Comments on: Australian Greens Promote High-Speed Rail for Melbourne-Sydney Link

By: John

John — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:19:38 +0000

A”think big” scheme is needed. A basic “cross network” through Canberra, linking Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane/Gold Coast and Melbourne could have huge implications for population decentralisation. Rural inland cites on the network, of Tamworth, Orange, Albury and Mildura would become major inland cities and would be within one or two hours of state capitals. Canberra would be the HUB of the network. The only thing lacking is political vision. Good on the Greens. Use the French to help the project get underway.

By: Cullen

Cullen — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:38:47 +0000

The fact that Sydney’s airport is nearing or at capacity actually makes a good argument for HSR. If capacity used for Melbourne-Sydney traffic can travel via HSR, that would open up quite a bit of space at Sydney for future medium/long haul growth.

By: David

David — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:26:49 +0000

we’ll see….some would say that Australia is and has been in a bigger housing bubble than the US:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/housing-bubble-comparison-us-uk-canada.html

either way, let’s hope they build it!

By: Nick R

Nick R — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:51:39 +0000

Another nitpick but the picture at the top of the article shows Flinders St Station (the suburban rail hub) while intercity and interstate trains depart from the new Southern Cross terminal, as would any high speed line.

This line should be built between Sydney and Canberra to avoid the need to build a second Sydney airport at enormous cost. Not only would a high speed line remove 90% of Sydney-Canberra domestic flights from the existing airport, it would also allow Canberra International Aiport to function as Sydney’s second airport.

By: William

William — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:10:53 +0000

Hi Tayser,

I’m absolutely not calling into question whether or not there are sufficient numbers to justify high-speed rail. Rather, what I doubt is whether or not there is enough political clout to drive such a massive one off investment.

As you point out, traveling between the two cities by air is currently very easy and convenient. One of the massive hurdles to overcome therefore is the “why bother?” attitude. The ecological argument is a powerful one, but as recent geopolitics has shown, it’s not an argument that seems to reach the voting Australian public.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:14:01 +0000

Newcastle/Sydney is an ideal distance for a rapid rail line, but with the Main Northern speed limited so that the V-Sets cannot even run at their top speed of 130km/hr, and developer interests trying to rip out the corridor into the Foreshore and Newcastle Beach destinations, things seem to be running in reverse on that corridor.

By: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org

Jarrett at HumanTransit.org — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:47:31 +0000

I’ve lived in Sydney for 3.5 years, travel constantly for work, and have trouble believing in this project. Flying is really, really easy in Australia. There’s enough competition to keep fares down, “security theater” is moderate, and flights between the big capitals are so frequent that you don’t even worry about catching a particular one, unless you have the super-cheap ticket.

Melbourne’s airport is a ways out of the city but Sydney’s is practically downtown, with trains every 10-15 minutes that take barely 10 minutes to Central Station. And there is serious topography in the way of this HSR line, mostly between Canberra and Melbourne. Nothing like what California HSR is dealing with, but then, we’re not talking about California-sized cities either.

The HSR proposals that seem to be closest to the front burner are for shorter lines. Sydney-Newcastle is popular but the topography there is just horrendous. Sydney-Canberra, though, looks good. It is four hours by train now, a hour by plane, and can easily be an hour by HSR. But Canberra isn’t big enough to anchor it, so this line will probably only get built as part of a concept for building a new international airport for Sydney out that direction, and using HSR to bring people into the city. Sydney airport is incredibly conveniently located but it is near capacity and there is no agreement on a second airport for a region that’s expected to hit 6 million in two decades. So there’s some logic to a new airport near Goulburn, with high-speed rail links, or even using Canberra as the second airport. This would tie into the current debate about how to handle a growing population, where there is increasing interest in founding new smaller cities rather than continuing to grow the big ones.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:47:15 +0000

Just one nitpick: Israel avoided a recession as well, for similar reasons as Australia. (Well, not natural resources, obviously, but the Israeli government has been vigilant about bank regulations for nearly 30 years; if anything, the Chicago-trained economists in charge of policy and the Reaganite Prime Minister/Finance Minister Netanyahu have strengthened the regulations.)

By: William

William — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:47:15 +0000

Yes, sorry, I can see how my original post could have been a little misleading there.

By: Lambros Karavis

Lambros Karavis — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:30:51 +0000

By the way, the VFT was also going to change the pattern of urban development in Australia. It would have avoided the current problems with fringe urban development in Melbourne and Sydney by encouraging regional centres within reasonable travel time from central business districts. It’s not just about transport policy; it is about urban planning and national economic policy as well.