Engineering, Environment and Sustainability, Passenger Rail, Safety, Standards & Regulation

Albo rips Greens’ ‘fantasy world’ transport policy

Anthony Albanese, ASA

The NSW election took place over a month ago, but it’s not too late for federal shadow transport and infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese to lampoon the Greens for their pre-election transport policy.

“One of the advantages of representing a minor political party is that because you aren’t trying to win government, you never have to deliver on your promises,” Albanese wrote in an op-ed for The Australian on Tuesday, which he later re-published on his own site.

“But that fact should not excuse politicians from minor parties from offering genuine, workable solutions to policy challenges facing the community.”

Prior to the election, the Greens proposed a plan which included shutting down the existing Kingsford Smith airport, cancelling development of the second airport at Badgerys Creek, and building a new airport outside the Sydney basin, connected to the city via a high speed rail line.

Albanese isn’t a fan.

“If this were put in place, Sydney would be the only global city without an airport,” he observed.

“It’s the stuff of fantasy. It has no place in the world of serious policy debate.”

Albanese said that individual, “realistic” Greens party members know the policy is not a practical one.

“Yet the policy remains and enables the party to campaign for zero impact of aviation activity anywhere,” the former deputy prime minister wrote, “despite the fact modern aviation is a driver of economic activity.”

Albanese accused the Greens of “giving up” on the decades-long debate surrounding Sydney’s aviation needs. He said that before opposing the existing plans for another airport at Badgerys Creek, the party opposed the proposal to build the airport at an alternative site.

“The Greens opposed Wilton, too,” Albanese recalled.

“In the light of this, their proposal to banish Sydney’s airport to an unnamed site and to link it to the city with a high-speed rail line cannot be taken seriously.

“The comprehensive study into the plan to build a high-speed rail line from Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra found that 67km of tunnelling in Sydney would be necessary for it to operate.

“It’s a serious project worthy of support. But, like any major infrastructure project, high-speed rail would affect communities along the route. Tunnels require ­exhausts. Construction creates ­inconvenience.

“Delivering high-speed rail, just like building the Badgerys Creek airport, will require explanation of the benefits and broad support across the political spectrum.

“Indeed, it is likely that the challenges of high-speed rail construction will create issues over a far wider area than the second airport.”

Albanese accused the Greens party of being more interested in exploiting local communities’ fear of change for political gain, than it is on acting on principle.

“Given the Greens’ record on opposing a second Sydney airport, opposing the Moorebank Intermodal – which will take freight off trucks and on to rail – as well as opposing safety upgrades to the Pacific Highway, it would be remarkable if they did not confect reasons to oppose high-speed rail in practice,” he pointed out.

“When it comes to economic infrastructure, the Greens are political opportunists.”

11 Comments

  1. Yes, quite true that high speed rail would affect communities along the route. For the better!

  2. No doubt, but a similar effect could be done by straightening out the existing line and allowing both passenger and freight trains to run faster between the capitals and rural areas.

  3. Well, it would create a barrier across the countryside which farm and local vehicles would have to navigate it would have to be fenced along its length with cutting edge barriers at crossings – getting hit by a train at 350Kph is somewhat painful. You would need, what, 50m reservation either side of the railway, and it would probably need to be routed through some beautiful countryside and a few national parks. Add to that many small regional towns could never justify the construction of a stop (and the deviation of the railway route) because stopping a high speed train for anything less than a few hundred additional passengers would probably cost more than the additional revenue, especially when you factor in the transit time penalty that each stop incurs.

  4. It is when you can cut 12 hours off the transit time. Trucks can commute between Sydney and Melbourne in 8-9 hours. I was reading that product by train takes 24 hours. Trains have to get close to the time of trucks to be competitive. Otherwise it will never claw anything more then the pittance it does now.

  5. A typical freight train takes 14 hours Melbourne- Sydney. An XPT takes 11.5 hrs – still slower than a truck. The existing track winds its way around hills and gullies. Straightening it really requires building whole new sections to “freeway” standards.

  6. Trains should just give up on Melbourne-Sydney. Unless the factory/warehouse is located in West Melbourne it’s going to have up to a 2 hour journey in the wrong direction to even get to a railhead, on top of the rail journey (which is actually 10-13 hours). Add to that the unreliability of rail compared to road on the linehaul AND that congestion issues affect the rail pick up and delivery component just as much as road haul, rail’s got an uphill battle. AND rail’s pricing structure is completely wrong compared to road’s, especially when you facvtor in that all rail containers are limited to weights that can be carried on road and this is all before higher productivity road vehicles are allowed to operate on the route.

  7. There isn’t that much congestion on the rail between Sydney and Melbourne. If there was there wouldn’t be room for 4 XPT passenger services a day. The problem is the steam age alignments that slow the trains down between Sydney and Junee. There needs to be a straighter alignment.

  8. That’s an expensive amount of work to cut some transit time off. As I said, with at least 2 hours pick up and delivery at each end, more if you count the train cut-off time, rail would need to be about 4-5 hours faster than road, as well as at least 98% reliable AND cheaper door to door. I think the transit time is of tertiary importance, at best. Sydney to Melbourne is probably a lost cause.
    And you completely misunderstood my comment regarding congestion – the congestion affects the pick-up and delivery component of the journey – the real congestion issues are on the urban and semi-urban arterial routes to the railheads – look at the westgate bridge in Melbourne, for example.

  9. Not at all because it would reduce travel times, get trucks off the road and with strategically placed intermodals could prove significantly cheaper then road haulage. The advantage of fixing the goat track is that it benefits freight as well as passenger services between Sydney, Canberra, Albury and Melbourne and so no need to spend $100billion on a hsr that can only take passengers. The cost is well worth it in this case as there is a huge upside for many industries that would benefit from a faster connection to ports by rail.