Okay, pretty much everyone knows how I feel about high-speed rail — even though I haven’t written about it for years (nearly five, to be exact).
I had a coffee a while back with a Liberal luminary who asked: “And do you still hate high-speed rail?” The answer is yes, in Australia. I’m as happy to take the TGV from Paris to Lyon as the next tourist, and while in China I travelled, and probably got COVID-19, on a packed seven-hour high-speed train from Beijing to Chongqing. Good stuff.
But here? We’re talking about our taxpayer dollars, and we need to get serious.
Although both sides of politics have long talked idly about high-speed rail and occasionally commissioned reports, we are cursed to have in Anthony Albanese a genuine enthusiast for a mode of travel wholly unsuited to Australia’s small population and vast distances. His ascension to the prime ministership has ushered in a dangerous period of actual wastage of taxpayer money on the idea — not just money on consultants and engineering reports from the usual suspects, but cold, hard cash.
The “High Speed Rail Authority” was established in June, replacing the “National Faster Rail Agency”. That’s $4-5 million a year for “advising on, planning, developing and overseeing the construction and operation of a transformational network along Australia’s eastern seaboard” — a network that won’t be built in the lifetime of anyone working in that agency. Labor also previously committed $500 million to “developing high-speed rail”. That’s not building anything — that’s just doing the business case and other paperwork.
Oh, and that’s not for a high-speed rail network on the eastern seaboard — that’s just for one branch of the network, from Newcastle to Sydney.
Yesterday Infrastructure Minister Catherine King announced the government was spending $79 million of that half a billion “to deliver the initial Sydney-to-Newcastle high-speed rail business case”.
Now kudos to the government for actually investing properly in doing an infrastructure business case, but it reflects just how absurdly expensive high-speed rail is that you spend half a billion without even buying the land on which you might eventually stick the line.
The reason the focus is on Newcastle to Sydney is not just because it’s an election commitment, but it’s also the only route that makes some sort of financial sense: despite being just 150-odd kilometres apart, the links between Newcastle and Sydney are rubbish (as anyone who has travelled on the Shitkansen, or been stranded in a kilometres-long jam on the M1, can attest). With more than 300,000 people and the potential for better transport links to bring Newcastle and the Central Coast into a more user-friendly commuter range of Sydney, even I’m prepared to admit a high-speed line between the two cities might work.
But poor topography and curvy terrain are the enemies of high-speed rail. It needs lots of flat land where you can build very long stretches of dead-straight track to hit 300km/h. Good luck finding that between Sydney and Newcastle.
When Labor was last in government and Albanese, then mere infrastructure minister, commissioned yet another look at high-speed rail, the consultants found that Newcastle-Sydney would generate far more trips than Sydney-Melbourne or Sydney-Brisbane, including five million commuter trips a year. But the cost was also far greater: per kilometre, Newcastle-Sydney would cost nearly three times as much as a Sydney-Melbourne route and about 76% more than Sydney-Canberra (if you’ve driven the Hume, you’ll know how flat and straight it is, even going through the Great Dividing Range).
That report recommended building Sydney-Melbourne first, then worrying about the line to Newcastle (and filling in from Newcastle to Brisbane and the Gold Coast after that).
Back then, the stab-in-the-dark/back-of-the-envelope/run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-see-who-salutes estimate of the cost was $10-18 billion. Since then, we’ve learnt the hard way that major infrastructure projects invariably blow out their costs by billions.
The other great rail boondoggle inflicted on us by the Nationals, the inland rail line intended to subsidise coal exports, has blown out from under $5 billion to $30 billion (appallingly, Labor has failed to take that project out and have it publicly executed, nor rip up whatever steel has been laid and flog it for scrap). That $18 billion would not only be closer to $25 billion in real terms now; it would be likely to be a third or a quarter of the final cost — if we’re lucky.
About the only sensible thing in the usual starry-eyed media coverage of King’s announcement yesterday was the Newcastle representative who urged governments to improve the existing Newcastle-Sydney rail link first.
Improving the reliability and performance of existing infrastructure is always a much better investment than building brand-spanking-new stuff. But it comes with little or none of the announceability of the latter for politicians and little interest for the media. That $500 million would be much better spent on making the Shitkansen a little less shit. And maybe we should reestablish a “faster rail” agency. That makes a lot more sense.
Disclosure: the author worked for several years in rail policy in the federal Transport Department in the 1990s. And you didn’t.
Bernard, how does it stack up against nuclear submarines for which no credible case has ever been demonstrated? At least a Melb/Syd fast rail would serve a purpose, even if horrendously expensive. Actually, if economics had been the sole determining factor in public infrastructure building we probably wouldn’t have built Canberra or a nation wide electricity grid, Sydney opera house, snowy mountains scheme, a gigantic network of paved roads servicing tiny rural communities across the continent etc etc.
Uhh, I don’t think it’s a this-project-otherwise-that-project type scenario. Pretty sure the answer to your question is “neither project should be undertaken by the government.”
Considering we’ve spent half a trillion dollars on roads in the past 25 years, remind again me why rail is a waste of money?
Also ignores how regional communities, with increasing numbers of older people who shouldn’t drive or don’t want to, and others, in accessing cities and vice versa helps decentralisation; intangible benefit requiring fast and reliable trains on optimal tracks.
It’s not a big ask?
Bernard, gazillions of $ were spent recently creating an even bigger and better traffic jam just west of the Anzac Bridge. Now there is talk of spending even more gazillions to move the traffic jam down the road a bit. If there is a bottomless pit of $ being spent on idiot infrastructure, it sure ain’t being spent on high-speed rail.
I travel on the Newcastle line now and then and you have to admire the 1800s engineers who managed to build a line through the seriously rugged landscape between Hornsby and Gosford. Trouble is that piece of engineering history is still in use and I find it hard to believe that it wouldn’t be possible to redo so it can be travelled at better than cycling pace to Gosford or at actual speed on the gentler country north thereof, without going the full Shinkansen. Spending to take 40 minutes or so off a trip that has actually got slower (!) in recent decades would no doubt mean reducing spending on the endless roads boondoggle but that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Re Sydney-Melbourne and lack of intermediate stops: new high speed rail in Spain and elsewhere has had the effect of revitalising rural towns and cities to a surprising degree, shifting population out of the major capitals. Something worth imitating, surely.
While I usually agree with Bernard on most topics, I cannot agree on this. It is vital that we put enormous emphasis on environmental concerns in any consideration of improvement/development of rail infrastructure in Australia. There are some relatively easy and cost effective changes, that would be transformative to both goods and passenger transport between Sydney and Melbourne, for starters. Please read this article: https://theconversation.com/more-than-ever-its-time-to-upgrade-the-sydney-melbourne-railway-187169
If this upgrade was made, and the train travel time between Sydney & Melbourne was reduced to about 5 hours (centre to centre too!), it would be a compellingly attractive and relaxing way to travel. Add to that the consideration of emissions from rail vs. flying, and there is no way I would ever fly Syd-Mel again. It’s a no brainer.
Yes, where the population and demand is. Add taxi costs and time at both ends of the syd-mlb air travel, and a 5 hr train ride sounds competitive.
Train travel also has taxi cost and time at both ends. Fast trains even have the same tedious check in and security check procedure as flying. Fast trains are also more expensive per trip than flying.
A) no, fast trains don’t have the same tedious check in and security procedures as flying, and b), even if they did, that’s a choice that can be avoided, not a requirement of the technology.
Bref, that is untrue, fast trains in the European union do not have the same tedious check in and security check procedures as flying. Maybe you are thinking of the Eurostar London service which involves stringent British immigration customs and security border checks made worse by Brexit. Elsewhere in France, you can get on and off a TGV without any of that and travel city centre to city centre quickly and comfortably. I have travelled extensively in France on various TGV services without undergoing any of the checks you mention. Also travelled across various European Union borders by fast train without any of those checks either.
Three years ago I experienced airline like security check in going from south France to Paris. It must have changed.
In late 2023 I traveled by rail in 8 countries in western & Eastern Europe. Rail was a deliberate choice, to minimise my environmental impact. No trains required check-in. Tickets were checked on board during each trip. No queues, and such a pleasure.
What’s more, one train was late departing, by 32 minutes, and I was emailed the same day and provided with a 25% refund. Imagine Qantas doing this!
Taxis were not required to get to and from train stations. Mostly there is a wide variety of accommodation within a short walk of European central city train stations, and/or they are connected to urban metros. I used an Uber to get to a train station only once.
Fast trains in Europe tend to be well priced if booked well in advance, but like many air fares, they become more expensive closer to the date of travel. Trains in eastern Europe are inexpensive.
“But poor topography and curvy terrain are the enemies of high-speed rail. It needs lots of flat land where you can build very long stretches of dead-straight track to hit 300km/h. Good luck finding that between Sydney and Newcastle.”
Hey Bernard, you ever heard of these things called tunnels?
Besides, Japan’s a very mountainous country, but that hasn’t stopped them from building the Shinkansen right through the terrain. It’s almost like (as others pointed out) the thing stopping HSR from being built in Australia is not the economics or other practical considerations. It’s the lack of political will and the same cynicism you demonstrate.
Japan’s total territory is 1.6x larger than Victoria. In that space they have 21 times the population of Victoria. This entire article is about whether there are enough people in a concentrated enough space to make the cost of fast rail per passenger worthwhile – your comparison misses that entirely.
Could we tunnel through the hills to Newcastle? Probably (though a quick look at our progress on Snowy 2.0 tunnels may give you pause). But what will we need to charge each passenger per trip to pay for it, and will the dollar premium justify the time saving compared to just upgrading existing rail links?
“ need to charge each passenger per trip to pay for it”. If this neoliberal “User Pays” economic doctrine was the sole means of evaluating the cost benefit ratio of nation building infrastructure projects, then few would ever be built. There would be no nationwide networks of electricity, sealed roads, bridges, telecommunications etc etc. because people in rural areas would not be able to pay for its construction and upkeep. Another example; revenue from performances and events at the Sydney opera house don’t justify the enormous cost of building it. However, there are so many unquantifiable, intangible benefits accruing, that only a neoliberal economist could doubt that the overall benefit outweighs the cost.
Most of the western world – and especially the Anglosphere – has been cruising along on the infrastructure work done in the 20th Century, especially the intensive nation-building efforts in the 20-30 years after WW2.
Much of that work would never pass the necessary “cost benefit” metrics today.
Exactly right! We have spent the years since the 1980’s selfishly bludging on the hard work of that generation.
If it were just 20thC infrastructure on which we are bludging it would be beyond dumb but the ‘legacy’ Anglosphere, Britain & the NE USA (rust belt regions) are cruising for a bruising on 19thC major works, especially sewerage, water supplies and basically anything underground such a electricity & communications because there is too much capital intensive development on top of that ground.
Many countries in Europe had the ‘great advantage’ of having been bombed flat in WWII so much of the now crumbling stuff that makes civil society possible is barely 70yrs old.
It’s going to be a fun ride for anyone under 40yrs in the very near future currently rushing towards them.