Greens call for a high speed rail link (3 Viewers)

Optimus Prime

Electric Beats
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
405
Location
Wherevr sentient beings are being mistreated
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Something like HSR shouldn't be measured in terms of a private company's projected NPV, because the social benefits will outweight the private benefits - meaning that government will need to take the initiative here.

This is about long-term nation-building vision and not simply short-sighted cost-benefit analysis. Our capital cities can't contain growing populations, and I think we can all agree that folks simply don't want to move out to satellite suburbs or city centres because of the time and poor transport infrastructure involved in the commute. Having an HSR system will go some way to resolving this.

Further, aviation is simply not sustainable, given its heavy reliance on fossil fuels. There is research in alternative biofuels, etc, but it's all progressing slowly. In the meantime, having more environmentally responsible options for transport, especially for short-haul trips, is the way forward.

Syd-Melb, for example, is such a busy air corridor - you can't argue that there's not enough demand. Ideally, a carbon pollution tax would also come into level the playing field for mass ground transport - it's another example of an externality, where social costs not being considered in private costs.
Holy fuck.

Fossil fuel power station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously. What is so understand about this?

Until we have widespread reform of how we produce power it's pointless.
 

Optimus Prime

Electric Beats
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
405
Location
Wherevr sentient beings are being mistreated
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
We should build an under sea super high speed rail link between Sydney and Los Angeles that is powered by nuclear rocket trains which are faster than aircraft.

Think how cool it would be, and it might save some carbon or something, idk.

COST IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE, THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION (BUILDING). Did I mention it sounds cool, and would put us AHEAD of other countries, who we are for some reason competing with to have more cool stuff.
Low pressure tunnels for increased speed is such a fucking cool concept, but yeah.
 

FlipX

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
65
Location
Narnia
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Until we have widespread reform of how we produce power it's pointless.
That's another conversation that needs to start, but it shouldn't be a reason to shoot down long-term, sustainable transport planning.

For powering HSR, electricity generation can at least be substituted in part by renewable sources; this is not quite the case for aviation. This also disregards energy-consumption intensity - HSR outstrips aviation in efficiency.
 

FlipX

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
65
Location
Narnia
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
it's not sustainable though unless power was reformed first.
But do you agree that it will at least be more sustainable? We're not talking absolutes here - just comparatively. I think that if we said, "No, it's not perfect" to every incremental improvement, then we wouldn't get very far.

Granted, there are lock-in costs for these sorts of infrastructure investments, but if better alternatives are waaay down the track, then waiting for those could be a moot point.
 

Calculon

Mohammed was a paedophile
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
1,743
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I'd still pay more for a more environmentally friendly option.

Flying short distances is irresponsible.
It costs like $1 to plant enough tree to offset your emissions vs billions of dollars for a govt funded train.

EDIT: You should just go places by boat in future.
 

bio_nut

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
874
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
It costs like $1 to plant enough tree to offset your emissions vs billions of dollars for a govt funded train.

EDIT: You should just go places by boat in future.
I know, I feel so guilty flying overseas :(
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
fuck

fuck this high speed rail fucking meme

ugh you're buying into the scam put forward by lowy and the rest so they don't have to pay truck drivers

uuuughhh
 

aussie-boy

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
610
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
270
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
We should build an under sea super high speed rail link between Sydney and Los Angeles that is powered by nuclear rocket trains which are faster than aircraft.

Think how cool it would be, and it might save some carbon or something, idk.

COST IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE, THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION (BUILDING). Did I mention it sounds cool, and would put us AHEAD of other countries, who we are for some reason competing with to have more cool stuff.
Nice strawman.
 

FlipX

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
65
Location
Narnia
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Nice reference graph - thanks for sharing.

It costs like $1 to plant enough tree to offset your emissions vs billions of dollars for a govt funded train.

EDIT: You should just go places by boat in future.
It costs $1 to plant a tree that will take years to mature and comes nowhere close to absorbing the amount of carbon emitted, per seat, by a flight. This is the danger with the current offsets - they are not only ineffective, but create the illusion that $1 is all you need to deal with the environmental consequences. A good case analogy is how the thorough recycling system in Japan has pacified people's guilt and they now use more packaging material than ever before.

An interesting aside: A research on consumer attitudes towards travel and the environment, conducted in Norway, showed that people were flexible about the method of travel but not the need for travel - and as such, faced with limited alternatives for international trips, many refused to forego flights even when they would substitute regional trips with trains. (Ref: "Canary in the coalmine: Norwegian attitudes towards climate change and extreme long-haul air travel to Aotearoa/New Zealand")

So obviously, long-haul travel will rely on aviation in the foreseeable future, and this is why research on fossil fuel substitutes is where money needs to go. In the meantime, if we are to be serious about tackling the pollution and fuel scarcity issues, then we need to look into real behavioural change rather than token spare change to buy off our consciences.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
HSR uses far less energy per passenger than air travel - a proven fact and not worth arguing about.
How Big Are the Environmental Benefits of High-Speed Rail? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com
High-Speed Rail and CO2 - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

1.The vast majority of corridor passengers are businesspeople/public servants. They don't choose how they travel, and their tickets cost a lot more than $50 (and are mainly contracted in bulk).
Citation required.

We do chose how we travel and speed is a big factor. If I'm doing a day-trip to Sydney or Melbourne for meetings do I really want my trip to take several hours longer? No. That inconveniences me, eats into my quality of life and costs my employer through overtime and reduced productivity.

2. When you think about CBD-Airport travel time, check-in, security, boarding procedures - and compare it to walking directly onto the train from the street, you're talking about time savings of1-2hrs
For business travel I usually walk into an airport about 15minutes before boarding. Gives me enough time to get screened and walk to the terminal.

And who is to say that HSR would not have airport-like levels of security? A bomb on HSR would seem devastatingly effective....
 
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
3,272
Location
The Pub
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
haha oh man this thread

comparing population density of se aust to japan and europe oh man u guys stop it
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Crunching the numbers for a hypothetical example of a 240mile HSR link between Houston and Dallas.

Edward L. Glaeser (an economics professor at Harvard) said:
Combining reduced carbon emissions, reduced congestion and reduced traffic mortality provides an extra $21.63 million worth of benefits a year from the rail line, which increases the $102 million benefit minus operating costs figure from last week to $124 million, which is still far less than the $648 million estimated cost per year of building and maintaining the infrastructure.

The environmental and mortality benefits of rail are real, but the magnitude of the social benefits from switching modes seems is quite small relative to the cost of the system.
How Big Are the Environmental Benefits of High-Speed Rail? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

And on the so-called environmental benefits:

freakonomics said:
Booz Allen considered two potential U.K. HSR lines (London-Manchester and London-Edinburgh/Glasgow). They found that the CO2 emissions required to move HSR passenger seats were about the same as those required to move automobile seats — hardly a slam dunk for rail. In fact, intercity bus came out considerably cleaner than HSR on a per-seat-mile basis.

HSR would emit less on a per-seat mile basis than air travel. But the major caveat is that all of these figures consider emissions from operations only, without taking into account the very large amount of pollution that will be created in the construction of the HSR system.

When the emissions spewed by all those earth movers, tunnel boring machines, bulldozers, trucks, cranes, etc. are taken into account, the carbon advantage for HSR vis a vis air travel largely evaporates.

What would the bottom line be if the proposed U.K. lines were built? It all depends on how many people shift from air to rail; the more HSR passengers the better. But the authors found that even if the mode split on the proposed London/Manchester line shifted from 50-50 air/rail (approximately the current distribution) to 100 percent rail ridership, emissions over a 60-year period would be lower if the HSR line was never built.
High-Speed Rail and CO2 - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
270
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
i enjoy the convinience of your point. you seem to completely ignore the associated costs of air travel. good one.
 

jennyfromdabloc

coked up sociopath
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
735
Location
The American Gardens Building
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
i enjoy the convinience of your point. you seem to completely ignore the associated costs of air travel. good one.
Read the article you stupid motherfucker.

The cost benefit analysis is based on the assumption that people switch from road and air travel, and it incorporates those benefits into the analysis.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
i enjoy the convinience of your point. you seem to completely ignore the associated costs of air travel. good one.
Read the bloody articles.

They look at a host of 'associated costs' including:
- Comparative carbon cost of cars, buses, trains and HSR
- Cost of car accidents
- Cost of traffic congestion
 

Optimus Prime

Electric Beats
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
405
Location
Wherevr sentient beings are being mistreated
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
its not that fucking complicated moving massive trains at high speed uses a lot of energy. TGV atlantique uses 13.2kWh per kilometer, and only carries about twice as many passengers as a 767 or 1.5 times that of an Airbus A330 (the planes that fly Sydney to melbourne)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top