Obviously the author doesn't like or want fast trains, or should that read real competition on the third busiest air route in the world.

And given that fact, the numbers do stack up! Furthermore, fast trains are fueled by locally available, vastly cheaper fuel regardless of movements in the oil price, which by the way sent many international airlines to the wall!

Moreover if technically literate and former merchant banker Malcolm is for it, steam and telegraph enthusiast Tony with his broken record rhetoric and devine, never wrong, wisdom, is against it.

As for value paying for the thing. The best comparison the detractors have been able to find has been in highly urbanized england.

And where the problem is so great, they've even resorted to a congestion tax just to keep cars out of London.

And given comparative resumption cost, it's no mystery why they couldn't get much out of value. It's a chalk and cheese comparison!

We for our part have large tracts of relatively cheap rural land along any proposed route, and if a wide enough corridor is resumed at fair market value and with large scale urban rezoning in play along that resumed corridor, extracted value could pay for the thing.

In any event, infrastructure that is delayed by a decade, sees the price double by the decade, which by the way serves the needs of a whole host of vested opposing interest. Who will fight on grimly hoping that it will never happen?

Think, for every dollar invested, reported studies show and before a single train rolls out, there will be 2.3 dollars of additional stimulated economic benefit or growth.

Simply put, we've always had these self confessed experts who always know all the reasons it won't work or can't be done; and in the case of fast trains, just here and nowhere else!

And had we listened to that "never ever wrong", sage advice, we'd still be living in caves chasing our food down with a stone tied to a stick!
Rhrosty.

The thing about Utopia is, people think it's a mockumentary when in reality it's a dramatisation of our government workings.

Hi Rhosty,

'Value capture' suggests that property near high-speed nodes will increase in value because of the fast-rail. But to do that, the train would have to stop at nodes near their properties. Between Melbourne and Sydney and Brisbane, how many nodes, stopping-points ? After all, if property is, say, more than twenty km away from a node, its 'NtP value' is hardly going to boost its market value.

Unless, of course, there are many nodes, say, ten between Melbourne and Sydney, and between Sydney and Brisbane. At a couple of minutes' stopping at each place, plus slowing-down and starting-up time on each occasion, this might add an hour to the Melb-Syd trip, and two hours to the Melb-Bris trip, plus the costs of slowing and starting.

I'm all for localised fast-rail, say between Geelong and Melbourne, or Bathurst to Sydney, or Toowoomba/Ipswich to Brisbane - each going via, or to, the main airport. But I'm not so hot for white elephants.

You suggest that Melb-Canberra-Syd is "the third busiest air route in the world." Really ? Not New York-Washington ? or London-Manchester ? or even London-Paris ?

Just saying :)

Joe

BTW Baldrick

People just assume "very fast" doesn't rule out freight carriage. This assumption is wrong. The devil is in the detail.

Freight is far heavier than passengers per wagon. Newtonian laws of inertia (acceleration-deceleration) work against heavy freight.

Very fast trains and freight often don't mix efficiently and sink forecasts predicated on passenger only.

Freight wagons take longer to accelerate to "very fast" and much longer to slow down to a stop - meaning trains dedicated to freight need to be slower overall than passenger trains.

This reality of physics can mean:

- much of the very fast tag is nullified if freight trains are on a very fast passenger train track

- mixed passenger and freight trains are slower than speeds promised for passenger only

- having many stops for freight trains causes major slow-downs

Better overall to have energy efficient trucks (always freight carrying) as car need the road network anyway.

Once the track is laid rail networks are TOO BIG TO (BE ALLOWED TO) FAIL - whether they are efficient in speed or cost or not.

Pete

Well firstly, I'll admit I don't know much abour HSR.

But I think its a great idea and should've been taken seriously decades ago.
I think the real boondoggle is not having vision or a plan for the future, just as your opposition to such a project and the time and money spent opposing it is an extension of that boondoggle.
The more the idea is doubted, the more it ends up costing, to resume land, labour and material costs.
The boondoggle is you.

In the olden days when people had depth, grit, and determination, you'd have the clean clothes wearing naysayers who claimed it can't be done, and at the same time you'd have the people who were out there already doing it.

Think about all the things not completing this project is costing.
Increased cost to everything we already buy in transport and labour costs, non-viability of hundreds of otherwise viable projects simply because of lack of infrastructure.
And against a backdrop where we already cannot compete with other nations.

I think we should go a step further and not just go with HSR but also build a new national highway alongside it, and if it reduces shipping costs on products our nation buys and sells then we should extend this new project right up into northern Australia and build a new super-port there.

Delete the bottlenecks that make us less productive, our projects nonviable, and our nation uncompetitive.

But the numbers you're talking are a lot I'll admit.
And if implemented in any way similar to the NBN scheme then I understand why you state it can't be done.

We need to start being smart.
I'll build your railway, and I'll build it at a quarter of the price.

[cont]
To start with, I'm going to look at people in jails for non-violent offences
'You just got the opportunity to earn half off your sentence.'
Instantly saving the country a fortune for not have to pay to incarcerate them.

Then we'll take a look at the 'work for the dole' people.
I'm going to give you the chance to get some skills and contribute to the country properly.
No more whipper-snipping for the local church.

Then we'll take all the Uni students who don't complete their studies or pay off their HECS debts.
You failed your white collar studies, and have now been designated a blue collar worker.
You need to work on the national infrastucture project to pay back the debt you incurred back.
You should have studied harder and taken the debt you incurred upon the nation more seriously.

Then instead of spending $900 million on the Syrian refugees ($75,000 a head)
We'll allow them to escape the turmoil of their nation and stay here temporarily and give them food and shelter in exchange for working on the national infrastructure project.
If they really need asylum then we'll offer them a hand up - but not a hand out, and if they are genuine they will understand.
I'm sure many of them have university qualifications and could be put to use in our country.

And we'll do the same for any other immigrant that wants a free ride.