High Speed Rail

<html><body>
Air travel data company OAG recently published data that assessed the world's top ten city pairs by revenue - which airline makes the most money on an individual route - and Qantas and its Melbourne-Sydney route was given second place.

Between April 2017 and March 2018, <a href="https://www.oag.com/blog/billion-dollar-route">OAG reports</a> Qantas earned $854,692,402 USD ($1.051 billion AUD using March 2018 exchange rates) by flying between Melbourne &amp; Sydney.

The highest earning route was British Airways' London-Heathrow to New York-JFK route ($1,037,724,867 USD / $1.276 billion AUD) and the third highest earning route was Emirates' Dubai to London-Heathrow route ($819,409,702 USD / $1.008 billion AUD).

As OAG points out, 5 of the top 10 routes have London on one side of the city pair but all but the Australian route are either trans-continental or inter-continental flights (New York to Los Angeles, San Francisco; Toronto to Vancouver; London to Hong Kong, Singapore, New York, Doha, Dubai; and Sydney to Singapore).  

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public//pictures/article-images/top_10_revenue.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Top 10 Revenue Routes - image: OAG"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="361" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/top_10_revenue.png?itok=MCbR58mg" title="Top 10 Revenue Routes - image: OAG" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Top 10 Revenue Routes - image: <a href="https://www.oag.com/blog/billion-dollar-route">OAG</a></figcaption></figure>Melbourne and Sydney is a considerably shorter route compared to the North American trans-continental flights and the lack of any other major city pairs located within 1000km of each other in the top 10 list provided by OAG speaks to the heavy reliance on aviation we have in Australia.

In the top air routes by traffic (either the number of frequencies or the name of passengers flown), those city pairs are dominated by domestic routes around the world, especially those that are less than 1000km apart.  

Seoul to Jeju, Tokyo to Sapporo, Tokyo to Fukuoka, Tokyo to Osaka, Delhi to Mumbai, Melbourne to Sydney, Beijing to Shanghai, Sao Paulo to Rio de Janiero and Johannesburg to Cape Town have all at some stage made it to a 10 busiest air route list.

With the exception of Tokyo to Osaka, and Beijing to Shanghai, those common city pairs all have very little in the way of fast land transport links that would compete on a time basis with aviation. (Japan's Shinkansen network technically reaches Fukuoka and Sapporo, for the most part, however, the travel times can be upwards of 5 hours by rail, Beijing to Shanghai via the fastest train still takes a touch under 5 hours).

None of the aforementioned top busiest routes get a mention in the OAG routes by revenue release, except for Melbourne to Sydney.

The prevailing dismissive argument for high-speed rail in Australia amongst advocates and anyone engaged in transport issues - those who like to highlight existing problems or those who are passionate about how we might do things differently - is that Australia's population is too sparse for it to work in this country.

Casual reminder: the numbers above are for Qantas only (I assume it also includes Jetstar) - Virgin Australia, although the smaller of the two mainline operators has a significant amount of services flying between the two cities each day as well, the real amount of money earned by airlines between Melbourne &amp; Sydney will be much more than just over $1billion AUD per annum.

Seeing the dollar amounts associated with the very high volume of people who travel between Melbourne and Sydney offers up some fairly significant food for thought. The current revenue that Qantas earns roughly correlates with the projected revenue figures from the 2012 &amp; Rudd Government-era East Coast High-Speed Rail study.

In that <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/publications/high-speed-rail-study-reports/files/HSR_Phase_2_Chapter_8.pdf">study</a>, it projected roughly $2 billion in revenue shortly after the opening of a high-speed rail link between Melbourne &amp; Sydney (Sydney &amp; Canberra would open first with a projected ~$500 million in operator revenue).
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Airline revenue data on Melbourne-Sydney air route is food for thought

<html><body>
Three intercity rail corridors across Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are set to share in $20million announced at the last federal budget to develop business cases for faster and expanded rail services.

The three separate business cases are expected to be developed over the next 12 months and the money the federal government invests in the business case development will be matched with investment from the three different proponents.

In Victoria, Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) - a private organisation which has previously unveiled plans to build a Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney high-speed rail line - has won the competitive selection process.

The New South Wales Government was selected for the rail corridor in that state and the North Coast Connect consortium was selected for Queensland.

The corridors to have business cases developed are Melbourne to Shepparton, Sydney to Newcastle and Brisbane to Nambour/Maroochydore.

According to the <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/faster_rail/">federal government</a>, CLARA's proposal summary aims to build two new smart cities between the Victorian capital and Shepparton, linking them with some form of high-speed rail.   <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/faster_rail/files/Fact-Sheet-CLARA.pdf">CLARA claims</a> journey times from Shepparton to Melbourne could be reduced from 3 hours down to, potentially, 32 minutes. 

The <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/faster_rail/files/Fact-Sheet-NSW-Govt.pdf">New South Wales government aims</a> to reduce the journey time from Newcastle to Sydney down from 3 hours to 2 hours through improvements such as removing regional level crossings, track re-alignments, and junction rearrangement.  

The <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/faster_rail/files/Fact-Sheet-North-Coast-Connect.pdf">North Coast Consortium </a><a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/faster_rail/files/Fact-Sheet-North-Coast-Connect.pdf">aims</a> improve rail journeys between Brisbane and Nambour through track improvements like curvature easing, duplication to from Beerburum to Nambour, operational systems upgrades to allow for 160kph services as well as build a new rail branch from Beerwah to Maroochydore.    The consortium stated benefits may include reducing journey times from 2 hours to 45 minutes.

The Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, Paul Fletcher, said once each business case is complete it will proceed to be independently assessed by Infrastructure Australia at which point each proposal will be considered within the context of infrastructure priorities and future budgets as well as taking into account the level of state and private sector investment.

For more information, see: https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/faster_rail/

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V/Line_VLocity">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Three rail corridors across VIC, NSW, QLD receive federal money for business cases

<html><body>
Refreshed stations delivered as part of the ongoing level crossing removal project, the new Melbourne Metro tunnel, ballsy private sector-lead high-speed rail proposals like CLARA and now the Rail Futures 'InterCity' paper. It's a good mix of shovels in the ground and an eye on the future of rail in the state.

The Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) high-speed rail and InterCity paper by Rail Futures have a true statewide focus through the creation of brand new cities serviced by a high-speed rail line (CLARA) and InterCity's advocacy for population decentralisation outside of Melbourne.

While it is tempting to launch straight into an analysis of the hard infrastructure proposals in the InterCity report, we need to talk about the notion of a "State of Cities".

It's quite easy to throw phrases like "building sustainable cities" around, and 9 times out of 10, the message will likely be interpreted as building green cities, which is fine, but what about a growing city sustaining its own residents through increased local employment opportunities?

I must echo the comments made by Alan Davies <a href="https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2016/09/07/are-regional-dormitories-the-way-to-grow-our-cities/">earlier this week</a>: the overriding vision in the InterCity report seems to focus largely on enhanced regional rail line infrastructure and services as the new high-speed commuter conduits from the regional cities into central Melbourne.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the '20 minute city' concept (regardless of how pithy that aspiration is). Inter-city commuting, on the scale of Ballarat/Geelong/Bendigo to central Melbourne, would be the domain with those with high levels of income.

The regional cities may currently have, and potentially build new, affordable housing, but it won't be cheap to commute, nor should it. We should be focusing our efforts on creating jobs in the regional cities so that locals can work local.

It would be wrong to narrow the affordable housing debate into one of grand-scale long-distance commuting to Melbourne from the regional cities and this specific debate needs further study, not just from the planning and transport realm, but also the health, economic and small, medium and large business realms.

Moreover in InterCity, there's an assumption that regional rail services will remain diesel-powered.

In light of the Victorian Government's recent posturing to kick-start renewable energy investment as well as the <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-hope-for-solar-towers-as-south-aust-seeks-energy-competitors-94366">recent news</a> that the SA Government 'announced a new tender designed to introduce new competition in the [generation] market': to build solar-based power plants and storage, capable of dispatching electricity into the grid 24 hours a day. I'd argue that on top of assessing the individual proposals, a switch to greater electrification throughout the regional rail network should also receive a look in.

Overall however, InterCity is an elegant and informative document and will likely be a report that's referenced a lot in future (the proposals contained within it now need to run the gauntlet of cost-benefit analyses to ascertain whether any of its multiple proposals stack up).

<h2>CLARA and InterCity: a crossover?</h2>

The proposals outlined in the <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/160804-Regional-Rail-paper-v14.1.11-final-for-printing.pdf">InterCity report</a> are spread over two phases:

Phase 1 would see an investment program which deals with incremental change over a few election cycles: line speed upgrades (trackwork, signaling, level crossing protection), duplicating single track sections and quadruplicating metro area track to allow greater separation of regional and metro trains as well as increase regional service frequencies. The start of the cross-country network on the newly converted standard gauge track between Geelong, Ballarat and Maryborough/Horsham would also begin in this phase.

<blockquote>
Phase 1 also includes a fundamental shift in transport govenance, to actively integrate planning across transport modes and to deliver on the objectives of the Transport Integration Act 2010.

<cite>InterCity: How regional rail can re-balance population growth and create a 'state of cities' in Victoria (page 44)</cite>
</blockquote>

Phase 2 is the more meaty part of the infrastructure proposal, made possible by changes in phase 1: further line speed upgrades to enable 200kph operations where achievable, a dedicated fast line that would extend from Southern Cross to Melbourne Airport and then act as a new main line for Bendigo/Echuca/Swan Hill and Seymour/Shepparton/Wodonga regional services.

This new route would also double as the future path for future inter-state high-speed rail services to enter Melbourne.

The second phase also calls for a new fast line to Geelong that would connect to the cross-country network and that same network would then be extended from Maryborough into Bendigo. Overarching everything would see more and more lines converted from broad gauge track to standard gauge, presumably made simpler by installing dual gauge sleepers from the get-go so that a gauge switch can eventually be carried out with minimal disruption.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/intercity_phase2_map.png" rel="gallery-all" title="InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="457" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/intercity_phase2_map.png?itok=IWhWXT_5" title="InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)</figcaption></figure>The <a href="http://www.clara.com.au/">CLARA</a> high-speed rail and city-building proposal came to light in mid-July with ex-Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales fronting a media conference. The organisation's website is vague and much of the media reporting at the time was also vague: there's still a lot of cards being held close to the chest of the CLARA directors.

One might expect a proposal such as this to tout a particular rail technology, alas, it didn't. Instead, visitors to CLARA's website are presented with images and a video which depicts conventional high-speed rail (metal wheels on metal tracks) and maglev technology.

No doubt there are commercial reasons behind not revealing the type of high-speed rail CLARA will run with eventually, however if any tests that might prove any of InterCity's proposals to be worthy of adding to the long-term infrastructure for the state come back positive, this would likely force the hand of CLARA or any other future high-speed rail proposal linking the state capitals.

Inherent in InterCity's proposal is that the airport will function as a major hub: regional services would run to and from Bendigo and Seymour, City-Airport rail shuttle services and high-speed rail would use this corridor over the longer term. If this proposal is studied at any great length and it is found to have merit, the tracks initially built for the regional and shuttle services will not be able to handle maglev trains.

The sooner a clearer picture of the entire CLARA proposition is made public, the better.

<h2>InterCity's airport hub focus: multiple birds with one stone?</h2>

Based on media reporting at the time of CLARA's unveiling, it has become apparent that the Melbourne end of the route to Sydney is likely to kick off first. And fundamental to this will be the decision on how to access the terminus in central Melbourne.

If I were a betting man, I'd offer good odds that the Rudd and Gillard-era high-speed rail study for the east coast from 2012 has informed a part of CLARA's proposal. Thanks to the documents that are now in the public domain we know <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Appendix_Group_3D_Melbourne.pdf">the indicative route</a> and the estimated capital costs involved in the 2012 study.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/ec_hsr_costs.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Estimated costs on the East Coast High Speed Rail network (Appendix 4B)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="427" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ec_hsr_costs.png?itok=MeqT6wY4" title="Estimated costs on the East Coast High Speed Rail network (Appendix 4B)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Estimated costs on the East Coast High-Speed Rail network (<a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Appendix_Group_4_Cost_and_program.pdf">Appendix 4B</a>)</figcaption></figure>The 2012-era study foresaw the east coast high-speed rail network as a conventional line (minimum 300kph operations) which require their own corridor but do have the ability operate over the conventional networks. This is how the TGV system works in France: all high-speed lines lead to Paris and they connect with the mainline network on the outskirts of the city, and then travel to the various terminii on the lower-speed network.

Regardless, due to the century's old Australian anachronism of differing rail gauges, a new track pair would need to be built in Melbourne (or the really cheap solution would be to go really slow over the existing standard gauge line, fighting for access with freight trains).

The 2012 study found that the most effective solution to access Southern Cross is to build an approximately 12-13 kilometre tunnel from Gowrie station, near the Western Ring Road and Hume HWY, all the way to Southern Cross underneath the existing Upfield line; the orange line in the map below is an approximation of this route.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1D-QCvXH91ehwoHgPkWlO70JxkeA&amp;hl=en" width="100%"></iframe>

The estimated cost of this tunnel in 2012 was $2.2 billion. If you're trying to get your head around that figure by trying to compare it to the $6 billion figure for the 9km Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel, just don't. In short, a basic explanation is: the high-speed rail tunnel would just be that: a tunnel. No stations en route, just a path for trains to move in and out of Southern Cross and the Melbourne metropolitan area.

The 2012 study also has a "Northern Melbourne" station located just outside the tunnel in Campbellfield. The <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Chapter_3.pdf">indicative service plan</a> as part of the study foresaw this station effectively working in peak flow directions on the flagship inter-city express services: morning peak all Sydney-bound trains would stop en route, and in afternoon peaks all Melbourne-bound trains would stop here.

The rest of the 'pretty' lines on that map are my attempt to adapt the InterCity Melbourne Airport hub and the 2012 east-coast high-speed rail study. The blue line is a tunnel, measuring 14km - approximately 1 kilometre longer than the 2012 study tunnel - and the pink line is an elevated track leading to an elevated station 'bolted on' to the Terminal 1 expansion (which is depicted in Tullamarine's master plan); zoom in on the airport for more detail.

The Green and Yellow lines beyond the airport are my approximation of the new regional (and eventual high-speed) lines from the InterCity report.

Essentially the 2012 study route and station has been moved westward in that map: a tunnel leading all the way to Southern Cross is still the backbone, there's a "Northern Melbourne" station at the airport and the connections beyond the airport run outside the urban growth boundary for the most part (the 2012 study would have seen a new line built in the existing Upfield and Craigieburn-Wallan rail corridors, right through the middle of the growth areas).

Taking the known estimates for the 2012 study, I assume the cost to build the proposal as shown in the map would be similar to the study's cost breakdown; perhaps with a higher station, bridge and earthworks cost.

Like many others I don't hold high hopes for a high-speed rail line anytime soon. That's said, I'll be watching the CLARA proposal with interest and here's hoping the ducks fall into line across the various governments.

Furthermore I acknowledge the <a href="http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/resources/business-case">Melbourne Metro Rail business case</a> makes it pretty clear that airport rail services will eventually run through it; however it's always good to take a fresh look at things, especially now that the InterCity report is out in the open.

To close, I'll leave you with this thought: a 19km journey from Southern Cross through the tunnel and over the elevated sections into the airport station with a maximum speed of 200kph could be done in 8-10 minutes. How do you like them apples, Skybus and Transurban?
</body></html>

CLARA & Rail Future's InterCity: a crossover?

<html><body>
Like clockwork, the bi-annual debate on the merits of High Speed Rail is upon us again.  Usually coinciding with elections (state and federal) the debate is policy gold for the Greens as it's a big ticket item that, as a minor party, they'll never have to fund.  Likewise for the major parties, it will take so long to become a reality, it's never part of their forward estimates either.  Notionally it sounds like a good idea - Melbourne to Sydney in less than 3 hours.  It looks like a good idea - all those pretty renders of blurry trains going so fast it sweeps the hair off the heads of the models standing in the vicinity of a space age looking station.  But is it actually a good idea?

The Melbourne - Sydney flight route is the third busiest in the world, carrying over 8 million passengers per annum.  That's no mean feat for a country of only 23 million, especially when you compare the population and densities of other countries also in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_passenger_air_routes" target="_blank">top 10</a> - South Korea, Japan, China and India.  With such high passenger numbers, you'd expect competition to be high.  And with the first 3 mentioned, not only are there several airlines servicing those routes, but also a high speed rail link which leaves Australia - with four major domestic airlines and no high speed rail!

Melbourne - Sydney route is of course serviced by standard rail - the<a href="http://www.railaustralia.com.au/xpt.php" target="_blank"> </a><a href="http://www.railaustralia.com.au/xpt.php" target="_blank">XPT</a> link, although with a travel time of roughly 11 hours its hardly a direct competitor for a 1 hour 20 min plane ride.  And at $110 for a mid week economy fare, its not really price competitive either; though kids 15 years and under currently travel for $1 - Bargain!  However through a combination of high fuel prices, a crowded airspace (as evidenced by Sydney's increasingly desperate search for a second airport site), and a growing national environmental conscience, the thirst for a high speed rail link has become greater and greater, so much so that there was even a political party solely dedicated to the cause during the recent Federal Election - <a href="http://bullettrainforaustralia.com.au/" target="_blank">The Bullet Train For Australia Party</a>!

Despite millions of dollars being spent over the last few years on various feasibility studies (<a href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase1_Report.pdf" target="_blank">Phase 1 report</a> released August 2011, <a href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2-Main_Report_Low_Res.pdf" target="_blank">Phase 2 report</a> released April 2013), Australia is still no closer to HSR becoming a reality and with good reason -  an estimated price tag for a complete Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne link of $114 Billion.  It's no wonder transport experts such as Alan Davies have said the project is starting to smell awfully like the 'B' word - Boondoggle (for those unsure what a 'Boondoggle' is, see Melbourne's planned East-West tunnel).  

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/imagejmlv.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Japanse Maglev testbed, capable of 500km/h. Image courtesy businessinsider.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/imagejmlv.jpg?itok=nUDG8yDb" title="The Japanse Maglev testbed, capable of 500km/h. Image courtesy businessinsider.com.au" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

Various experts agree that the CBR is break even at best, and that in order to keep fares at a competitive price, we'll never actually recoup the $114 Billion price tag.  That's copious amounts of your and my money potentially spent with no real ROI, and would almost certainly mean that private investors would balk at getting involved, leaving the Federal government to foot the entire cost.

In order to make these numbers viable the train would have to take an awful lot of mode share away from planes.  Whilst theoretically possible, I can't see what the incentive to change would be given the price is unlikely to be orders of magnitude lower, and the projected travel time is still more than double than that of air!  Even taking into account travel time to and from the airport, its still unlikely to be better, so as much as I love the idea of a train link, my assessment of the HSR plan as it stands remains - Boondoggle!

But fret not.  Before you decide to give in and strap on the reflective vest and help Tony Abbott build yet another pointless freeway, it doesn't mean HSR is not possible under a different guise.  My biggest concern for the current plan is this: Whilst it is not planned to be fully operational until 2065, the technology is outdated now!  If technology allowed us to cut the journey time considerably, then perhaps the incentive to switch is much more substantial.

Shanghai's airport link train, the Maglev, uses magnetic levitation technology and travels at approximately 400 km/h.  However the Japanese are currently working on an improved unit, with their planned Tokyo - Nagoya Maglev train to be operational by 2027.  A 24 km test track exists and planned speeds are apparently 581 km/h; to put this into perspective the 900 km Melbourne to Sydney journey would take a mere 1.5 hours!  Now that's a serious saving yet before you throw your stop/slow sign away and abandon your post at the construction site of the East West Tunnel to run home and buy shares in the company that builds Maglev trains, there could be an even faster solution!

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Image3cstv.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Renders of the Hyperloop concept. Images courtesy cisatv.com"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Image3cstv.jpg?itok=nS7cO5jM" title="Renders of the Hyperloop concept. Images courtesy cisatv.com" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

Last month Tesla Motors Inc CEO Elon Musk, unveiled a a new mode of super fast transport called the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13/musk-shows-hyperloop-transport-design-for-people-to-cars" target="_blank">Hyperloop</a>.  Described as "a cross between a Concorde, a railgun, and an air-hockey table", people would travel in pods in a tube at speeds up to 1100 km/h, thus reducing a Melbourne to Sydney trip to a mind boggling 50 minutes!  Add to that Musk's claim that it could run on solar power and that construction cost would be only one tenth of current HSR solutions and it certainly provides some food for thought, even if it is still at a conceptual stage.

Whilst HSR may currently look like a pie-in-the-sky proposal, rapid technological advances certainly suggest there is hope for the future.  Whilst the current plan may be too slow to make it feasible, that's not to say we should at least prepare for the future.  Ensuring we make the necessary reservations for the route is paramount - the last thing we need is to blow out any future cost due to expensive land acquisitions.  Train technology is currently moving at an extraordinary pace and it's not out of the question that any of the above proposals, or maybe even something faster, would be available in the coming decades.  

So next time you're being thrown all about the place whilst standing in a packed Hitachi train on your commute to Flinders Street, consider trying out your train surfing skills on a train going 10 times as fast!  Or on the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/easey-does-it-end-to-end-gains-its-train-set" target="_blank">roof of a building in Collingwood</a> for that matter...
</body></html>

TheHeadOnTheDoor

HSR - High Speed Rail or Highly Sceptical Rip-off?

<html><body>
Thank the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunzel" target="_blank">gunzel</a> Gods for both the Victorian and Federal Governments releasing their grandiose plans within the space of two weeks.  So much to analyse, so much to salivate over.
On Thursday when Federal Transport Minister Albanese released the <a href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/" target="_blank">Phase 2 study into High Speed Rail</a>, the immediate thing which drew my attention was the preferred path to be taken into Melbourne.
The Federal Government's High Speed Rail (HSR) study favours the Upfield corridor path as the primary access to central Melbourne with the terminus at Southern Cross.  Putting my past-life Business Analyst cap on: hello project synergies!
<a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/news/news-promotions/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/" target="_blank">Public Transport Victoria's (PTV) plan for heavy rail in Melbourne</a> states that in 20 years time, the Upfield corridor will be upgraded to allow far more frequent service than currently exists (a paltry 20 minute all day every day service regardless of peak or off peak).  Let's try and reconcile both plans for a moment.
The HSR plan sets out:  Sydney to Canberra as Phase 1.  Canberra to Melbourne Phase 2.  And all those areas north of Sydney in later stages.  It's not completely absurd to assume Phase 2 will more or less co-incide with PTV's Phase 4 in about 20 years from now.  
As a 2 year resident of the City of Moreland, I've long loathed using the Upfield line as a means to get to/from the city or any further up and down the Sydney Road corridor owing to the substandard frequencies that currently opeate (I prefer, and do, walk 25 minutes further west to Moonee Ponds to catch far more frequent Craigieburn services).  Upfield requires more frequent trains and far more frequent cross-town bus routes feeding it to make it a real mass-transit corridor.
You don't need a crystal ball to predict the response from naysayers and the foamers over the High-Speed Rail plan, but if you assume:
<ul>
<li>
		it will go ahead in some shape or form, in the phased stages as outlined in the study,</li>
	<li>
		Melbourne airport will receive some kind of heavy-rail treatment within 10-20 years (PTV estimate is within 15 years),</li>
	<li>
		the Federal Coalition stops brain-farting and starts to look at the benefit of investing in Urban as well as National Rail - to keep the PTV and High Speed Rail plan momentum alive if the Gillard government loses power on September 14</li>
</ul>
... you can easily draw this conclusion:
Despite the Phase 2 of High-Speed Rail being a minimum 15 years away, the difficult and most expensive work at this end of the whole Brisbane-Melbourne line could be done sooner by combining the national and local projects.  PTV's plan studied an Upfield (and Craigieburn) line option, and assumes an Airport metro service will branch off the Melbourne Metro Tunnel, but let's take 3 steps back and look at it this way.
The Victorian and Federal governments can go into a joint venture in building the Southern Cross - Upfield section of the eventual High Speed Line sooner.  
<ul>
<li>
		Shut down the Upfield corridor for 2-3 years,</li>
	<li>
		Add longer clearways to Sydney Road and then double the amount of tram services on the Sydney Road route to cater for the temporary loss of Upfield Train services,</li>
	<li>
		Rip up the existing track in the Upfield corridor and associated infrastructure, all the way from Park St in Brunswick to Mahoneys Road in Campbellfield,</li>
	<li>
		Dig a long trench, wide enough for 4 tracks - the two outer tracks would become a subterranean Upfield Metro corridor upon re-opening and the two inner tracks would be the High-Speed through lines,</li>
	<li>
		Re-build Jewell, Brunswick, Anstey, Moreland, Coburg, Batman, Merlynston, Fawkner and Gowrie stations underground to interface with the outer Metro lines,</li>
	<li>
		The new airspace created above this trench will provide a small benefit in financing the construction of the cut and cover tunnel by allowing developers, subject to a new Moreland City council structure plan, to build on the newly created surface above the rail corridor,</li>
	<li>
		PTV and/or Melbourne Airport Rail Link study partners can re-factor this newly created train path into a revised PTV project to bring heavy rail to Tullamarine along the High Speed Lines into the airport from the East.</li>
</ul>
There is enormous scope for synergising the PTV and High Speed Rail plans - with numerous urban benefits as outlined above.  And it shouldn't be dependent on the later phase 2 Canberra - Melbourne construction of the High Speed Rail line.  
And it's over to you.
Editor's Note: too much gunzelling can be bad for your health, seek professional help (or just stop waiting for a damned Hitachi to roll on by) if you feel it is getting the better of you. 
 
</body></html>

Thanking the gunzel Gods: PTV and High Speed Rail synergies in Melbourne

<html><body>
The Federal Government has made Phase 2 of its previous election commitment into the study of High-Speed Rail along Australia's East Coast public.

Direct link to all the documentation <a href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/" target="_blank">here</a>.

Setting aside cost and the timeframe for implementation for the moment (as that's what the mainstream debate will focus on) -  let me emphasise we must ensure the regional cities - those that have a mooted station - have proper structure plans in place to harness the opportunity which fast connectivity to capital and other regional cities will bring.

It's unfortunate Julia Gillard has already been spruiking the commuting benefits of the project with this  first (bottom) tweet:

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/jg_hsr_tweet.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Tweet from the Prime Minister 11/4/13"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/jg_hsr_tweet.png?itok=fmyYjPdB" title="Tweet from the Prime Minister 11/4/13" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

Selling High Speed Rail as a commuting option to alleviate housing affordability in Sydney is the absolute wrong message we should be selling this project on.  In fact using the system as any kind of long-distance commuting option should be discouraged.

Selling the benefits of the project to the public this way will have the effect of extending the issues of mass movement of people from the outer more affordable fringe areas of cities to the centralised employment centres, predominantly located in our respective central cities - it's garden city planning on steroids!

Fast commute? absolutely.  Cheap to commute? not on your nelly - in 2065 it's estimated an Albury - Melbourne fare would be $42 one way.

Instead, Victoria and New South Wales have a unique opportunity to leverage the infrastructure to grow their regional centres - the Australian Inland Empire if you will.

Shepparton, Albury-Wodonga, Wagga Wagga are the three cities between Melbourne and Canberra that are likely to have a station with regionally-focused services.   Our supplimentary debate about the benefits of High Speed Rail should include the respective councils of these regions and focus from the Federal and State levels of government should be on growing the economies of these respective cities to the point where new industries: be they services, manufacturing or further expansion of agri-business can flourish.

Growing and diversifying these economies will be made easier, as the fast access to and from the three capital cities on the route will provide quick access to airports for global connectivity.  It's not rocket science, regional cities are lower-cost employment environments which businesses can leverage to create jobs which in turn will attract people to live in these cities - not commute to them.

Melbourne, and Sydney, are learning that in order to grow their respective cities, urban high-density, short-commute principles are the best to implement - as they take advantage of existing infrastructure, local economic activity expands and diversifies and this knowledge <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developments" target="_blank">the development market is now catering for</a> throughout capital metropolitan areas can be applied to these regional centres.

It's not just the capitals which should grow into true urban centres; regional cities are equally as relevant and deserving of a strong urban focus.
</body></html>

High Speed Rail

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

High Speed Rail

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News