The federal transport minister Michael McCormack MP should task the national passenger strategy department team to come up with a vision for national rail passenger services including the high speed rail services needed in this country.

Even yesterday I was looking for flights between Sydney and regional NSW and the price is way way too high much higher than it should be. We have a major flaw in the way transport projects and post build operation are priced and business cases are flawed deliberately to enable the facilitation of large projects to big business whom return the favour to politicians.

I agree with recent discussions on here a national rail passenger operator called say "ausrail" funded and operated by the commonwealth is desperately needed with the focus initially being on capital city routes then moving to planning for more regional services as required,

Considering the dodgy way roads are justified why does rail not get the focus it rightly deserves?  Other countries now are focusing on rail as the way forward for transport use and planning with Europe already putting large investments into passenger rail.  The USA is now planning to do the same.

Evidence has shown again and again that urban motorways induce more traffic, rather than “busting” it as proponents claim; that they do not stack up financially, in part because they rely on flawed “traffic busting” modelling; and that they are actively hindering our efforts to fight climate change.

Something Europe has already discovered like China and the USA now.

The North East Link’s price tag more than doubled after its benefit-cost ratio was calculated by Infrastructure Victoria, and it has not been re-assessed since; the West Gate Tunnel has completely circumvented this assessment process.

And of course the East West Link, which the Victorian Opposition are inexplicably still fighting for, was a total dud at a BCR of 0.5

So why down in Victoria are they still planning to build a road which has not financial value in the end and will only create more pollution and damage the environment?  To you and I it makes absolutely no sense so why is it going ahead?

The WGT is even poorer and a bigger dud so why is it going ahead?  Who is paying who?


Australia must ‘move on’ from freeway fantasy, not High Speed Rail

Move away from 'freeway fantasy' ✅

Build high speed rail ❌

Realise that there is a whole lot of Australia out there (even on the coasts) outside of the capitals and create more affordable liveable cities ✅



I agree that we need to move away from freeway fantasy, but high speed rail is NOT the answer to Australia's problems.
People see high speed rail as the answer and a way to give people the ability to live in cheaper regional areas and still have access to an expensive capital city's labour market, but this is NOT the case, maybe in the days of dial-up internet and manually processed job applications it would work, not not now with high speed internet and automated job applications where a simple software package will spit out an application from an interurban commuter, and the speed of the train will NOT change this. The answer to this problem is medium speed rail and regulated employers.

The real answer to Australia's problems is solving issues like NSW having 800,642 km² of land, and only ONE liveable city that no family can afford to live in, this needs to be solved by providing amenities and infrastructure like public transport in places that are NOT capital cities and are more affordable to live in, and enough jobs to sustain populations in these secondary cities.

The Melbourne-Sydney corridor will NEVER be similar to the Madrid-Barcelona corridor for as long as everywhere outside of capital cities are completely unlivable.

Maybe high speed rail will work one day, but it's not the answer now, decentralisation is, especially in this post Covid-19 world where people need more affordable places to live.

And before everyone grabs their torches and pitchforks, I'm not saying to take any funding away from projects in capital cities (except motorways), I'm saying to provide additional funding for secondary cities, if they can't come up with the funds, then scrap the stadium rebuilds/renovations, privatise sport, and abolished cashless welfare.

Regional spending on a Sydney to Melbourne High Speed Service will mostly involve regional areas which to my point is what we need to build.  Getting between major capitals is one problem the other is how to ensure regional cities have access to the capital cities faster and easier,  High Speed Trains will do this for the country.  Airline travel is so inefficient which lots of waiting at airports and much cost for security and boarding and unboarding even more efficient.  Also very carbon intensive.

Regional spending on a Sydney to Melbourne High Speed Service will mostly involve regional areas which to my point is what we need to build.  Getting between major capitals is one problem the other is how to ensure regional cities have access to the capital cities faster and easier,  High Speed Trains will do this for the country.  Airline travel is so inefficient which lots of waiting at airports and much cost for security and boarding and unboarding even more efficient.  Also very carbon intensive.

While speeding up trips between regional ares and the capitals and making them cheaper is very important, and air travel is not efficient for these journeys, high speed rail is not the answer, medium speed rail is, as it will be beneficial to all trains that utilise it (freight, commuter, regional, etc) and be cheaper, high speed rail tickets will cost the same as flights because of construction costs.

More importantly, high speed rail will not create a significant number of jobs outside of capital cities, will not make places outside of capital cities more liveable, will not lower the cost of living, and will not (by itself) enable someone to live in a regional area and work in a capital, these are the issues we need to tackle for a prosperous future coming out of Covid-19, and one of the ways it can be done is by making areas outside of capitals liveable through amenities, infrastructure, and local employment.

Regional spending on a Sydney to Melbourne High Speed Service will mostly involve regional areas which to my point is what we need to build.  Getting between major capitals is one problem the other is how to ensure regional cities have access to the capital cities faster and easier,  High Speed Trains will do this for the country.  Airline travel is so inefficient which lots of waiting at airports and much cost for security and boarding and unboarding even more efficient.  Also very carbon intensive.

While speeding up trips between regional ares and the capitals and making them cheaper is very important, and air travel is not efficient for these journeys, high speed rail is not the answer, medium speed rail is, as it will be beneficial to all trains that utilise it (freight, commuter, regional, etc) and be cheaper, high speed rail tickets will cost the same as flights because of construction costs.

More importantly, high speed rail will not create a significant number of jobs outside of capital cities, will not make places outside of capital cities more liveable, will not lower the cost of living, and will not (by itself) enable someone to live in a regional area and work in a capital, these are the issues we need to tackle for a prosperous future coming out of Covid-19, and one of the ways it can be done is by making areas outside of capitals liveable through amenities, infrastructure, and local employment.

More importantly, high speed rail will not create a significant number of jobs outside of capital cities, will not make places outside of capital cities more liveable, will not lower the cost of living, and will not (by itself) enable someone to live in a regional area and work in a capital, these are the issues we need to tackle for a prosperous future coming out of Covid-19, and one of the ways it can be done is by making areas outside of capitals liveable through amenities, infrastructure, and local employment.

don't care  ... covid 19 has shown an issue when you remove air travel and mutes all the issues on costs ...for air or rail travel..

the question is why should we have long distance rail  ( if a service exists ) slower than a bus service with a speed limit of 100Kph when a city train can do 160 kph but limited to 120kph or lower per say ..  

ie does the country have a speed limit for land transport of 100 kph ..

Why are you all discussing high speed rail, when the question in this thread was: "So why down in Victoria are they still planning to build a road which has not financial value in the end and will only create more pollution and damage the environment?  To you and I it makes absolutely no sense so why is it going ahead?"
And the answer is that it completes a ring road that is badly needed. And it does make sense.

don't care  ... covid 19 has shown an issue when you remove air travel and mutes all the issues on costs ...for air or rail travel..

the question is why should we have long distance rail  ( if a service exists ) slower than a bus service with a speed limit of 100Kph when a city train can do 160 kph but limited to 120kph or lower per say ..  

ie does the country have a speed limit for land transport of 100 kph ..

A city train can't do 160km/h for a start. Covid 19 also showed that public transport in general (rail,air, bus and ferry) suffered in such circumstances. What got a boost was freight rail because stuff was being forced from trucks and on to rail for the first time in a very long time. That is why a single minded hsr is a completely useless project for Australia and not worth the hundreds of billions spent on it. Any spending on rail must be with freight in mind as well and passenger rail a distant second.

Regional spending on a Sydney to Melbourne High Speed Service will mostly involve regional areas which to my point is what we need to build.  Getting between major capitals is one problem the other is how to ensure regional cities have access to the capital cities faster and easier,  High Speed Trains will do this for the country.  Airline travel is so inefficient which lots of waiting at airports and much cost for security and boarding and unboarding even more efficient.  Also very carbon intensive.

HSR will mostly involve tunnels and bridges in and around Sydney and Melbourne. What regional cities need is to have industry in regional areas and not easy access to the capitals.

The first terrorist attempt or attack on a hsr in Australia will require rail to do the exact same security as the airplanes have and hsr will be much more susceptible to an infrastructure attack. Australia can not afford such a single purpose rail line.

don't care  ... covid 19 has shown an issue when you remove air travel and mutes all the issues on costs ...for air or rail travel..

the question is why should we have long distance rail  ( if a service exists ) slower than a bus service with a speed limit of 100Kph when a city train can do 160 kph but limited to 120kph or lower per say ..  

ie does the country have a speed limit for land transport of 100 kph ..

I don't think anyone supports rail being slower than a bus, that's why people support upgrading to medium speed rail by straitening out unnecessary bends.

People however think that high speed rail is going to suddenly enable people to live in a regional area/secondary city and work in a capital city, or give people more of a choice in where they live, but simply put, it's NOT.
There are more barriers to things like that then just the speed of the train (which can be solved by medium speed rail), there are issues with the way job applications work and the way unemployment services are provided,
to use a Victorian example to go with this topic, if the train from Albury to Melbourne was sped up to an hour, would that suddenly encourage Melbourne employers to hire someone from Albury over the Melbourne locals?

And then there is the matter of parking, if a suburban train station can't handle suburban commuters parking at a car park this big, a high speed rail station would need a car park this big.

Then there is what simstrain said about freight, medium speed rail would beneifit all services that use the tracks; commuter, regional, and freight, whereas as high speed would only be for regional, and if you are lucky, commuter.

TL,DR: Make rail faster than road with medium speed rail, high speed rail is not necessary and won't carry out it's intended purpose.

What regional cities need is to have industry in regional areas and not easy access to the capitals.

The amount of common sense in this post makes it hurt to think how much most don't see this common sense.

Don't forget that these secondary cities (hate the word regional) also need infrastructure and amenities, as well as local employment, to encourage people to move their and encourage the locals to stay where they are.

The reason why is because the car is not going anywhere. The car is whatever form it takes will still be around and many trips will still be done by car. Electric cars are upon us and so the whole pollution thing about car transport is about to disappear in any case and so we do need new roads as much as we need new rail transport.

What regional cities need is to have industry in regional areas and not easy access to the capitals.

The amount of common sense in this post makes it hurt to think how much most don't see this common sense.

Don't forget that these secondary cities (hate the word regional) also need infrastructure and amenities, as well as local employment, to encourage people to move their and encourage the locals to stay where they are.

I'm not sure you can call these places a city. I call them big towns. I agree that I would like people who choose to live in Albury, Bathurst, Dubbo, Bendigo, Ballarat etc actually work in those towns / baby cities. I like the fact that Sydney isn't growing as much as Melbourne and the are more people leaving Sydney then entering because it means there are less people to clog up the place.

The reason why is because the car is not going anywhere. The car is whatever form it takes will still be around and many trips will still be done by car. Electric cars are upon us and so the whole pollution thing about car transport is about to disappear in any case and so we do need new roads as much as we need new rail transport.

I don't think one can truly advocate for a 100% removal of cars, it's just not practical, are in one form or another will always be necessary for things like transporting bulky items, or reaching remote areas.

What I would like to see is reduction in just how much we depend on cars, outside of capital cities, a car is pretty much a pre-requisite for a job, and I suspect that's why youth unemployment rates are surging, as it traps people in poverty since there is no way to get a car without a job first (the $240/week dole payment being insufficient), but no way to get someone to hire you without a a car, and the only way out is to come from a wealthy dual income family.

I would love to get an electric car to save on petrol costs, but when one can buy a used petrol car for only $1,500, what are people going to do. I will welcome electric cars with open arms, but the price needs to be right.

The amount of common sense in this post makes it hurt to think how much most don't see this common sense.

Don't forget that these secondary cities (hate the word regional) also need infrastructure and amenities, as well as local employment, to encourage people to move their and encourage the locals to stay where they are.

I'm not sure you can call these places a city. I call them big towns. I agree that I would like people who choose to live in Albury, Bathurst, Dubbo, Bendigo, Ballarat etc actually work in those towns / baby cities. I like the fact that Sydney isn't growing as much as Melbourne and the are more people leaving Sydney then entering because it means there are less people to clog up the place.

I guess it depends what places you are talking about, I look at it like this:

LARGE TOWN: Dubbo
SMALL/REGIONAL CITY: Albury, Wagga, Orange, Bathurst, Coffs Harbour
SECONDARY CITY: Wollongong, Newcastle,
CAPITAL CITY: Sydney

The secondary cities should already have jobs and infrastructure but don't, and the small/regional cities should be invested in to grow to the sizes of the secondary cities.


I know for me personally being from Newcastle, I'm going to need to move to Sydney, I already work there (and doing so with a Newcastle address requires so many technical hoops to jump through) and Newcastle has barley any work, and the car culture is absolutely no place to raise a family (youth can't learn responsibility, and locals are very rude towards the poor).

But I do see the potential in Newcastle and places like it, and wish I could stay, but the investment is just not there, and I can tell you now that high speed rail won't change a thing.
And I just can't understand how people think it's okay that NSW has 8,117,976 people, 800,642 km² of land, and only ONE liveable city, it's ridiculous!

I consider anything under 100,000 a town. So Ballarat with a population of 105,000 is a small city.

Albury is 50,000 and therefore a large town as is everything you put in to the small / regional city category.

Also we might very soon have some more reason to keep using cars in Australia.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/snowy-hydrogen-powered-car-rises-as-sun-sets-on-holden-20200612-p551ya

So rail upgrade needs to be done now and fixing the alignments in NSW is the way to go. A better outcome can be done using significantly less money then vhst/hsr and money can be made by increasing the freight percentage.

Also we might very soon have some more reason to keep using cars in Australia.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/snowy-hydrogen-powered-car-rises-as-sun-sets-on-holden-20200612-p551ya

a joke - the raw fuel to product hydrogen is in QLD / WA and we dig up and export the coal in Newcastle .. both items car and fuel will be imported .. ie a car that runs on LPG ..

I consider anything under 100,000 a town. So Ballarat with a population of 105,000 is a small city.

Albury is 50,000 and therefore a large town as is everything you put in to the small / regional city category.

Also we might very soon have some more reason to keep using cars in Australia.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/snowy-hydrogen-powered-car-rises-as-sun-sets-on-holden-20200612-p551ya

So rail upgrade needs to be done now and fixing the alignments in NSW is the way to go. A better outcome can be done using significantly less money then vhst/hsr and money can be made by increasing the freight percentage.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/may/08/what-makes-city-tech-garden-smart-redefine

Also we might very soon have some more reason to keep using cars in Australia.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/snowy-hydrogen-powered-car-rises-as-sun-sets-on-holden-20200612-p551ya
a joke - the raw fuel to product hydrogen is in QLD / WA and we dig up and export the coal in Newcastle .. both items car and fuel will be imported .. ie a car that runs on LPG ..

Sorry, but none of what you said there makes sense.

Also we might very soon have some more reason to keep using cars in Australia.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/snowy-hydrogen-powered-car-rises-as-sun-sets-on-holden-20200612-p551ya
a joke - the raw fuel to product hydrogen is in QLD / WA and we dig up and export the coal in Newcastle .. both items car and fuel will be imported .. ie a car that runs on LPG ..Sorry, but none of what you said there makes sense.

google - no one going to buy a hydrogen car and are less likely to buy LPG due to refuelling stations ... LPG and hydrogen come from processed natural / coal gas ..

Why are you all discussing high speed rail, when the question in this thread was: "So why down in Victoria are they still planning to build a road which has not financial value in the end and will only create more pollution and damage the environment?  To you and I it makes absolutely no sense so why is it going ahead?"
And the answer is that it completes a ring road that is badly needed. And it does make sense.

Although I'm a great supporter of public transport, particularly rail, I'm pragmatic enough to realise that roads, including freeways/motorways, will also continue to have an important role in making a positive contribution to a city's economic prosperity and competitiveness.

I live in Sydney and I regularly drive to Melbourne to visit family, so I'm familiar with the road network and I agree that the North East Link is warranted for one simple reason, that it completes a missing link in the Metropolitan Ring Road.  I wonder if this has been factored into the BCR.  I'd even go so far as to say that the abandoned East West Link would also be warranted for similar reasons as an inner city bypass of the Melbourne CBD.  I am often perplexed why the Eastern Freeway continues to dump traffic onto Alexandra Pde and Hoddle St, when it's only a relatively short distance to complete the missing link to Citylink and the Tullamarine Freeway.

The other thing I've noticed in Melbourne is the lack of a high standard North/South bypass on the eastern fringe of the CBD to take through traffic off Hoddle St and Punt Rd, which are the de facto heavily congested bypasses.  The western and southern fringes are well catered for with Citylink, but not the northern and eastern perimeters.

Too often, the rail v roads debate in the media simplistically portrays new freeway/motorway projects as encouraging more people to abandon public transport and drive to work in the CBD, which is nonsense.  The cost, let alone availability, for all day parking is prohibitive and beyond the means of most commuters.  In Sydney, 75% of commuters travel to the CBD by public transport and it's growing, notwithstanding new motorway projects.   In Melbourne it's less, but also now growing.  There's a limit to how many private vehicles can be accommodated in the CBD without providing massive parking lots, which is unsustainable.

The point which is overlooked and rarely commented upon, is that these new freeway/motorway in the inner city regions are designed primarily to provide high standard road links for through traffic to bypass the CBD, not into it.  I had a recent discussion with a friend about the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel in Sydney and he exclaimed that it would be a white elephant because it wouldn't go into the CBD.  I quickly enlightened him by explaining that it's not meant to go into the CBD, but to bypass it and in the process provide relief to the existing heavily congested cross harbour bypass routes via the Harbour Bridge and Harbour (Eastern) Tunnel.

The other major factor which is also rarely commented upon, is that a continuous interconnected freeway/motorway, filling in missing links, allows the system to operate more efficiently without dumping through traffic on the local arterial road network.  The prime beneficiary is actually commerce and industry allowing for the more efficient distribution of goods and services across the metropolitan region.  It shouldn't be forgotten that the CBD also needs efficient access for commercial vehicles to service its multiple needs including construction.  It's not just about commuting.

It's time the outdated attitudes of the rail v road debate as an either/or decision making process was abandoned.  It should be acknowledged that both have an equal role to play in creating an efficiently run city, although the imbalances of the recent past should be corrected.

Also we might very soon have some more reason to keep using cars in Australia.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/snowy-hydrogen-powered-car-rises-as-sun-sets-on-holden-20200612-p551ya
a joke - the raw fuel to product hydrogen is in QLD / WA and we dig up and export the coal in Newcastle .. both items car and fuel will be imported .. ie a car that runs on LPG ..Sorry, but none of what you said there makes sense. google - no one going to buy a hydrogen car and are less likely to buy LPG due to refuelling stations ... LPG and hydrogen come from processed natural / coal gas ..

The P in LPG is 'Petroleum', the gas comes from offshore wells in northern Australian, it does not come from coal. And as we have huge reserves of it, I am happy to run a dedicated LPG car every day.

Why are you all discussing high speed rail, when the question in this thread was: "So why down in Victoria are they still planning to build a road which has not financial value in the end and will only create more pollution and damage the environment?  To you and I it makes absolutely no sense so why is it going ahead?"
And the answer is that it completes a ring road that is badly needed. And it does make sense.

Sorry but I must disagree if you are referring to the North East Link which has a dodgy EIS now the subject of litigation.  When the truth comes out this road will be a disaster for communities, the environment and the states finances.

Why are you all discussing high speed rail, when the question in this thread was: "So why down in Victoria are they still planning to build a road which has not financial value in the end and will only create more pollution and damage the environment?  To you and I it makes absolutely no sense so why is it going ahead?"
And the answer is that it completes a ring road that is badly needed. And it does make sense.

  ...    go so far as to say that the abandoned East West Link would also be warranted for similar reasons as an inner city bypass of the Melbourne CBD.  I am often perplexed why the Eastern Freeway continues to dump traffic onto Alexandra Pde and Hoddle St, when it's only a relatively short distance to complete the missing link to Citylink and the Tullamarine Freeway.

Too often, the rail v roads debate in the media simplistically portrays new freeway/motorway projects as encouraging more people to abandon public transport .......

The point which is overlooked and rarely commented upon, is that these new freeway/motorway in the inner city regions are designed primarily to provide high standard road links for through traffic to bypass the CBD, not into it.

A helpful piece @trans
In general I agree that by-pass the CBD is a major need  that is lacking in Melbourne. NE link  is just that.

However EW link was always a dog, it might by-pass the CBD but that is not the problem in this instance.
A look at the number of lanes off the freeway will tell you where the traffic is going: 5 lanes south bound on Hoddle St, Alexander Pde dwindles to just one lane past the Cemetery.
That says most traffic is going INTO the CBD, not around it.

Often do the trip East burbs to Tulla. Avoiding the trafic into CBD and counter-peak between the 2 freeways is barely an inconvenience.
Of couse if you want to evening peak on the Tulla freeway outbound, you're stuffed whichever route(including EW link) you chose to start.

cheers
John

A helpful piece @trans
In general I agree that by-pass the CBD is a major need  that is lacking in Melbourne. NE link  is just that.

However EW link was always a dog, it might by-pass the CBD but that is not the problem in this instance.
A look at the number of lanes will tell you where the traffic is going: 5 lanes south bound on Hoddle St, Alexander Pde dwindles to just one lane past the Cemetery.
That says most traffic is going INTO the CBD, not by-pass.

NE Link is not a road designed to bypass the CBD.  if you wanted such a road you would have been building the ring road missing link to the eastlink tollway, this has not been chosen.  The stated benefits of the NE Link is to provide a better way into the innter Melbourne and for heavy freight vehicles to get to the port from the north.  It is ALL about funnelling traffic into and out of inner Melbourne and Kew/Bulleen was inner melbourne'ish when I last checked.

A helpful piece @trans
In general I agree that by-pass the CBD is a major need  that is lacking in Melbourne. NE link  is just that.

However EW link was always a dog, it might by-pass the CBD but that is not the problem in this instance.
A look at the number of lanes will tell you where the traffic is going: 5 lanes south bound on Hoddle St, Alexander Pde dwindles to just one lane past the Cemetery.
That says most traffic is going INTO the CBD, not by-pass.

NE Link is not a road designed to bypass the CBD.  if you wanted such a road you would have been building the ring road missing link to the eastlink tollway, this has not been chosen.  The stated benefits of the NE Link is to provide a better way into the innter Melbourne and for heavy freight vehicles to get to the port from the north.  It is ALL about funnelling traffic into and out of inner Melbourne and Kew/Bulleen was inner melbourne'ish when I last checked.

Your interpretations of "stated benefits" is way off what the business case describes.
75% of southbound traffic on NEL heading east, not to the city.
https://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/417946/NEL-Business-Case-Appendix-D.pdf page 10

And trucks from the north heading to the port via NEL. ( or currently via Bulleen for that matter) Can I have some of what you're smokin?
The route is Hume fwy, Ring Rd West, Tulla Fwy, Footscray Rd, Swanston Dock. Now that IS a CBD by-pass.

Option A gets most trucks off Bullen Rd/Greensbourough Rd, Option B/C only some. See page 46 of the above link for the massive difference in "benefits".

cheers
John

I consider anything under 100,000 a town. So Ballarat with a population of 105,000 is a small city.

Albury is 50,000 and therefore a large town as is everything you put in to the small / regional city category.

Also we might very soon have some more reason to keep using cars in Australia.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/snowy-hydrogen-powered-car-rises-as-sun-sets-on-holden-20200612-p551ya

So rail upgrade needs to be done now and fixing the alignments in NSW is the way to go. A better outcome can be done using significantly less money then vhst/hsr and money can be made by increasing the freight percentage.

I guess it's really up for debate, but I'm sure we can both agree that (NSW-wise at least) that we need more than ONE liveable city (with city amenities and employment/education opportunities) in all that 800,642 km² of land. And High-Speed Rail won't provide that!

I think we will always have a reason to use cars in Australia (believe me, I carried a large TV on a train before I got my licence), what we need to do is reduce how much we need to use them and how many we need to own, and I'm saying this disregarding how they are powered, because petrol, electricity, or water - car culture leads to social, inequality, and employment issues, as well as taking away choice from where people can live.
With that being said, I think it's going to be difficult to push alternate power sources for cars, when you can get a used petrol car for about 1.5k and the petrol itself being the cheapest aspect of using it, with insurance and rego being the most expensive (for this reason, I believe public transport fares need to be halved for that matter).