[Uni script for a potential pedagogical video]
[Dynamic/repetitive beat[1], progressively fades as C.King is talking]
[Video from Catherine King[2], Infrastructure Minister]
“I’m really proud. Today I’ll be introducing the legislation to establish the High-Speed Rail Authority”
[Narrator] [Overlay: Australian trains on the move]
But that optimism from Australia’s Infrastructure Minister is not based on the country’s experience with High-speed rail. In fact, Australia’s relation with High-speed rail has been… complicated.
[Overlay: Patchwork of press articles talking about a *potential* high-speed rail]
Projects after projects have failed.
And this despite many proponents in favour of connecting urban centres along the East Coast together.
[Transition: Video of a Japanese bullet train speeding, with the ambient sound]
PART I
[Map of Australia, zooming out from NSW to the continent as a whole]
[Narrator]
Since the 80’s, over 20 feasibility studies have been commissioned by the Commonwealth and state governments. One issue is often raised: the cost of such a project.
[Overlay: View of the Melbourne and Sydney skylines]
Finding someone to pay for such a massive construction is not an easy task. In 1991, a project failed because the government refused to provide tax concession for companies interested in funding the project.
[Overlay: Dynamic map of a line connecting Sydney and Canberra. Once the connexion is made, the screen is split to add a box with the figures]
Later in 1996, a Commonwealth report opposed the project. It pointed out that connecting the 300km between Sydney and Canberra would cost $1.3 billion for construction alone. Then $406 million over five to six years to subsidise operating costs.
For an even larger distance, between Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra, it would be a whopping $128 billions.
[Overlay: Business traveller boarding a train. Then, a train line running next to a road with cars]
Even with massive public intervention, the cost will only be amortised if the chosen route is economically viable over time. It can be if a high-speed train actually reduce travelling time compared to car and plane. It can be competitive with planes by travelling directly into the inner cities.
Therefore, it is necessary to have enough potential travellers close to the inner-city train station.
And that’s a real issue for Australia, as underline by David Harding, Executive Director at “Business NSW”.
[Photo of Harding. Next to it, this quotation appears progressively with his voice]
“Sydney to Melbourne air routes may be busy, but we have little concept of the scale of inter-city mass transit that is needed in Asia. The cost is large, but the populations to be moved are larger, and thus the equation works.”
[Transition: Train riding among trees]
[In the graph, Bullet train is circled in Green. Car and Plane in Red]
[Narrator]
Regarding the environmental argument, and according to the Grattan Institute in Sydney, high-speed train emissions are clearly lower than that of a plane or a car.
[Overlay: Construction of a train line]
However, the same institute reminds us that the pollution created during the construction of a fast rail line has to be considered. The production of steel and concrete carries environmental costs. As construction takes time, the institute estimates that it will take around 40 years for a high-speed line to be environmentally positive.
While it takes time, some proponent would argue that the sooner the better. And other countries that built high-speed rail over the 70’s and the 80’s don’t seem to regret it.
But would an international comparison explain why Australia hasn’t followed suit?
It seems so.
PART II
[Overlay: anonymous people walking in a packed street]
The population density of Australia is of just 3ppl/km2. Much smaller than in Japan -338ppl/km2 - or France - 119 ppl/km2.
Of course, this is a national average. And a population corridor exists along the East Coast, where all projects have been considered.
[Overlay: the following graph]
Still, compared with successful projects -red on the graph- it appears that the Australian East coast lacks population and presents too high distances.
[Train running along Canadian mountains/trees]
Maybe an interesting comparison would be with Canada. Just like Australia it is a large country, sparsely populated around a handful of metropolitan centres.
Let’s look at two examples. The Calgary-Edmonton corridor and the Eastern Corridor.
[Overlay: People in a train station. Boarding and sitting in trains]
For the first one, an Alberta Infrastructure & Transportation report from 2008 found that the Calgary-Edmonton corridor would transport 4.5 million passengers annually by 2021. That figures would rise to 7.7 million in 2051 on a 320km/h line. We’re far from the 44 million annual users of the Paris – Lyon line in France. The most used line in the country.
And that’s an issue underline by the Grattan Institute; to argue against High-Speed Rail in Australia.
[Interview grab from Marion Terrill from the Grattan Institute speaking via ABC[1]]
“Australia is just not suited to HSR. Our cities are too small, and they’re too far apart”
[Map of the Québec – Windsor corridor]
[Narrator]
But if we look east of Canada, the Québec City – Windsor corridor seems more promising. It runs through the populated Eastern part of Canada, through Montréal and Toronto. There, 24 feasibility studies have been done.
[Overlay: Bank notes stack falling next to a toy train]
A project along the whole corridor was deemed not profitable. However, it could be profitable to connect Montréal and Toronto. But it would require a 11 billion Canadian dollars investment in order to build a line with trains driving up to 300 km/h. Therefore connecting the cities in 2h45min.
[Overlay: An Air Canada plane taxiing on a runway]
A flight between Canada’s two biggest cities currently takes 1h10min. That’s excluding getting to, from and through the airport. But the report acknowledges that the line would be mostly competitive with cars.
[Overlay: a digital version of the report, were the figures mentioned are underlined with yellow fluorescent marker[2]]
60% of car users on this segment would move to the train option. Only 10% of plane passengers would do so. With a 6.5 million annual estimated ridership, it is enough for the segment to be considered economically viable.
However, as with many Canadian and Australian projects, this project is currently frozen because it was not possible to agree on a public and private sector balance to finance the construction and exploitation.
[Overlay: this graph. Circle the dots in the bottom-left corner]
And to come back to this graphic, it remains interesting to see that when the distance is reduced, the population factor is less important in determining success. Therefore creating reasons for optimism on a smaller corridor.
PART III
[Same dynamic beat as in the very beginning]
[Extracts from different TV stations: “The NSW and federal government have recently promised to build a high-speed train line” “between Newcastle and Sydney” “Linking the two cities in one hour”]
[Overlay: East Coast dynamic map, with a green line connecting Newcaslte and Sydney and a red line between Brisbane and Newcastle, and Sydney and Melbourne]
[Narrator]
Here, the project takes into account the region. It is a much smaller first project to start with. The ideas of Brisbane-Melbourne or Sydney-Melbourne lines were put to the side in favour of the Newcastle – Sydney connexion.
[TV extract of Catherine King] “This is the most commercially viable bit to start with”
[Overlay: A train station with travellers circulating. Zoom on information screens reading “Train for Sydney”]
This bit has a higher population density than in-between Sydney and Melbourne for instance. Also, it props up a regional area, and not two cities already well connected. Therefore bringing a real added value.
As such, it seems that it fixes the past problems that we pointed out earlier in this video.
But this is going to be a long-term project.
[Overlay: train line being build]
An investment of $500 million has been added to the 2022-2023 NSW budget. It implies that field inspections and field work is to start in late 2022. A similar investment was promised by the federal government.
In fact, the High-Speed Rail Authority has been created in September 2022. It is formed of experts in the rail and infrastructure sector; to provide independent advice to the government.
[Overlay: Train running next to skyscrapers]
Not only does it state that High-Speed rail is viable, but it also affirms that for every $1 invested, there will be a $2 return. That would be due to transport time being reduced and more transport options creating more opportunities.
In time, it is expected that a train reaching speeds over 250 km/h will run through the Central Coast of New South Wales.
[TV extract of Catherine King] “High-speed rail offers the promise to change the lives of millions of Australians, especially in our regions, while also bringing our east coast capitals closer together.”
It appears that a long-term plan is on the table.
[Transition: Same overlay of train on the move used in the beginning] [Sound of a train horn]
You won’t see a bullet train anytime soon in Australia, but the high-speed train potential is unravelling. The speed of trains will definitely rise, at least in New South Wales.
Then, the success of high-speed rail in Australia will depend on the results from this Newcastle-Sydney corridor.
But in order not to be hindered by the hazards of the past, those projects will have to do more than connecting big cities. In order to thrive, it should include connexion with regional areas with a population growth potential like Canberra and Newcastle, so that it has the highest added value possible.
Comments