Fed Govt calls for submissions for infrastructure fund

awsgc24 · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:50 pm

SEMartin · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:02 pm

Draffa · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 am

I think we need 100km/h speeds between Brisbane and Melbourne (I'll leave the details up to others).

It makes sense when you think about it: To travel between Brisbane and Sydney via place, you need to arrive at the airport an hour early, check your baggage, sit around for the plane to arrive, board, fly, de-lane, collect your luggage. All up, it takes around three hours. If you had 100km/h passenger speeds, 3 hours is perfectly doable, with the benefit of lower CO2 emissions (the above-mentioned 'no regret' option), and, for my mind, less stress. It's also more scenic, and arguably, more spacious.
In an Oil-constrained world, trains can be electric-powered, something that isn't even an engineers wet dream for passenger airplanes yet.

To ignore such a project, in favour of yet more roads, is short-sighted in the extreme.

BDA · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:16 am

100 km/h constant - no stops for anyone or anything - get from B to S in possibly 9 hours ? Cool .... .

Draffa · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:07 pm

Whoops, totally my bad. Was looking at the distance in Miles. Embarassed

Roughly 800km distance, if you can average 100km/h, it's not so bad at all. Still about twice as long as an airplane trip, but you might ask yourself if you really need to get between destinations in three hours, or if six or seven would do.

We'll never build a TGV-style network. The passenger volumes just aren't there. But a coastal network that can average 100km/h, linked to a regional network of slower speeds, would be future-proofing travel for the country for the inevtiable time then air travel is once again just for the rich.

We need to start projects like this now, for it to have any chance of being finished in twenty years.

cootanee · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:45 pm

Don’t get excited…

From SMH web today...

“Vital road, port, health and communications projects would be judged on their competitiveness and ability to lower greenhouse gas emissions, as well as improve quality of life and expand productivity, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said today.”

Surprise surprise word “rail” is missing Shocked

From ABC net today…

“The NSW Government has asked for $40 billion in funding; $10 billion for the West Metro rail line, and $5.5 billion for the M4 East project.
Also on the wishlist is two-billion for the expansion of the M5 motorway and $4 billion for a new link between the M2 and the F3.
The State Government also wants $9.6 billion for Pacific Highway upgrades and $1 billion for work on the Princes Highway.”

So NSW will only push metro in the rail space (no surprise there). However even that seems to be off the table because it doesn't stack up against road projects. Wink

Who the heck is lobbying for rail???

MD · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:41 pm

The Infrastructure fund has only got $20 billion in total to spend.
It will have to be spent in an equitable way, which means essentially projects in all the States and Territories on roughly pro rata basis based on population otherwise there will be accusations of pork barelling.
That doesnt leave very much to spend in each State.
Any rail projects that would make some sense will require far too much of the total available pool that none will get up.

You will never get for example a VFT from Melb to Sydney as this would be a massive expenditure of Federal funds in the two already richest States.
What do you think the Premiers of the other States would think.

cootanee · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:53 pm

From scanning through Infrastructure Australia's web site seems that proposals may not be limited to State Government ones.

I was wondering if ARTC has a wish list they will be pushing. Idea

Let's face it, whenever rail does register with states it seems limited to the urban/passenger variety - and you'll probably end up with a new motorway. Rolling Eyes