Rail makes the headlines, but road still wins out
The worldwide economic turmoil may be having some positive spin offs for rail as Governments look to provide financial stimuli for their ailing economies while at the same time, try to retain their environmental credentials - the latter often forgotten in times of crisis. Conversely, our obsession with the motor vehicle still sees these same Governments rushing to prop up financially and ethically bankrupt vehicle manufacturers.
Mark Carter
By Mark Carter
US President Obama’s mid-April announcement of a US$15 billion stimulus for his nation’s passenger rail network seems to be trying to combine the twin goals of nation building and environmental responsibility.
His administration has identified ten potential corridors that would benefit from upgrading to ‘high-speed’ standards. It should be noted that while Obama has drawn comparisons with European and Asian high speed rail networks - with the exception of the Californian corridor (which has yet to be built) - ‘high speed’ in the US means somewhere around 160 km/h with a bit of 240 km/h thrown in here and there; well short of current world 300km/h plus standards.
As it seems with all Government announcements, whether it is here or the US, they are long on rhetoric and short on detail. Obama’s announcement definitely signals a major policy shift for the US administration as to the potential benefits of rail, but it is hard to see much ‘bang for the buck’ resulting from the proposed investment.
Most of the corridors identified as potentially benefiting from this investment are shared (if not owned) by America’s privately own rail freight juggernauts. Although there are existing examples of cooperation between Amtrak and track owners to upgrade some shared trackage, by and large the track owners only begrudgingly provide access to passenger trains.
While they may stand to benefit from improved infrastructure as a result of this new initiative, there will be no doubt pro-passenger conditions imposed upon the receipt of any funding may remove some of the gloss for them.
Additionally when the high cost in relation construction and maintenance of heavy duty Class 1 US railroads is factored in, it becomes harder to see what real impact if any, US$15 billion is going to have on travel habits in the US.
In the UK the push for ‘nation building infrastructure projects’ has lead to increasing speculation that an announcement will be made well before the end of the year giving the go ahead for electrification of the Great Western and Midland trunk routes.
Along with the London Crossrail project which will commence next year, these would be the largest and most ambitious rail infrastructure projects to be undertaken since the UK rail network was privatised in the mid-1990s. The current cost of the long mooted Crossrail project, which will link existing rail infrastructure on either side of London, is estimated to be £17 billion, which definitely puts the scope of the proposed US investment into greater perspective.
So where does that leave us in Australia? The rail freight industry is already to benefit from a A$1 billion plus boost as a result of the Federal Government’s pre-Christmas stimulus package, and there has been anticipation that there is more to come.
It appears that we may be disappointed.
The leaked list of Infrastructure Australia funding indicates only one significant rail project - the A$840 million North Sydney Freight Line - looks like getting the nod.
There can be no denying the contribution this project will make in freeing up rail freight from a major constraint on the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane corridor, but the vast bulk of the infrastructure investment over the next five years will still go into roads.
Despite my criticism of the lack of detail in the US proposals and the fact that our economy would be unable to match the sheer scale of the proposed UK rail investments, it would have been a pleasant surprise to see something a little more visionary being announced.
The obsession with roads and our car culture is not confined to Australia, and globally they still take the number one spot when it comes to nation building and economic stimuli. The rail industry and the public transport sector in general should be justifiably miffed at the huge bailouts that are being handed out around the globe for the under-performing vehicle manufacturing sector.
The amounts involved, over $A6 billion here in Australia and potentially US$30 billion plus in the USA, are almost obscene and raise the question as to when is a subsidy not a subsidy?
There can be no denying that the vehicle manufacturing industry is a major component of the global economy, along with the significant flow-on employment. But it is becoming more and more apparent that when these manufacturing subsidies are factored in with hidden congestion costs, higher fuel prices and environmental concerns, the global car based culture is unsustainable in the longer term.
If you would like to make a comment, click here to register
