Greens call for a high speed rail link (3 Viewers)

[aussie-boy]

What economic benefits? Explain how shifting businesses to regional areas provides a net benefit.

If anything it is less efficient environmentally to have large amounts of people living sparsely populated regional areas as they will have to travel more. Even with a HSR rail corridor, many more trips will still have to be made by cars and planes to places not on the corridor than if population was more centralized in the capital cities.

Congestion costs Sydney $8bn p.a. and rising.

Current population growth has to be accomodated in greenfield sites on city fringes, where people are being forced to undertake long commute times.
Building new public transport underneath Sydney is incredibly expensive, certainly much more than it would cost to build in new regional centres.

There is an ideal geographic size for a city, which Sydney has surpassed, and densification of the existing urban areas is limited because property prices make redevelopments extremely costly and often unviable.

Dense regional centres are a far superior method of development.

This benefit alone is worth $bns of positive externalities in the long run

The savings are negligible in comparison to the cost of HSR corridor.

A new airport would cost $6-8bn, and would be located outside of the Sydney basin (i.e. would require a fast train link anyway)

A HSR line will cost $18-36bn. A 1/3 'discount' is not "negligible" at all.

It is not the 4th busiest "transport corridor" in the world, not even close. It is the 4th busiest passenger air traffic route. This is because over this distance air travel is very cheap and efficient so most trips are done by air.

Whatever, you refuse to grasp the issue.
9 million pax p.a. is a huge number, and forecast to rise 70% by 2020
The trains would be full, let there be no doubt about that.

Orly? Where is the evidence of that. I'm very skeptical that huge government concessions of some sort weren't being required.

Yes, Government concessions as in specific tax breaks. No direct subsidies were requested.

What do you mean by efficiency? Air travel is cheap, safe and convenient. The only concern is environmental issues and as has already been addressed in the thread, there are much more cost effective ways or reducing carbon emissions.

No-ones saying air travel doesn't work well... it clearly does.

The key concerns here are managing air traffic growth (I don't buy the oil point at all, airlines will find alternative fuels without a doubt) and good urban planning (the need to get out of a capital city centric mentality)

 

[Optimus Prime]

36 billion? Err that's rather conservative, especially when you want to "tunnel under the great dividing range"

 

[aussie-boy]

1. That's a figure from the Co-operative Research Centre for Rail Innovation. Greens' estimate is a little higher at $40bn. Absolute max is $43bn.

2. The line would only have to get from Civic to Tumut, which is absolutely achievable

3. The route via Cooma is a realistic alternative, with excellent prospects for snow tourism and still able to link Sydney Canberra and Melb in max 900km

 

[Levi Eshkol]

the snow tourism bit is a valid point also

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

1. That's a figure from the Co-operative Research Centre for Rail Innovation. Greens' estimate is a little higher at $40bn. Absolute max is $43bn.

Hahaha, "absolute max."

Except every government project almost certainly goes way over budget.

 

[aussie-boy]

It wouldn't be built by the government... PPP projects are usually delivered on time and on budget (e.g. the M7, AirportLink)

Can I also just add to the discussion the excellent example of the LGV Mediteranee, constructed in 01 and linking Marseilles to Paris over ~800km, trip time 3:00. Immediately gained 2/3 of total patronage along the corridor.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

There is an ideal geographic size for a city which Sydney has surpassed

What is your source on this?

What is the optimal size?

If Sydney has surpassed the so called "ideal size", who is to say that regional centres which would be way under it are not even worse?

densification of the existing urban areas is limited because property prices make redevelopments extremely costly and often unviable.

Again, sauce please? Wouldn't high land values make infill more attractive? There are no shortage of development applications for new high density developments, the only restrictions seem to be those put in place by the government and local councils.

A new airport would cost $6-8bn, and would be located outside of the Sydney basin (i.e. would require a fast train link anyway)

Again, source please. What size airport is that for? A small airport for low cost carriers may be all that is needed to sufficiently reduce air congestion at Sydney Airport.

Also changing the restrictive flying hours in place could probably solve the problem too.

Whatever, you refuse to grasp the issue.
9 million pax p.a. is a huge number, and forecast to rise 70% by 2020
The trains would be full, let there be no doubt about that.

I doubt it very much. Why would I choose the train if it takes longer and there isn't a significant cost saving which would be hard to achieve since air travel is so cheap.

Yes, Government concessions as in specific tax breaks. No direct subsidies were requested.

The question is how much. Once again, if you're going to throw around numbers and claims like this, link to your sources.

 

[Optimus Prime]

It wouldn't be built by the government... PPP projects are usually delivered on time and on budget (e.g. the M7, AirportLink)

Can I also just add to the discussion the excellent example of the LGV Mediteranee, constructed in 01 and linking Marseilles to Paris over ~800km, trip time 3:00. Immediately gained 2/3 of total patronage along the corridor.

750* Most of the line was already there and that's because the train is quicker.

Dude eurostar only carries 9 million a year.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

What is your source on this?

I dunno it seems kind of obvious to me if we're talking about geographic size. Sydney can only keep radiating outwards - that's not good. If on the other hand we're talking about increasing density, well, that would be fine.

A small airport for low cost carriers may be all that is needed to sufficiently reduce air congestion at Sydney Airport.

source please :mad1:

I doubt it very much. Why would I choose the train if it takes longer and there isn't a significant cost saving which would be hard to achieve since air travel is so cheap.

There will be a significant cost saving, because oil will be hideously expensive by then. Couple that with the large passenger numbers between cities =

750* Most of the line was already there and that's because the train is quicker.

Dude eurostar only carries 9 million a year.

That doesn't really disqualify his point about the success of that line. If we could emulate the context of that success here, there's no reason as to why it would fail.

In the future. For now, I concede that air travel is more viable.

 

[aussie-boy]

750* Most of the line was already there and that's because the train is quicker.

Dude eurostar only carries 9 million a year.

If a French train running on 30yr old LGV over 784km is quicker than a plane, I don't see why an Australian train running on modern track over 850km/h will not have the same time advantage.

What do you mean by "Eurostar only carries 9 million a year"?
Doesn't that just show that our passenger numbers are absolutely sufficient for an HSR service?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Time advantage could be because De Gaul is the busiest airport outside of America.

 

[aussie-boy]

What is your source on this?

What is the optimal size?

If Sydney has surpassed the so called "ideal size", who is to say that regional centres which would be way under it are not even worse?

Again, sauce please? Wouldn't high land values make infill more attractive? There are no shortage of development applications for new high density developments, the only restrictions seem to be those put in place by the government and local councils.

Again, source please. What size airport is that for? A small airport for low cost carriers may be all that is needed to sufficiently reduce air congestion at Sydney Airport.

Also changing the restrictive flying hours in place could probably solve the problem too.

The question is how much. Once again, if you're going to throw around numbers and claims like this, link to your sources.

I could go through each of your points and find sources, but really it's a complete waste of time arguing with someone who has no basic general knowledge about planning in NSW.

You have clearly not read the metropolitain strategy; seem to have no idea about discrepancies between growth projections and building approvals (even despite the new NSW planning powers); have not read the study into a 2nd Sydney airport (nor Sydney Airport's long term plan); do not understand why Sydney airport will always have a curfew and cannot grasp the economic problems with infill development.

At the end of the day, this issue should be left up to top consulting firms to resolve - and that's all the Greens want: a proper viability study.

But I'm confident that, like the NBN, the project would be found to be viable.

I doubt it very much. Why would I choose the train if it takes longer and there isn't a significant cost saving which would be hard to achieve since air travel is so cheap.

This issue's been canvassed already in this thread, many times.

At the end of the day, the evidence speaks for itself - every single HST has thoroughly decimated parallel air travel.

 

[aussie-boy]

Time advantage could be because De Gaul is the busiest airport outside of America.

If you've ever used CDG, you'd know that the distance between the street entrance and the aircraft gate is about 50m

Anyway now you're just speculating...

 

[Optimus Prime]

If you've ever used CDG, you'd know that the distance between the street entrance and the aircraft gate is about 50m

Anyway now you're just speculating...

true but considering that they are only 300 km/h trains the reason is obviously something on the ground since it's only an hours flight.

 

[aussie-boy]

true but considering that they are only 300 km/h trains the reason is obviously something on the ground since it's only an hours flight.

Yet you wouldn't dare speculate that that same "something on the ground" may apply to Australian airports as well...

 

[Rothbard]

If a French train running on 30yr old LGV over 784km is quicker than a plane, I don't see why an Australian train running on modern track over 850km/h will not have the same time advantage.

What do you mean by "Eurostar only carries 9 million a year"?
Doesn't that just show that our passenger numbers are absolutely sufficient for an HSR service?

Technology CITATION MOTHERFUCKING NEEDED

 

[Richard Gilmore]

i think he meant 850km rothbard my fren

 

[Optimus Prime]

Yet you wouldn't dare speculate that that same "something on the ground" may apply to Australian airports as well...

it evidentially fucking doesn't though, does it? I have flown to melbourne before and it doesn't take 3 hours.

 

[aussie-boy]

it evidentially fucking doesn't though, does it? I have flown to melbourne before and it doesn't take 3 hours.

From Central to Southern Cross:
Wait for train = 5mins
Train to airport = 10mins
Walk to check in = 5mins
Check in closes 30mins pre-flight, arrive 10mins before deadline
Flight = 1:20
Walk to Skybus = 5mins
Wait for Skybus = 5mins
Catch Skybus = 20mins

Total travel time = 2:45

If you check in online, you might save 15mins - trip time down to 2:30 absolute minimum.

If you're flying tiger, add on 15mins for the 45min check in rule, = 3hrs.

Productive time in the air = ~50mins (no Wifi)
Productive time on a train = 2:50

With a train, you arrive at the station 15mins pre-departure and walk onto the train... total trip time = 3:15

 

[Optimus Prime]

At least 45 minutes to get out of Sydney, 1 hour to canberra, 2 hours to melbourne, 30 minutes through melbourne.