Download to read offline
Hsr m mc_innes_110315
This document discusses the potential for high speed rail in Australia by debunking common myths. It argues that the population density and distribution between major cities like Melbourne and Sydney meet the conditions seen in other countries that successfully implemented high speed rail. While the projected costs are high, there would also be significant economic benefits and costs avoided by reducing air travel. The document acknowledges that Australians currently prefer cars and planes, but that mindsets changed in other countries once high speed rail was available, providing a more productive travel option. It concludes that further planning and establishing an authority are needed next steps to advance high speed rail in Australia.
More Related Content
Hsr m mc_innes_110315
- 1. HIGH SPEED RAILIN AUSTRALIA: DEBUNKING THE MYTHS Matt McInnes, MILT March 2015
- 2. CONTENTS • Population: density& distribution, propensity to use the train • Costs • Mindset • Summary
- 3. Route Distance TimeCombined Population Spain Barcelona – Madrid 621km 2hrs 30 5M (current) Japan Tokyo - Osaka 515km 2hrs 25 15M (1960s) Australia Melbourne – Sydney Sydney - Brisbane 700- 800km ~750km 3hrs 18M (2040) 12M (2040) POPULATION: DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY
- 4. • Melbourne/Sydney ~7Mpassenger journeys per annum (5th busiest air travel route in world in 2012) • London/Paris and Barcelona/Madrid held this accolade prior to high speed rail • Sydney/ Brisbane in top 10 global air routes • Significant demand into other centres (Canberra, Newcastle, regional cities) • Journey time (city centre to city centre) is over 3 hours These are the precise conditions that allowed other countries to set up successful high speed rail networks. POPULATION: PROPENSITY TO TRAVEL
- 5. COSTS • Not cheap,HSR is a significant financial cost • Phase 2 report estimates $114Bn • BZE $84Bn • ARA/Aurecon $63Bn But… Costs avoided: $10Bn new Sydney airport (delay ~30 yrs) Economic benefits: economic development, less unproductive time in planes And… If necessary, reduced financial burden to the state: • Private finance options • Hypothecated future capital gains or stamp duty tax on property windfall The costs needn’t be the reason not to do this
- 6. MINDSET • Population weddedto car and plane, no train mindset • Exactly as per Japan in 1960s, French in 1980s, Germans/Spanish 1990s, Chinese 2000s • Cases (e.g. Paris/Brussels) where plane has been largely phased out • Current journey time comparable between modes, future journey time will improve with train (worsen for plane with air congestion) • Journey much more productive But… • Not plane versus train • Air France/KLM operates rail services between Paris & Brussels • Virgin & Qantas & others should compete to offer rail services (better opportunities for service than plane) • CBR already seeking to become high speed rail hub (e.g. LAX – CBR services, code share HSR and airline?) Nothing to excite potential passengers about rail travel YET – the mindset will change.
- 7. SUMMARY • As anindustry we need to get behind the concept (in principle) • Let’s not in-fight on the details (alignment, traction type, etc.) • Should not be train versus road versus plane – each mode has its place (e.g. HSR allows existing lines to be freight-dedicated) Next steps: • Establish authority (lobby governments) • The authority should reserve corridors • Detailed planning can commence Thank you Any questions?