Yesterday I looked at the carbon reduction justification for high speed rail between Sydney and Melbourne. Today I want to discuss another argument – that high speed rail will promote the development of regional centres. It is argued that this could in turn relieve capital cities of much of the burden of projected population growth.
I have no doubt that improving connection times between regional centres like Albury-Wodonga and Melbourne will benefit both.
But if regional centres are to be a serious alternative for growth, they will need to provide new arrivals with jobs. The question I ask is: where are those jobs going to come from?
One way could be that regional centres provide a “dormitory” for workers who can live in the country but commute to work in capital cities like Melbourne by high speed rail.
There are all sorts of complications with this. Most importantly, high speed rail is very expensive to build and operate, so this would be a high cost option for the government compared to locating these settlers within Melbourne where they could travel by less technically demanding and cheaper-to-operate conventional modes.
Using high speed rail for commuting long distances raises other problems too. Frequent stops slow the average speed of trains and consume more energy due to frequent accelerations. Because some seats are vacant as a result of passengers getting on or off at intermediate stations, the occupancy rate is lower (some rail systems are regarded as “sold out” at 65% occupancy). Slower trains also limit flexibility to timetable truly high speed express services on longer routes (like Sydney-Melbourne).
Not that it’s likely that many regional residents could avail themselves of this option anyway. The stereotype of suburban workers commuting to the city centre by rail is outdated. Only 14.5% of Melbourne’s jobs are now in the CBD, so the proportion of jobs accessible from regional centres without a transfer to a (relatively slow) local service is unlikely to be very large.
It would be much better if new settlers in regional centres could live and work locally. The problem here is to show how high speed rail would contribute to creating local jobs. Any new population induces some jobs growth to serve its own needs (e.g. hairdresser, doctors, retailers) but it isn’t sustainable unless some workers bring income in to the region.
In earlier eras like the decentralisation push of the Whitlam Government, it was hoped new jobs would be created by inducing major manufacturers to locate in growth centres. This was plausible because the low cost of transporting goods (as distinct from transporting people) meant that many manufacturers were relatively location-independent. Thus the centrepiece of the Whitlam initiative, Albury-Wodonga, was able with some inducements to attract firms of national stature like Borg Warner and Uncle Bens.
But employment in manufacturing has declined precipitously in Australia since the 1970s. It was expected that Albury-Wodonga would grow to 300,000 but in the absence of a minerals or tourism boom, its population today is only around 105,000.
Even today is has very good air and highway connections with Sydney and Melbourne (for example, there are ten flights to Sydney from Albury this Wednesday and nine to Melbourne) but these advantages have not delivered the sort of growth that suggests it could be a serious alternative to Melbourne.
While Melbourne’s population is currently around four million, the largest regional centres in the State, Geelong, has a population of 175,000. Ballarat and Bendigo both have less than 100,000 residents.
Some back-office functions like call centres and financial processing centres have located in regional centres but the great bulk still prefer the capital cities (or overseas locations).
The modern economy has increasingly evolved toward jobs (firms) that want to be in large cities. This reflects the increasing human capital intensity of jobs in all sectors, including manufacturing, and the benefits of agglomeration economies.
Another issue with growth in regional centres is that no matter where new settlers work, it would be that much harder to persuade local government and existing residents that all new housing should be medium density or on 300 sq m lots, or that they should use public transport, when the periphery might be only a five kilometres from the centre of town.
Those who argue that high speed rail can promote regional development as a real alternative to metropolitan growth need to show how it will create jobs in those centres. On the other hand, I think our capital cities have ample scope to grow – governments just need to provide the necessary infrastructure and regulatory regimes so that Australia’s growing population can share the benefits of scale.
P.S. At one time I spent four months full-time living in Albury working as a consultant to the Albury Wodonga Development Corporation.
This article was originally published at The Melbourne Urbanist.
Another dreamer pushing schemes that will cost the taxpayer tens of billions and which, under pretty much any set of assumptions, cannot operate economically.
M J, you beat me to it.
A project of this magnitude must stand on its own 2 feet or be shelved.
To the other Michael James, and JB.
With that kind of small narrow thinking you wouldn’t build half the most productive things in our societies. Take universities–a huge cost centre (until Howard forced them to start charging foreigners and citizens) but from where most of the modern world originated. Sydney Opera House was fantastically uneconomic and only got built because it got started; but imagine Sydney without it, and imagine all the incalculable wealth it has brought to the city. (Guys, try, I know it is hard and hurts your brains). All the best world cities’ Metros (London, Paris, NYC, Tokyo) all went bust at various times in their history and had to be rescued. But those cities are the economic heart of their countries and it is inconceivable they could run without their Metros. Public transport (intra- or inter-city) generates and facilitates so much other economic activity but which is very difficult to quantitate. What about the $20-$30B per year of congestion costs that will be incurred in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane if nothing is done (nothing is being done due to people like you). I suppose you are happy to spend whatever it is, $40B, over the life of the fighter jets to protect us against….um.
But I don’t know why I bother. You guys cannot be convinced. We just need a leader with vision and leadership skills to bring it about. Nominate Albury-Wadonga and Goulburn as the two (only two) plus Canberra as growth centres and do whatever it takes (universities, colleges, hospitals, Canberra as Sydney’s second airport–there’s another $20B cost saved–carrots to move other industries, seed with some gov departments etc). Damn I wish Whitlam had two 4 year fixed terms.
Of course I cannot be convinced about the HST. Show me real numbers and stop relying on wishes and I will perhaps agree with you.
My earliest recollection of the HST was as a student at a guest lecture at university, circa 1967. There were two proponents, each with similar propositions, which went along the following lines.
* Give us a lot of money and we will build for you a High Speed Train Sydney to Canberra, with hopes of extensions to Melbourne and Newcastle.
We calculate that we can make a motza and provide this beaut service, except that we need a few other things also.
We want:
* Power to resume land along the corridor and within 2 km of the line.
* Power to resume land within 10km of each station.
* Power to rezone said land and to release it at the new zoning and/or to redevelop it as a separate development authority with scant legislative interference.
* Planning power within the above corridors, the townships around stations and the airport.
* Land would be acquired at the current zonings and priced accordingly.
* Right to develop a second airport (not Canberra) in the Southern Highlands somewhere, again with power to compulsorily acquire the land for same at current zonings.
Your idea is not new, in fact it is recycled. It isn’t even your idea.
The problems of 43 years ago are the same today.
Show me the costed proposal and I might change my mind. Until then, please refrain from criticizing my skepticism. How about naming your sources. I need a laugh.
By the way, MRJ, please define the word “quantitate”. I haven’t heard it before.
When you have done that, give us all an idea of your qualifications and experience in property development, rail, especially high speed rail, infrastructure funding and major project management.
I have experience in 2 or three of the above, gained through a lifetime. Goodness, I even worked on the Opera House as a rookie engineer, soon after it was constructed. I don’t need to be told where it is or how important it has become. For mine, it will always come a distant second to the Syd Harb Bridge.
What is this “I don’t know why I bother” stuff. A little petulant, aren’t we? You seem to bother because you like to see your name in print. Go on. Love yourself.