While it is certainly progress that the federal government’s $20 million Phase II Report on building a high-speed rail (HSR) network down eastern Australia is finally being released today, why the report has been delayed for more than five months is a mystery.
The report, meant to outline the route, stations, and financial viability of HSR, shows major benefits of building the network:
- 80% of the population will have access to bullet trains;
- big cities and regional towns will benefit;
- tens of thousands of jobs will be created;
- travel times will be slashed;
- most importantly, every dollar invested will bring a $2.30 return returned to the Australian economy, ensuring financial viability; and
- enormous environmental benefits.
But by pushing a figure of $114 billion as the total cost to build the network, Transport Minister Anthony Albanese is trying to paint HSR as too expensive. The picture painted in this review shows the total costs of HSR on the entire east coast — without mention of benefits to the local economies, populations, or industry-related job creation. When factoring in the other cost-saving benefits such as a second Sydney airport, combined with a projected $262.2 billion dollar return into the Australian economy for its investment in HSR, the feasibility of HSR is a no-brainer.
Lastly, the reported timeframe would make it the slowest construction of HSR on earth. Comparable projects around the world have proven that HSR building can be measured in years rather than decades. The Singapore and Malaysian HSR link will be built in seven years; UK HSR will take 13 years; Thailand HSR will be complete in five years; and the California HSR is set to be all done in 16 years, with functioning routes in five years.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
Estimations of 52 years for Australian HSR prove that Albanese refuses to take HSR seriously as a feasible option.
Leave a comment
If the report had the HSR being completed by 2030 I would have been sceptical. 2050? That’s pushing something beyond the Never-Never, off the edge of the unknown world. So blatant they must think the average punter is thick as mud. Oh wait
Mate, Libs don’t do trains. Tony said so. Abbott is a ute-man. Never mind they have maglev in Shanghai. He just doesn’t do trains.
Also, much though it pains me to write this, the green element repudiate the concrete footprint. I think its bunkum, but wiser heads might need to adjudicate. I thought smart crete absorbed CO2 but apparently the dumb kind we make railroad ties out of don’t.
As a boy, I watched Deltics cruise up and down the east coast (ex-LNER) line. I cannot wait to get my book out, and write down the shinkansen numbers as they fly past. That, or hopefully the occasional Bayer-Garrett which will trundle along puffing steam…
Keynes, where are you. we need you.
I understand the feasibility study for his project was agreed to as part of the deal with the Greens to secure their support for Labor. The report thus delivers on that commitment but I can’t see either of the major parties agreeing that it should proceed. This is the depressing reality.
In Europe high-speed rail caused a dramatic fall off in airline traffic: trains are faster because you don’t need to drive out to an airport, more reliable, safer, more frequent and just as fast – no sitting around the airport for hours. The airlines will be lobbying furiously today. Did you know a previous Minister for Transport got the nickname Minister for QANTAS?
Sure seems expensive; even questionably so. Based on recent project completions on the NSW Pacific Highway Upgrade, you can still buy rural dual carriageway in hilly terrain for $20M/km. It’s 1700km from Melbourne to Brisbane, so that amounts to $34B. What does the other $80B buy, on rail v road? We’re not even going through (as opposed past) Canberra and Gold Coast.
[I’ve worked on the PHU and moderately high speed rail alignments in Queensland (yes, there are some…). The requirements are different, but not as far apart as you might think.]