yeah well, I'm pretty sure the Greens proposal doesn't sit out there in the middle of the blue on its own. It's a response to emissions and declining oil production - two things air travel is obliterated by when it comes to rail.

If it was economically viable you'd expect to see companies and consortiums putting forward proposals.

In reality, the only proposals we've seen have been direct government proposals, or in response to calls for government tenders.

I, unlike you, do not have complete faith in the free market. I, unlike you, am a cynic. I also hold that private investment in Australian infrastructure has seen a lot more floppy white elephants than has government infrastructure (good thing they got rid of the metro).

I very much doubt that any large companies would have been willing to make the initial investment in the Wright Brothers plane. Rail infrastructure in Australia is currently poo. But there's also the fact that...

HSR will probably someday be viable in Australia as population grows, air fuel becomes more expensive and HSR technology becomes cheaper.

But in the mean time it can only exist if its an expensive government funded white elephant.

Also, if we do it now and have it under utilized for 10 or 20 years we'll have old technology when we actually need HSR. I'd like to see it built when it is viable, and built with the latest and best technology

This I agree with. Right now it's probably not needed. But there's no reason to hold off planning now, or at least placing them where they're actually needed now. Oil isn't going to be around forever and high speed trains are a magnificent replacement for air travel (or like...tour buses idk). I don't think a HSR to Perth right now is a great idea, but I don't think that putting one say, between the Western suburbs and the CBD would be a bad idea.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

Oh yeah, that just reminded me of the most important thing. Most of the countries that use HSR also use a shitload of nuclear power. SO lyk ye

Most Israelis are related to the people that KILLED JESUS.

Think about it!

 

[Richard Gilmore]

he was asking why rail travel was so expensive compared to air. Also laying rails etc.

Also the extents of HSR that are on existing track aren't able to run at highspeed, it'd still take atleast 40 minutes to get out of Sydney without devoted lines. The cost of building a HSR system dwarfs that of a new airport a proven fact not worth arguing about.

A new airport will be a dustbowl in 30 years.

 

[scaredytiger]

I would love a HSR system.


Just putting it out there.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I question your understanding of aerodynamics. Also a carbon tax/trading scheme which is pretty much inevitable, would affect HSR as well as air travel since we so heavily rely on coal. Even in france, budget airlines are still cheaper than HSR.

 

[bio_nut]

I'd still pay more for a more environmentally friendly option.

Flying short distances is irresponsible.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

I question your understanding of aerodynamics.

when one thing follows behind another
less drag
Fin

Also a carbon tax/trading scheme which is pretty much inevitable, would affect HSR as well as air travel since we so heavily rely on coal. Even in france, budget airlines are still cheaper than HSR.

maybe we didn't say it clear enough last time.

it
uses
way
way
way
way
way
way
way
less
fuel

also: these trains can run on nuclear power. can planes?

also another factor: how long does it take to get from tullamarine to melbourne? how long does it take to get from Mascot to Sydney? And baggage, security, check in, parking ra ra ra ra. Not all of those would be remedied by HSR but placing part of the burden of air travel on another very efficient form of transport doesnt at all seem like a bad idea.

 

[FlipX]

Something like HSR shouldn't be measured in terms of a private company's projected NPV, because the social benefits will outweight the private benefits - meaning that government will need to take the initiative here.

This is about long-term nation-building vision and not simply short-sighted cost-benefit analysis. Our capital cities can't contain growing populations, and I think we can all agree that folks simply don't want to move out to satellite suburbs or city centres because of the time and poor transport infrastructure involved in the commute. Having an HSR system will go some way to resolving this.

Further, aviation is simply not sustainable, given its heavy reliance on fossil fuels. There is research in alternative biofuels, etc, but it's all progressing slowly. In the meantime, having more environmentally responsible options for transport, especially for short-haul trips, is the way forward.

Syd-Melb, for example, is such a busy air corridor - you can't argue that there's not enough demand. Ideally, a carbon pollution tax would also come into level the playing field for mass ground transport - it's another example of an externality, where social costs not being considered in private costs.

 

[Optimus Prime]

less drag than if it was at the front, yeah, but not zero.

also what do you mean less fuel? Like in what measure? Weight? Mass? Volume? Because like, it uses far more in every way?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

We should build an under sea super high speed rail link between Sydney and Los Angeles that is powered by nuclear rocket trains which are faster than aircraft.

Think how cool it would be, and it might save some carbon or something, idk.

COST IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE, THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION (BUILDING). Did I mention it sounds cool, and would put us AHEAD of other countries, who we are for some reason competing with to have more cool stuff.