7 ms·

Australia's high-speed rail dream leaves a bitter taste

51 points by lelf 7y ago

lnsru 7y ago
I read this article as a promise of an utopian future. The good guy comes, builds high-speed railroad and cities on the side without government’s money. Might be good chapter for some modern bible. It is just too good to be true. There is longer Forbes reading about building new cities and it’s not going to happen without will and government’s resources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/12/why-hundreds-of-completely-new-cities-are-being-built-around-the-world/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/12/why-hund...
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  Did you read the same article as me? I read, that the good guy failed to mention his bankruptcy, while promising everybody, everything. So best case, someone with a vision, but no cash and crossing the line, worst case, serious scam to draw investment money.
this_is_not_you 7y ago
Episode 3 of Utopia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series)#Season_1_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series)#...
- shalmanese 7y ago
  One of the best TV shows I've ever watched. It was available on Netflix as "Dreamland" but seems it's been removed.
  - omegabravo 7y ago
    next season will be broadcast in two weeks, I never saw it on Netflix. I did consume it off ABC as soon as it was online though
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      Awsome. Also of the opinion it is one of the best series in recent times and I thought there wouldn't be a next season. I wonder why it was released under a different name on Netflix. Although I must say I like the ending of the series very much. Do you know where it will air?
      - dagw 7y ago
        I wonder why it was released under a different name on Netflix. There already existed a UK show called Utopia, so it was renamed for its initial UK release. The new name was then subsequently used for all its international releases.
        raxxorrax 7y ago
        Hm, maybe that explains why so many people didn't know what I was talking about when I mentioned the series. I think the series was a bit of a niche, but outside those I watched the series with, nobody seems to have ever heard of it. Already thought of a conspiracy...
- andrewwharton 7y ago
  This one... :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jl9hTIkXXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jl9hTIkXXc
Pete-Codes 7y ago
Seems dodgy if Clara has no offices etc. I didn't realise the plan was to build new cities though to fund it. The trains in Oz are terrible so hopefully they come up with some high speed rail project down the east coast.
- jboles 7y ago
  It's not so much the trains that are terrible as the 1800s-era track geometry that is terrible. There are mountains all the way down the east coast; any high-speed line is going to be (a) necessarily built inland and separate from any existing line and (b) phenomenally expensive.
davidhyde 7y ago
As long as you get local firms, local people and local resources to build your new railway it doesn’t matter what it costs. It’s net free too the country. Look at the massive high speed rail network China has built in the last decade. Yet politicians will outsource such projects to other countries to “save costs”.
- benj111 7y ago
  What are the opportunity costs though? At the extreme you could have 100% of your citizenry building houses, you can't then grow food, or build cars, etc, etc. Second, unless your economy is completely cut off from the outside world you're going to get leakage away. The builder you're paying to build houses is eventually going to want to show off his wealth by buying an iphone, or some champagne, or a Ferrari. To look at a more practical example lets look at the wood industry, and lets say that Australia's wood industry is already large enough to actually absorb this increase. The wood industry has the option of selling around the world, but this development has to buy from you. So you can sell them all the rubbish stuff that can't be sold internationally. So what then? The government doesn't want shoddy Australian houses being built so restricts exports of wood. But now the supply of wood products doesn't really match the supply and you've got teak being made into OSB, and your houses are made with high quality Australian wood, but your wood industry has gone down the toilet because the prices paid for OSB are nowhere near the prices paid for solid lumps of teak. Trade is good. It makes everyone on balance better off, what you propose is cutting off trade from the rest of the world, it's never going to end well.
- roenxi 7y ago
  It isn't net-free; as a sibling comment mentions there are opportunity costs. In this instance, the opportunity costs are the driver for the decision - in the micro, it is obviously a big win to swap 100 man-hours worth of Australian input for work by a foreign firm that can be paid for with 80 man-hours of Australian input. We'd get the same amount of stuff with less effort. It is a different kettle of fish if you want to run it as a low cost welfare operation or as a long term strategic skill building exercise. It'd probably make a pretty good welfare operation - soak up a bunch of labour and get them doing something useful but not necessarily of high marginal benefit. We'd still expect it to be a net loss if there was something that the people involved could have done that was not government sponsored, but the economy is looking shaky at the moment so it might be a good idea. This makes sense if in the prior example there is no 80-hours-of-work opportunity/20 leisure option - if you have no opportunities there is no cost. I don't know if train track construction is a useful long term strategic skill for somewhere like Australia. We'd probably get a lot more out of investing in chemistry and biotech rather than beefing up on people who lay down track.
ggm 7y ago
The finance model invites speculation on land. Then future rateable income attracts government which wants the outcome and needs the money. It's really hard to resist calls for "if you build it they will come" especially with skyrocketing house costs in the big cities. Thing is.. it's a bit of a shell game and I cannot stop thinking about ghost towers in China
- astrange 7y ago
  A few too many buildings is not a serious issue.
discordance 7y ago
Sydney <-> Melbourne (705km) is the second busiest domestic air route in the world, with 9 million passengers in 2017 [0]. It definitely deserves a high speed rail link. Here's hoping it doesn't get caught up in some sort of greasy land/water buy back scam [1]. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_ai... 1: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-are-water-buybacks-and-how-did-we-get-here-20190423-p51gla.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-are-water-buyba...
- fratlas 7y ago
  I mean with those numbers, some napkin math: if even 50% of that travel was captured by a rail system with maybe $100-150 tickets, seems like it might pay itself off after a few decades. Sounds like a worthy investment, while providing jobs.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    And reducing emissions massively, to boot.
  - sifex 7y ago
    Where were you on the ballot paper?
- A2017U1 7y ago
  First sentence, yeah undeniable. Second sentence entirely ignores the reality of regional Australia and it's overwhelming influence on politics to make terrible decisions that is a burden on the nation as a whole. A single marginal electorate left out of the final station decision will mean it's a nonstarter. And I can name 3 right now. Also ignores how hard it is to build infrastructure in Australia today, the entire landscape is full of parasites. As much as I enjoy commenting about American lobbyists and it's negative outcomes, the reality is our lobbyists are infrastructure behemoths who probably do more damage to society keeping the status quo. The entir tender process is broken beyond a few million on offer. You simply can't build big infrastructure projects in Australia anymore, the entire process has been hijacked by corporations.
growlist 7y ago
Apart from anything else, they're going to need a lot more water from somewhere.
kleiba 7y ago
Conan O'Brien argued that what they really need is a Monorail.
supernova87a 7y ago
Well, aside from any dramas with the financing history of this Sydney-Melbourne link, the distance is not the most favorable. People (those who would pay / support such a service when it comes down to it) will generally choose rail versus air based on the time city center to city center. Sydney-Melbourne is 900 km. This is beyond the outer edge of where rail versus air is highly competitive. By several hours. Paris-London (500km) is about break even for the air/rail time tradeoff, and there rail takes about 50% share. Barcelona-Madrid is a bit further (600km), and has done really well also although that's a bit of a special case. San Francisco-Los Angeles is 600km and you can see how poorly that project is going -- which by the way is what this Australian project has the similar feeling of. So by the time you get to Sydney-Melbourne, you're talking 900 km and > 3 hours difference between the air/rail options and really not favored. Maybe Canberra in the middle helps a little, but the volume of traffic of people choosing this option is just not there.
- shakna 7y ago
  I'm not sure the premise holds. The Sydney<->Melbourne airway is one of the busiest in the world. That means whilst you do have a lot of people who want the fastest time, you also have a lot of people who just want to get there. You have tourists and families who are willing to give up time if it means they can get other things. Like easy access to toilets, food, and the ability to move around freely. They will doubly be likely to give up on time if it also lets them save on cost. (Flights seem to average $100-300/adult).
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    High speed rail isn't exactly cheap in terms of tickets. The path I used in the past (Zurich - Paris) is more expensive than the plane. I still choose the train because it's nicer and connects city centres. Also, it's at 600km, and I do agree with the GP that my percieved benefit of the train would disappear if it was any further. I.e. it's at the limit of what I consider useful. You can almost always get more planes going on the busy route.
    - adrianN 7y ago

51 points by lelf 7y ago

I read this article as a promise of an utopian future. The good guy comes, builds high-speed railroad and cities on the side without government’s money. Might be good chapter for some modern bible. It is just too good to be true. There is longer Forbes reading about building new cities and it’s not going to happen without will and government’s resources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/12/why-hundreds-of-completely-new-cities-are-being-built-around-the-world/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/12/why-hund...

hutzlibu 7y ago
Did you read the same article as me? I read, that the good guy failed to mention his bankruptcy, while promising everybody, everything. So best case, someone with a vision, but no cash and crossing the line, worst case, serious scam to draw investment money.

this_is_not_you 7y ago

Episode 3 of Utopia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series)#Season_1_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series)#...

shalmanese 7y ago
One of the best TV shows I've ever watched. It was available on Netflix as "Dreamland" but seems it's been removed.
- omegabravo 7y ago
  next season will be broadcast in two weeks, I never saw it on Netflix. I did consume it off ABC as soon as it was online though
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Awsome. Also of the opinion it is one of the best series in recent times and I thought there wouldn't be a next season. I wonder why it was released under a different name on Netflix. Although I must say I like the ending of the series very much. Do you know where it will air?
    - dagw 7y ago
      I wonder why it was released under a different name on Netflix. There already existed a UK show called Utopia, so it was renamed for its initial UK release. The new name was then subsequently used for all its international releases.
      - raxxorrax 7y ago
        Hm, maybe that explains why so many people didn't know what I was talking about when I mentioned the series. I think the series was a bit of a niche, but outside those I watched the series with, nobody seems to have ever heard of it. Already thought of a conspiracy...
andrewwharton 7y ago
This one... :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jl9hTIkXXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jl9hTIkXXc

Pete-Codes 7y ago

Seems dodgy if Clara has no offices etc. I didn't realise the plan was to build new cities though to fund it. The trains in Oz are terrible so hopefully they come up with some high speed rail project down the east coast.

jboles 7y ago
It's not so much the trains that are terrible as the 1800s-era track geometry that is terrible. There are mountains all the way down the east coast; any high-speed line is going to be (a) necessarily built inland and separate from any existing line and (b) phenomenally expensive.

davidhyde 7y ago

As long as you get local firms, local people and local resources to build your new railway it doesn’t matter what it costs. It’s net free too the country. Look at the massive high speed rail network China has built in the last decade. Yet politicians will outsource such projects to other countries to “save costs”.

benj111 7y ago
What are the opportunity costs though? At the extreme you could have 100% of your citizenry building houses, you can't then grow food, or build cars, etc, etc. Second, unless your economy is completely cut off from the outside world you're going to get leakage away. The builder you're paying to build houses is eventually going to want to show off his wealth by buying an iphone, or some champagne, or a Ferrari. To look at a more practical example lets look at the wood industry, and lets say that Australia's wood industry is already large enough to actually absorb this increase. The wood industry has the option of selling around the world, but this development has to buy from you. So you can sell them all the rubbish stuff that can't be sold internationally. So what then? The government doesn't want shoddy Australian houses being built so restricts exports of wood. But now the supply of wood products doesn't really match the supply and you've got teak being made into OSB, and your houses are made with high quality Australian wood, but your wood industry has gone down the toilet because the prices paid for OSB are nowhere near the prices paid for solid lumps of teak. Trade is good. It makes everyone on balance better off, what you propose is cutting off trade from the rest of the world, it's never going to end well.
roenxi 7y ago
It isn't net-free; as a sibling comment mentions there are opportunity costs. In this instance, the opportunity costs are the driver for the decision - in the micro, it is obviously a big win to swap 100 man-hours worth of Australian input for work by a foreign firm that can be paid for with 80 man-hours of Australian input. We'd get the same amount of stuff with less effort. It is a different kettle of fish if you want to run it as a low cost welfare operation or as a long term strategic skill building exercise. It'd probably make a pretty good welfare operation - soak up a bunch of labour and get them doing something useful but not necessarily of high marginal benefit. We'd still expect it to be a net loss if there was something that the people involved could have done that was not government sponsored, but the economy is looking shaky at the moment so it might be a good idea. This makes sense if in the prior example there is no 80-hours-of-work opportunity/20 leisure option - if you have no opportunities there is no cost. I don't know if train track construction is a useful long term strategic skill for somewhere like Australia. We'd probably get a lot more out of investing in chemistry and biotech rather than beefing up on people who lay down track.

ggm 7y ago

The finance model invites speculation on land. Then future rateable income attracts government which wants the outcome and needs the money. It's really hard to resist calls for "if you build it they will come" especially with skyrocketing house costs in the big cities. Thing is.. it's a bit of a shell game and I cannot stop thinking about ghost towers in China

astrange 7y ago
A few too many buildings is not a serious issue.

discordance 7y ago

Sydney <-> Melbourne (705km) is the second busiest domestic air route in the world, with 9 million passengers in 2017 [0]. It definitely deserves a high speed rail link. Here's hoping it doesn't get caught up in some sort of greasy land/water buy back scam [1]. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_ai... 1: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-are-water-buybacks-and-how-did-we-get-here-20190423-p51gla.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-are-water-buyba...

fratlas 7y ago
I mean with those numbers, some napkin math: if even 50% of that travel was captured by a rail system with maybe $100-150 tickets, seems like it might pay itself off after a few decades. Sounds like a worthy investment, while providing jobs.
- cyphar 7y ago
  And reducing emissions massively, to boot.
- sifex 7y ago
  Where were you on the ballot paper?
A2017U1 7y ago
First sentence, yeah undeniable. Second sentence entirely ignores the reality of regional Australia and it's overwhelming influence on politics to make terrible decisions that is a burden on the nation as a whole. A single marginal electorate left out of the final station decision will mean it's a nonstarter. And I can name 3 right now. Also ignores how hard it is to build infrastructure in Australia today, the entire landscape is full of parasites. As much as I enjoy commenting about American lobbyists and it's negative outcomes, the reality is our lobbyists are infrastructure behemoths who probably do more damage to society keeping the status quo. The entir tender process is broken beyond a few million on offer. You simply can't build big infrastructure projects in Australia anymore, the entire process has been hijacked by corporations.

growlist 7y ago

Apart from anything else, they're going to need a lot more water from somewhere.

kleiba 7y ago

Conan O'Brien argued that what they really need is a Monorail.

supernova87a 7y ago

Well, aside from any dramas with the financing history of this Sydney-Melbourne link, the distance is not the most favorable. People (those who would pay / support such a service when it comes down to it) will generally choose rail versus air based on the time city center to city center. Sydney-Melbourne is 900 km. This is beyond the outer edge of where rail versus air is highly competitive. By several hours. Paris-London (500km) is about break even for the air/rail time tradeoff, and there rail takes about 50% share. Barcelona-Madrid is a bit further (600km), and has done really well also although that's a bit of a special case. San Francisco-Los Angeles is 600km and you can see how poorly that project is going -- which by the way is what this Australian project has the similar feeling of. So by the time you get to Sydney-Melbourne, you're talking 900 km and > 3 hours difference between the air/rail options and really not favored. Maybe Canberra in the middle helps a little, but the volume of traffic of people choosing this option is just not there.

shakna 7y ago
I'm not sure the premise holds. The Sydney<->Melbourne airway is one of the busiest in the world. That means whilst you do have a lot of people who want the fastest time, you also have a lot of people who just want to get there. You have tourists and families who are willing to give up time if it means they can get other things. Like easy access to toilets, food, and the ability to move around freely. They will doubly be likely to give up on time if it also lets them save on cost. (Flights seem to average $100-300/adult).
- H8crilA 7y ago
  High speed rail isn't exactly cheap in terms of tickets. The path I used in the past (Zurich - Paris) is more expensive than the plane. I still choose the train because it's nicer and connects city centres. Also, it's at 600km, and I do agree with the GP that my percieved benefit of the train would disappear if it was any further. I.e. it's at the limit of what I consider useful. You can almost always get more planes going on the busy route.
  - adrianN 7y ago