Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc.

The benefits of the link

Action for Public Transport (APTNSW) submits that the proposed high-speed rail link on the eastern seaboard offers very clear benefits:

• It reduces travel times to a level that makes the service an attractive proposition for a wide section of possible users;
• It will take people where they really want to go, which is not to airports but to city and town centres;
• It is far cleaner and quieter than air travel;
• Its safety record is far superior to that of road travel;
• It is supportive of regional revitalisation and conversely will ease the pressure on congested capital cities.
• It is not fossil fuel dependent;

These benefits accrue not just to passengers, but also to the community at large, the environment, and the economy of major cities and regional centres.

The potential of the link

Action for Public Transport sees enormous potential for (HSR) to attract passengers who would otherwise travel by plane or car, and to unlock latent demand for movement between the centres it will serve.

We say this for a number of reasons:

• The market for a high speed rail service linking the major centres on the eastern seaboard is substantial and growing, in line with population growth;
• Added to simple population growth, there is real evidence of supportive “tree change” and “sea change” population movements along the route. This phenomenon is both supportive of better transport links, and increases the need for them;
• The intended line has perfect characteristics for effective transit – it is in essence a long straight line with substantial centres of population along it;
• The prospects for continuing to rely on air travel to meet the demand for movement between the centres to be served by the proposed link are poor. Airspace on the relevant corridors is already congested. There is no sign of resolution of the issue of whether a second Sydney airport can realistically be built in the Sydney basin. APTNSW concurs with the Premier of NSW that a high speed rail link to Canberra Airport offers a viable and less problematic solution (but, if ever built, the second Sydney airport should of course be served by HSR);
• The experience of flying has in recent years become more tedious than glamorous. A high proportion of travel time is taken up by waiting time at both ends, and security measures (while necessary) involve inconveniences and frustrations such as restrictions on the carrying of liquids;
• The EIS into the proposed second Sydney Airport calculated that in the order of 90% of Sydney-Canberra passengers would divert from air travel to rail travel if high speed rail were available (PPK).

Is it worth it?

Critics of the proposal are likely to attempt to sabotage it by railing against its cost, which is indeed considerable. To do so is however to ignore a central fact – very substantial sums will inevitably be spent to meet the transport needs of the growing east coast population over the next twenty to thirty years - If not on high-speed rail, then on airports and roads. Action for Public Transport submits that high-speed rail will prove more effective at meeting these needs than either of the alternatives.

The Phase 2 report finds that the cost-benefit ratio of the proposal is positive. This is especially significant as conventional cost–benefit analysis is notoriously biased against public transport investment, because it is unable properly to account for the negative externalities of road transport and the positive externalities of transit alternatives.¹ Consequently the benefits of the proposal and the costs of the alternatives (including doing nothing) are likely to be greatly understated.

The full potential of the line can only be realised by planning it as part of the public transport network of the three states it will eventually connect, with easy connections and feeder services thought through and provided for from the start. This will also increase its patronage and hence its financial performance.

Interoperability

This would mean in practice that we begin with a "faster train", and build gradually to a full high speed rail system.

Sensible strategies

It is evident that high–speed rail is a long-term project, with a significant lead-time. APTNSW would like to see this lead-time minimised, but is nonetheless pleased to see transport planning being undertaken with an eye to the future instead of to the past.

Given the long lead time and the possibility that the project could be undermined by inappropriate changes to land use, lack of co-ordination with other projects and the vagaries of funding availability, APTNSW urges that the project be supported by short- and medium-term actions.

Some strategies to be considered are:

• Identify the land required as a matter of priority;
• Work with all planning authorities to secure supportive land use controls;
• Acquire and reserve land for the route;
• Take a leaf from the book of road planners – develop plans to the point that they are “shovel-ready” as soon as possible. Funding for “shovel-ready” projects can unexpectedly become available in the event of economic downturns;
• Start work on easier stretches as soon as possible to physically demonstrate and garner support for the system. It may for example be advisable to build the section from Canberra towards Sydney rather than the other way round. Once the line reaches the existing Main South line and connects to it, possibly at Southern Highlands station or near Douglas Park, significant time reductions will have been achieved and the appetite for high-speed rail will have been whetted. Of course, this requires inter-operability as discussed above.
• Similarly, there may be synergies with projects such as the Victorian Regional Rail initiative. There is no obvious reason commencement of the section from Melbourne to Shepparton need wait until the part of the line that lies in NSW is complete.