High speed rail or internet?

Advertisement
imgres

Lot’s of press coverage today about high speed rail. From the SMH:

A high-speed train running down the east coast of Australia and then across to Melbourne would cost $114 billion to build but would eventually pay its way, carrying 84 million passengers a year.

After decades of debate, a landmark study commissioned by the federal government as part of a 2010 deal with the Greens has concluded the controversial project would be viable despite the massive cost, with a proposed route from Brisbane to Sydney and then inland to Melbourne, with connections to Canberra and the Gold Coast.

Reaching speeds of up to 350km/h, the rail link would allow passengers to travel from the centre of Melbourne to the heart of Sydney in under three hours.

But it would be expensive, with the section between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne costing $50 billion and Brisbane to Sydney $64 billion in today’s dollars.

The report, compiled by a group of seven economic and engineering consultants, has estimated the project would require 144 kilometres of tunnel, accounting for 29 per cent of the total cost.

Despite the cost, the report found the project would be viable, predicting it would generate enough revenue to meet the massive operating and capital costs without a continuing contribution from taxpayers. Overall, the economic benefits could be significant, with the study finding the project would produce benefits of $2.30 for every $1 invested.

It predicted that by 2065, the train could poach 40 per cent of inter-city air travel and 60 per cent of regional air travel, with an average of 83.6 million passengers a year expected to use it.

One question that does not appear to be asked anywhere is why?. I don’t claim to be expert on high speed rail but I can’t help wondering why we would bother? We have aeroplanes that are already faster and if it’s a capacity issue then it’d be a lot easier, cheaper and more efficient to build a few new airports. Perhaps it’s a carbon issue?

Advertisement

Even as stimulus it doesn’t seem a great idea. I can imagine just how specialised our manufacturing is in this area, not at all, so it’ll cause big spikes in imports as well.

I am in favour of renewed infrastructure spending to lend support to growth through the end of the mining boom but prima facie this looks like a gigantic white elephant (happy to be convinced otherwise).

The timing of it is politically backwards as well. Instead of capitalising on the Coalition’s half-arsed NBN, the country now has a new pie-in-the-sky idea to associate with the Labor projects, good and bad. Malcolm Turnbull will be pleased.

Advertisement
About the author
David Llewellyn-Smith is Chief Strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super. David is the founding publisher and editor of MacroBusiness and was the founding publisher and global economy editor of The Diplomat, the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics and economics portal. He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.