East Coast High Capacity. Corridors. A realistic pathway to very fast trains

Transcription

1 East Coast High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors A realistic pathway to very fast trains

2 Infrastructure Partnerships Australia 8th Floor 8-10 Loftus Street Sydney NSW 2000 T F Aecom Australia Pty Ltd Level Market Street Sydney NSW 2000 T F For more information please contact: Brendan Lyon Executive Director Infrastructure Partnerships Australia T E brendan.lyon@infrastructure.org.au Larry McGrath National Manager, Transport Infrastructure Partnerships Australia T E larry.mcgrath@infrastructure.org.au Philip Davies Director Strategic Planning and Advisory AECOM T E philip.davies@aecom.com David Adams Director Economics AECOM T E david.adams@aecom.com

3

4 CONTENTS Executive Summary 8 recommendations 12 The Authors 13 Infrastructure Partnerships Australia 13 AECOM Introduction Why preserve infrastructure corridors? Current approach to national infrastructure spending High capacity infrastructure corridor needed to meet growing demand An incremental approach to establishing the corridors Future high capacity infrastructure - The very fast train option Projected population Current infrastructure requirements and capacity constraints Meeting future transport needs Effective transport leads to productivity growth Limitations of existing systems Investment decisions impact on productivity and congestion Importance of government leadership Infrastructure Planning A National ApproaCH Infrastructure planning in Australia Demand building towards high-speed rail Towards a national infrastructure planning approach Corridor protection land designation and acquisition Connecting Australia The Case for High Speed Rail in the FuturE What is high speed rail? The role of high speed rail in delivering REGIONAL DEVELOPMent A little history Purpose of overseas high speed rail networks Governance Finance options Lessons learned Snapshots of current overseas VFT projects Developing a Realistic ScopE Preliminary engineering function Design and alignment 32

5 4.2.1 Engineering approach Design assumptions Entry to cities Operations Assumed route alignment Proposed implementation stages Indicative transit times Proposed corridor profile Constraints Technology, infrastructure and rolling stock Staging approach Economic Benefits Introduction Travel time benefits Decongestion benefits Wider economic benefits Savings in external costs Deferral of a second Sydney airport Land value increase from improvement in accessibility Value of options land acquisition cost savings Immediate versus staged corridor acquisition More efficient freight operation Tourism and business events Employment benefits Reducing reliance on fossil fuels Safety benefits National road pricing Economic impact on the aviation sector Environmental Constraints for Infrastructure Corridors Introduction Environmental FACTOrs Other considerations Corridor characteristics Environment risk management 59

6 Tables Table 1: PREDICTED VFT TRAVEL TIMES & PASSENGERS Table 2: COAG National Objectives and Criteria for Future Strategic Planning of Capital Cities 23 Table 3: POTENTIAL STATION LOCATIOns 35 Table 4: POSSIBLE Implementation Stages 35 Table 5: Indicative Route Transit Times 36 Table 6: Estimated City centre to City centre journey times 37 Table 7: Main competing modes and the mode shares for Table 8: Population growth per annum 42 Table 9: Mode shares for 2021 & 2051 Business as Usual ScenarIO 43 Table 10: Base and future scenarios travel time comparison for the competing modes 44 Table 11: Mode shift and travel time savings 46 Table 12: Travel time improvement in regional cities 50 Table 13: The key environmental issues associated with the introduction of the corridor 57 Table 14: Examples of mitigation measures 60 Figures Figure 1: Population Density Increases 2011 to 2051 and an indicative east coast High Speed Rail corridor 11 Figure 2: Gas and electricity infrastructure networks 15 Figure 3: Passenger carrying capacity comparison between transport modes 17 Figure 4: Breakdown of Benefits for high speed rail 18 Figure 5: Population increase along Australia s East coast 19 Figure 6: Population growth of capital cities vs. Australia total 19 Figure 7: Illustrative graphic of a potential corridor with shared infrastructure 24 Figure 8: Funding Sources: A scenario of possible funding sources in a u.s example 29 Figure 9: Indicative Infrastructure Corridor Route, showing potential La Trobe alignment 32 Figure 10: Potential Sydney to Sunshine coast corridor AND Potential Melbourne to Sydney corridor, showing assumed Albury alignment and potential La Trobe alignment 34 Figure 11: Australian east coast corridor AND recently completed French TGV route 38 Figure 12: USA east coast corridor AND Spanish high-speed corridors 38 Figure 13: Long distance market share model 45 Figure 14: Comparison of average external costs for rail versus other transport modes 48 Figure 15: Plot of unimproved land prices per square metre against travel time to CBD for Sydney, in 2009 values and prices 49 Figure 16: Figure 17: Comparison of unimproved land prices per square metre against travel time to CBD relationships for Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast (2009 values and prices) 50 comparison of unimproved land prices per square metre against travel time to CBD relationships for Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast (2009 values and prices) 50 Figure 18: Growth (% Change) in Unimproved Land Values per annum for the Key Coastal Towns and Cities 51 Figure 19: 2009 Unimproved Land Values per square metre 51 Figure 20: Break-even probability of Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne corridor options 52

7 Glossary abs arra ARTC ave cbd COag CRC Rail Innovation FIfa GDP HCI hsr IA ICE IPA NBN NSW Renfe rff SNCF tgv UIC V/Line vft australian Bureau of Statistics american Recovery and Reinvestment Act australian Rail Track Corporation atla Velocidad Espanola (Spanish High Speed Rail Train) central Business District council of Australian Governments co-operative Research Centre for Rail Innovation fedération Internationale de Football Association gross Domestic Product high Capacity Infrastructure high Speed Rail Infrastructure Australia Inter-City Express (German High Speed Rail service) Infrastructure Partnerships Australia national Broadband Network new South Wales spanish government s railway company réseau Ferré de France (French Rail Network) the French national railway train a Grande Vitesse (French High Speed Rail service) International Union of Railways victoria s regional rail service very fast train

8 8 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Executive Summary High speed rail has long been considered a possibility for the east coast of Australia, but to date this consideration has not resulted in concrete progression toward a network; or even consensus about a future network s route. Now, as Australia grapples with a debate about how it can best accommodate projected population growth and reduce carbon emissions, it is clear that High Speed Rail could offer a game change in the way we consider and plan for mobility, regional development and other social and economic outcomes. In this report, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA) and AECOM propose a new way of considering High Speed Rail on the east coast of Australia, through a long-term, realistic and pragmatic approach to nation building. High speed rail is primarily used for passenger transport and includes railways that operate at speeds greater than 200 kilometres per hour. Despite an absence of a standard definition for high speed rail, common characteristics of most high speed rail systems include: travel speeds greater than 200 km/h; purpose-built, continuous welded rail tracks to allow for greater speeds; the absence of at-grade pedestrian crossings; electric overhead lines used to drive the system; and the use of in-cab signalling. In recent times, operational high speed rail systems have attained routine travel speeds of greater than 300 km/h as technologies have advanced. For example, the TGV in France routinely achieves speeds of 320 km/h, while China s new system operates routinely at 350 km/h. TABLE 1 PREDICTED VFT TRAVEL TIMES & PASSENGERS Business as Usual Mode Split Brisbane - Sydney Air m m m m 2051 VFT 350km/h Mode Split Travel time 350km/h VFT Train m m 173 mins Brisbane Melbourne Air m m m m Train m m 353 mins Sydney Canberra Air m m m m Train m m 57 mins Sydney Melbourne Air m m m m Train m m 180 mins Gold Coast Sydney Air m m m m Train m m 146 mins Gold Coast Melbourne Air m m m m Train m m 326 mins

9 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 9 Analysis undertaken for this report on the proposed high speed rail corridor shows that at 350 km/h, an Australian High Speed Rail network would actively compete with air travel on the east coast. Table 1 shows predicted travel on key corridors both in a business as usual scenario to 2051, and with a proposed 350 km/h very fast train service. Under this scenario the Gold Coast would be only two-and-a-half hours by train from Sydney, Melbourne three hours from Sydney, and Sydney and Newcastle would be less than 40 minutes apart. This analysis shows that high speed rail becomes an attractive and competitive mode to air travel, significantly reducing the levels of carbon emissions and reducing demand on Australia s airports and making Very Fast Trains a viable proposition. High speed rail is also an important catalyst for regional development and renewal. In Europe, very fast rail has been associated with the economic and social recovery of a number of regional centres. Areas serviced by high speed rail generally have higher employment than other areas, varying in proportion to travel time savings. High Speed Rail may, for instance, present Australia with an opportunity to accommodate growth without the need for radical changes to density of capital cities and begin to answer some of our most challenging social issues, such as access to affordable housing. Initial analysis suggests that some sections of an east coast high speed rail network are likely to make economic sense now including a high speed rail connection between Sydney and its second airport but other segments of the full High Speed Rail network are not likely to become economic until many decades in the future, however further detailed study is required. This report also finds that action is required now to identify an entire East Coast network and preserve the infrastructure corridors for the next generation and beyond to be shared between services including High Speed Rail, energy, water and communications. The development of high capacity infrastructure corridors in Australia is essential to facilitate the movement of people and goods and the delivery of services, given the predicted population and density increases over the next four decades. It is imperative the Federal Government plays a pivotal role in meeting the challenges that this involves to preserve the corridors now, enabling Australia to develop and implement a long-term approach to infrastructure planning. Protecting these corridors now will mean that an east coast high speed rail network remains a realistic option for the future, even on the segments that do not yet make economic sense. Conversely, failure to protect the corridors now will increase their cost in the future and could put a complete network out of Australia s financial capacity. Under this scenario the Gold Coast would be only two-and-a-half hours by train from Sydney, Melbourne three hours from Sydney, and Sydney and Newcastle would be less than 40 minutes apart. Australia has the opportunity to learn from the historic planning mistakes experienced by nations that are well advanced in delivering high speed rail networks who face the twin pressure and expense of needing to acquire corridors concurrently with developing existing networks. International experience shows long-term planning of transport infrastructure has been the catalyst for higher standards of living and broader precinct and regional development improvements. The way forward for an Australian high speed rail network is incremental development, constructing sections where benefits are most readily available first. This staged corridor development would involve progressively building out from areas of higher population densities to provide initial benefit, ultimately creating inter-capital links. It is critical that this process is part of a unified, nationally coordinated plan for high speed rail. Some corridors, for example Sydney to Canberra or Newcastle, may lend themselves to short-term development. If high speed rail linked an existing airport such as Canberra or Williamstown, the need for a second Sydney airport could be deferred, saving up to $15 billion and significantly enhancing the economic case for the project. The report does not suggest we build a very fast train along the entire east coast immediately. IPA and AECOM consider that there is a very high probability that a new high speed rail link between the major capitals on Australia s eastern seaboard will be needed, but portions of the corridor may not be economically feasible for years or decades. However, recognising the need to link these areas with a high capacity infrastructure corridor is the first step; the next step involves examining how to get there in a realistic and appropriate way through reservation, acquisition and incremental implementation.

10 10 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors The approach set out in this report takes into account the social and economic dividends that could be delivered by high speed rail in terms of Australia s looming population growth and density in capital cities and regional and coastal growth centres; reduced travel times, housing choice, the impact on national productivity, standards of living and employment, and the transport-related problem of congestion affecting all transit and freight modes. The Federal Government is increasingly recognising its central role in meeting demand for infrastructure services. Under current arrangements, the Federal Government plays this role primarily by funding the project initiatives of state governments; but there are significant precedents for the Commonwealth to engage in an integrated, strategic planning approach. These include Infrastructure Australia s commissioning of national freight network and ports strategies, the national plan for health services and hospitals and the COAG agreement on developing strategic plans for all the capital cities. The COAG agreement is of particular relevance, in that it seeks to put in place long-term plans that integrate land use, infrastructure and transport, and cater for economic and population growth and demographic change. Figure 1 illustrates population growth scenarios for capital cities, their hinterlands, coastal regions, in the Canberra region, and inland and depicts an indicative corridor route that would be required to provide infrastructure services to cater for growth of this magnitude. The dotted line through the La Trobe valley indicates an alternative Canberra-Melbourne route through population centres in this region, however final route alignment would need to be the subject of further detailed studies. The compounding elements of congestion are evident as there are currently almost 1000 flights per week between Melbourne and Sydney, and the number will inevitably increase; other routes, such as Sydney to Canberra or southeast Queensland, are beginning to face similar pressures; and an ageing demographic is leading to greater population concentrations in regional and coastal locations, creating demand for better transport links to the major cities. These factors are occurring in the face of depleting oil supplies and growing concern about carbon emissions. A long-term approach, which begins to deliver improvement and tangible benefits in the medium term, is essential to overcome problems and constraints that are already evident and progressively becoming more acute. Such a nation building infrastructure planning approach will become increasingly more difficult to realise in the future as: Density of land use increases; Land values increase; Land use becomes more fragmented; Environmental standards tighten; and Community impacts on affected landowners increases over time through development. There are also less community impacts in securing corridors sooner rather than later. Related value capture development is also more likely to eventuate with trends towards industrial estates, higher density housing, and commercial property developments. Other economic benefits of very fast rail, including productivity gains, employment growth, sustainability dividends, regionalisation of industries, access to labour markets, land value uplift and growth in overall business capacity, have also been identified in this analysis. One freight train between Melbourne and Sydney replaces up to 150 semi-trailers and saves 45,000 litres of fuel and 130 tonnes of greenhouse gases, compared with road haulage. It also showed that in the event of a high probability of needing the corridor in the future for a very fast train network, it makes economic sense to reserve and subsequently acquire the entire corridor now rather than later. If there is a reasonable chance of needing a very fast train in the future specifically 86% in 2030 or 93% in 2050, as reflected in analysis for this report then the benefits of acquiring the entire corridor now exceed the costs in real terms. Specifically, this analysis shows that acquiring the land for a corridor between Melbourne and the Sunshine Coast in 2010 would cost around $13.7 billion. By 2030, this cost will have risen to $57 billion. Alternatively, governments could choose to acquire the corridor segmentally, based on where the network could be rolled out first. High speed rail proposals have been proposed over the years, however the work undertaken by IPA and AECOM in assessing a very fast train route along the east coast shows that Australia s increasing population and growing economy would greatly benefit from the establishment of such a system. In this report, we propose a realistic approach to achieving this, through corridor reservation and incremental development of the network radiating from the capital cities. Funding such a project would be costly, but it is by no means impossible. Recent research by IPA on a national road pricing scheme showed that the introduction of such a system could be used to fund new nation building infrastructure which reduced dependency on motor vehicles, and under that scenario, a very fast train could be a potential beneficiary of funding. The most successful regional renewal programs in Europe involving high speed rail have benefitted from cooperative planning and investment, as well as the use of public-private partnerships. This report answers the call for a real national debate about the role of high speed rail and includes a realistic, feasible pathway to having a very fast train on the east coast of Australia.

11 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 11 Figure 1 Population Density Increases 2011 to 2051 and an indicative east coast High Speed Rail corridor Population Density 2011 Population Density 2051 Population Density ,000 1,000-4,000 4,000 + Proposed HSR Corridor Areas of significant population density increase

12 12 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors THE WAY FORWARD recommendations This report has identified a realistic and pragmatic approach toward establishing a shared high capacity infrastructure corridor for the east coast of Australia. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and AECOM believe the time is ripe for a considered debate on how Australia anticipates meeting the infrastructure needs of a growing population in the time towards High speed rail has a role to play in Australia, although it may not be feasible for some time. However, recognising that it will be required to cater for future demand means there is an opportunity to act now to protect a corridor along which it can run, and ensure we do not preclude its future development. This report recommends embarking on six critical phases towards planning, future-proofing and developing Australia s infrastructure on the eastern seaboard to cater for both transport and utility services: 1 Undertake a detailed corridor profile and implementation study to identify and protect a high capacity infrastructure corridor between the Sunshine Coast and Melbourne, to future-proof Australia s infrastructure capacity on the eastern seaboard. Protecting a high capacity infrastructure corridor between the Sunshine Coast and Melbourne will require concerted action by the Federal Government and a high level of cooperation with state and local governments. A key outcome of this process should be an improved process of infrastructure corridor planning which will facilitate a nationally consistent approach to planning, assessment, funding and implementing Australia s infrastructure. 2 Ensure the corridor is suitable for high speed rail. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and AECOM have recognised that the east coast of Australia will, in all likelihood, require a new high speed rail corridor over the coming decades. We recommend the infrastructure corridor be future-proofed to ensure its suitability for high speed rail, that is, have very low curvature. It should also facilitate other utilities, including road, energy, data and communications, sharing the corridor. 3 Commit to a firm timeline for the procurement of the first economically feasible segment of a future network. After undertaking corridor and economic analysis indicating that the project will deliver benefits, the Federal Government should commit to a timeline to procure and construct the first economically viable part of the east coast network, to provide certainty to industry and the community that high speed rail is part of Australia s future. 4 Reserve the corridor, and target capital expenditure towards incremental improvement. The plan set out in this report is to target capital expenditure in ways that produce incremental benefits, rather than deferring benefits until all capital has been spent. In addition to improving the present value of benefits, this approach will increase confidence in the expenditure program. It will also enable the program to be modified in the light of experience and changing circumstances and technology. Acquiring the corridor will have substantial costs, however not acquiring the corridor will be far more expensive in the long term. 5 Spend when feasible in line with a long-term vision for infrastructure corridors, integrated with other policies. Having a long-term vision to develop infrastructure corridors enables governments to tailor spending to suit fiscal circumstances. For example, in times of budget surplus, governments could invest in straightening alignments. Conversely, should there be a case for government-funded stimulus, then governments could spend on portions of infrastructure. In essence, the infrastructure plan for Australia s east coast is defined in principle in the Council of Australian Governments strategic planning criteria for capital cities, agreed in December Prepare an integrated infrastructure plan for Australia s east coast. Establishment of the COAG Cities Planning Taskforce, the requirement for all states to have capital city plans by the beginning of 2012 and the national freight network and ports strategies being prepared for Infrastructure Australia are a positive start for future national infrastructure planning. The most advantageous process towards developing high capacity infrastructure corridors is to link it with the planning in progress under COAG and Infrastructure Australia. The next step clearly is to mould those plans into a long-term nation building infrastructure strategy.

13 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 13 The Authors Infrastructure Partnerships Australia Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA) is the nation s peak infrastructure organisation. Its membership comprises Australia s most senior business leaders and public sector executives from across the infrastructure sector. IPA is the only body that brings together the public and private sectors in a spirit of partnership, to build Australia together. Infrastructure is the lifeblood of the national economy. It is the key to how Australia does business, how we compete in the global economy and how we sustain the quality of life of a growing population. IPA s mission is to develop and articulate the best public policy solutions needed to deliver the assets and services that will secure Australia s productivity and prosperity. IPA is committed to ensure that governments retain all procurement options for the delivery of infrastructure, and believes procurement models must be selected case by case, with a guiding principle of sustainably delivering better value, better quality infrastructure. IPA has long been interested in the potential transformational affect of a very fast train in Australia the key is how to develop such a network in a realistic, affordable and economically sustainable way. This report sets out this vision. AECOM AECOM is a global, professional technical, design and consulting services provider to the infrastructure, environmental, energy and resources, water and government markets. With more than 47,000 employees around the world and 3400 in Australia, AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation, and technical excellence in delivering solutions that enhance and sustain the world s built, natural, and social environments. AECOM delivers comprehensive services over the full life cycle of an infrastructure project to benefit the government and private industry clients that it serves. It has a genuine appreciation and understanding of the operating structures and business needs of the transportation industry. AECOM s transportation professionals are constantly looking for more acceptable, safer and sustainable ways to move people across cities, countries and continents. AECOM also has substantial expertise in high-speed rail projects across the world. The text box in this page lists some of AECOM s past work on very fast train projects. AECOM & High Speed Rail Portugal s RAVE AECOM was commissioned by the Portuguese High Speed Rail Authority, RAVE, to develop a model of availability and asset performance related penalties, CAPEX and OPEX forecasts related to the maintenance strategy and organisation structure, staffing buildings and necessary plant, of the asset for the duration of the operations period France s TGV AECOM undertook a technical review of the traffic advisor s traffic and revenue forecasting model. AECOM analysed the historic growths and market share of the existing TGV services, including looking at mode shares of high speed trains in the rest of France. Taiwan s High Speed Rail AECOM was commissioned by the Bilfinger-Berger / Continental Engineering Corporation joint venture to carry out the design and detailing of seismic resistant viaducts for the Contracts C260 & C270, which forms part of the 345km long Taiwan High Speed Rail Project. UK HS2 Project AECOM was appointed to assess the potential benefits and cost to the Manchester region of extending the HSR network to the North of England and beyond. South Africa s Gautrain AECOM was appointed the traffic advisor, assisting in auditing the consortium s demand and revenue forecasts for the bid to understand the traffic and revenue risks before a commitment was made to underwrite loans to the concessionaire. SPAIN S AVE AECOM (INOCSA) has developed the Railway Construction Project for Subsection La Sagrera-Trinidad Junction, from the Madrid-Barcelona-French Border Section, and is now dealing with the control and surveillance of the planned works. The works take place in Barcelona s city centre, this being a 5.2 km long section. These very complex works include the construction of the railway platform, the reinstallation of the present lines, as well as the replacement of Sant Andreu Station and all the provisional situations needed to keep the rail traffic moving.

14 14 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Why preserve infrastructure corridors? Urban development in eastern Australia is concentrated along the coast, creating congestion and imposing constraints on productivity, employment and the nation s overall economic performance. Very fast trains will be needed for the future transport of passengers and freight. There is a compelling case to provide for future options by preserving civil ready corridors now: acquisition is cheaper now than later; benefits are gained from the creation of shared infrastructure corridors; and there is scope for incremental improvements in capacity. Preserving an infrastructure corridor means that development that would preclude future infrastructure from occurring on that land is not permitted. This saves money in the long-term, and often with very little upfront costs. There is also less by way of community impacts in securing corridors sooner rather than later. Related value capture development is also more likely to eventuate with the trends towards industrial estates, higher density housing, and commercial property developments. Australia is in a position to learn from other countries that are developing high-speed rail but face a substantial expense to acquire the corridors. At present, planning in Australia is confined to upgrading existing corridors, rather than taking a more strategic approach to cater for longer-term requirements. A coordinated, longer-term view would support the metropolitan planning principles established by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and a recent Senate committee report on transport. This report aims to trigger a generational change in Australian infrastructure policy and planning to meet the nation s future needs in circumstances that take into account population growth and demographic change. An essential pre-requisite is to define land corridors for infrastructure to meet changing demands from an economic, social and environmental perspective, with the ultimate aim of facilitating the development of high speed rail for both passenger and freight transport on the east coast from Melbourne to Brisbane. While building a very fast train tomorrow from Melbourne to Brisbane would be desirable, it may not be feasible for years or decades. This report instead advocates an evidencebased scenario for long-term infrastructure planning and its incremental implementation over the decades ahead in line with demonstrated demand. A long-term approach, which begins to deliver improvement and tangible benefits in the medium term, is essential to overcome problems and constraints that are already evident and progressively becoming more acute. The report therefore presents a vision that over time will transform the way we connect utility services, and move people and freight. It seeks a commitment to true nation building, encompassing a fundamental requirement for effective infrastructure development: corridor preservation. It will require a national approach that first identifies and preserves appropriate corridor networks in the east coast capital cities and ultimately connecting the major east coast population centres while aligning to other projects in Australia. An integrated approach to critical infrastructure corridors state-tostate, region-to-region, requires long-term vision and governance. As is the situation in many developed countries, Australia s existing corridors are short on capacity. Nationally, domestic freight movement doubled to 521 billion tonne kilometres over the 20 years to 2007, and analysis undertaken by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia estimated that freight volumes will triple over the period to 2050, increasing to 1540 tonne kilometres per annum 1. Rising freight volumes coincide with congestion reaching critical levels on rail systems in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, on metropolitan roads and in the principal air corridors. High capacity infrastructure corridors will pave the way for incremental improvement in rail infrastructure in line with demand to cater for passengers and freight movement at progressively faster speeds, leading to the introduction of high speed rail and potentially very fast trains. However, the corridors offer the advantage that they would also provide for the delivery of a wide range of other services electricity and gas, water, and communication and data links, potentially incorporating the National Broadband Network (see Figure 2). Australia would not be alone in this approach the United States is engaged in a similar discussion, and although our horizon spans decades into the future, the time to plan is now in order that Australia has the basis to improve its performance at least at the pace of its international peers for it to remain a cohesive, highly functional society and an innovative, competitive economy, and to protect its environmental values. While the world continues to restore a balance in the wake of the financial crisis, it is as an ideal opportunity to begin at the most fundamental level to establish a sound basis upon which to build the nation s long-term wellbeing and prosperity. This analysis builds a compelling case for a high capacity infrastructure corridor extending from Brisbane to Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne and outwards to regional centres in the hinterlands of these major cities. On the issue of sustainability, rail already offers a competitive advantage for both passenger and long-distance freight transport although at present the standard of the transport network constrains its capability to deliver. Planning and incremental improvement, enabling rail to operate at higher speeds and to serve 1 IPA (2009) Meeting the 2050 Freight Challenge

15 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 15 more people and move freight more efficiently, will alleviate these constraints. Key forces are coming into effect that will make fast rail highly probable. These include road congestion and the associated increase in travel times and costs, rising land values and competition for land use, and environmental considerations, in particular the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, metro rail systems will be required before the middle of the century to move people around urban conurbations and to encourage increased density. Safety is another major driver for increased rail development. The most advantageous solution involves a nation building commitment to future-proofing national corridors as the central element of a strategic plan for an integrated infrastructure network connecting the high population concentrations across Australia s east coast. These corridors must have a gentle curvature, and be of a gradient shallow enough to allow the development of very fast trains as they become economically viable. Figure 2 Gas and electricity infrastructure networks Population Density 2011 Infrastructure ,000 1,000-4,000 4,000 + Proposed HSR Corridor Electricity Transmission Lines Gas Pipelines

16 16 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors The best value for money can be achieved by acting quickly, as identifying and protecting infrastructure corridors for progressive future development will be easier and cheaper now than when demand makes them essential. Advance action to protect the corridors will make it easier to improve the transport infrastructure in accordance with demonstrated demand. Governments, on their own account or in partnership with the private sector, will then be able to explore the range of funding sources and stage development in line with their fiscal and policy priorities. An appropriate mechanism for this process is already in place with the Council of Australian Governments move towards establishing strategic plans for the nation s capital cities and Infrastructure Australia s commissioning of national freight network and ports strategies. Various recommendations from the Senate Reference Committee of August 2009 also support this report s approach. Shanghai metro developments, similar to European models, have mandatory approval principles within project developments where regional and precinct factors of access, mobility, public space ratios and mixed-use community facilities are based on the size of the proposed developments. The social, economic and environmental factors forecast to impact on Australian cities in the future, as well as resource constraints, must not be taken complacently. All must be addressed in city and national planning where transport is the foundation for a vibrant economy and community wellbeing, and with an eye on future requirements. The east coast of Australia, including the cities of Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and the associated Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Hunter, Southern Highlands, Geelong & Ballarat regions, account for the majority of Australia s gross domestic product, up to 75% of all employment, and 63% of the economic activity, and houses 60% of the population, as well as bearing most of the national congestion concern. 1.2 Current approach to national infrastructure spending Historically, infrastructure planning has been influenced primarily at a state government level, with projects designed to meet narrowly defined needs. Beyond the National Broadband Network, there have been few examples of federally instigated substantial nation building projects. The establishment of Infrastructure Australia in 2008 to advise the Federal Government on investment in infrastructure of national importance is tacit acknowledgment of this gap. Spending allocated from the Building Australia Fund in , excluding the National Broadband Network and the Building the Education Revolution program, included $4.6 billion for metropolitan rail projects, $4.5 billion for the Clean Energy Initiative, $3.4 billion for roads and $389 million for ports and freight infrastructure. A number of recent developments have led to the Federal Government taking a more coordinated, strategic approach to national investment being taken in respect of both infrastructure and services. These include Infrastructure Australia s commissioning of national freight network and ports strategies, the national plan for health services and hospitals to which $3.2 billion was allocated for and the COAG agreement on developing strategic plans for all the capital cities. The COAG agreement is of particular relevance in that it seeks to put in place long-term plans that integrate land use, infrastructure and transport, and cater for economic and population growth and demographic change High capacity infrastructure corridor needed to meet growing demand Australia s rapidly burgeoning major cities contribute 80 per cent of GDP, but the cost of avoidable transport congestion $9.4 billion in 2005, projected to be $20.4 billion in 2020 and upwards of $80 billion in 2050 will act as a barrier to future growth and improvements in productivity. However, infrastructure development would more than counter this cost. According to the Productivity Commission, efficiencies in transport and energy infrastructure alone would contribute a 2 per cent increase in GDP, not counting the benefits of a coordinated east coast infrastructure capital program. Efficiently connecting capital cities and major centres has major economic benefits. These include better access to labour markets, growth in productive capability of the region, and a growth in overall business capability. Recognising the need to address existing infrastructure shortcomings, the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) will invest $2.1 billion to 2014 to upgrade the north south freight corridor between Brisbane and Melbourne, the Hunter Valley coal rail network and the east west corridor between Sydney and Whyalla. It is also preparing an inland rail alignment study looking at the potential for an inland rail corridor from Brisbane to Melbourne. This builds on work from 2005 involving expenditure of more than $4 billion, which included projects to reduce transit times and lift performance on the main Sydney Melbourne line and upgrade the rail corridor, provide new track and infrastructure within Melbourne, and rehabilitate and expand infrastructure and upgrade the track and signalling systems on the Sydney Brisbane line. Population growth and demographic change, in particular the rising populations of regional centres within commuting range of the capitals and of coastal regions, are primary drivers for future infrastructure planning. Australia s population is forecast to reach 26.7 million by 2026 and 36 million by By 2050, major cities will accommodate three-quarters of the nation s population. The transport requirements of the workforce and an ageing of the population over 65s are forecast to comprise 23 per cent of the population in 2050, compared with 13 per cent at present will create successive waves of demand for faster and more efficient rail services. 1.3 An incremental approach to establishing the corridors The aim of a coordinated national transport infrastructure plan for the east coast would be to improve current corridors while preserving future corridors. The staged improvement of rail corridors would involve progressively building out from areas of higher population

17 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 17 From a transport perspective, it represents highly efficient land use in that a train line can move 30,000 to 40,000 people an hour, while a freeway lane moves only 2500 people an hour. densities to provide initial benefit, ultimately creating inter-capital links. This would establish the basis for the introduction of highspeed rail, but each part of the east coast network would need to be part of a coordinated plan. Establishing mandatory planning guidelines for prioritised corridors where funding submissions must meet adherence to criteria that reflects construction or interim use of the corridor should be a priority. Interim use may also include construction that may augment high-speed rail. This approach may alleviate the need for a second Sydney airport, by potential linking existing airports to Sydney, such as: Williamstown (Newcastle Sydney corridor) Southern Highlands or Canberra (Sydney Canberra corridor) Richmond (Western Expressway corridor) Rising population densities across the east coast will need to be linked by linear infrastructure to meet their future requirements. Preserving the corridors now would alleviate rising land values, particularly around growth centres, and intensifying competition for land use. This has the significant advantage of offering the option to share the high capacity, civil ready infrastructure corridor with other infrastructure energy, gas, water, and communication and data links. From a transport perspective, it represents highly efficient land use in that a train line can move 30,000 to 40,000 people an hour, while a freeway lane moves only 2500 people an hour. For freight movement, a 1500 metre train, the maximum within the capacity of the present interstate lines between Brisbane and Melbourne, can carry as much freight as 100 semi-trailers. High capacity infrastructure corridors offer more benefits in their impact on congestion, travel times and safety than is acknowledged in conventional transport appraisals. They include: Travel time savings for existing rail users and travellers changing mode; A decrease in the social, environmental and safety impacts of road travel; and Congestion relief on roads and at airports, improved accessibility, and freight efficiency improvements. Corridor protection at the earliest possible stage allows planners to deliver infrastructure more cheaply in the future and lock in these benefits more effectively including: Access to lower land prices; Creating housing affordability and choice by opening up regions served by reduced travel times. Figure 3 Passenger carrying capacity comparison between transport modes WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MOVE 1,000 PEOPLE? 250-1,000 CARS 20 BUSES 1 TRAIN (8 CARRIAGES)

18 18 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors The development of a major infrastructure corridor along the east coast of Australia may generate economic benefits for regional areas. Although travel time savings will be valued by existing rail users, there will also be benefits to residents and businesses along the corridor that may not use a high speed rail service. Non-user benefits may potentially include a fall in the environmental and safety impacts of air and road travel as people switch to rail, as well as congestion relief on roads and at airports, improved accessibility, freight efficiency improvements, wider economic benefits and increases in land values. A breakdown of the benefits is illustrated in Figure 4. Housing affordability is one of the factors attracting more people to move to cities like Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat in Victoria, Newcastle, the Hunter region and Wollongong in NSW, and the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast regions in Queensland, necessitating better transport connections to our capital cities. These centres offer a more affordable housing choice for many people who commute to jobs in the capitals as well as those taking advantage of an expanded local employment base. They are also becoming a significant base for older people taking advantage of an improved lifestyle and more ready access to basic services, often referred to as a sea change or a tree change. The shift to the regional centres to some extent eases development pressure in the capitals. Figure 4 Breakdown of Benefits for high speed rail 26% 2% HSR Stage km/h 34% In adopting an incremental approach to reserving infrastructure corridors, it is generally cheaper to preserve the corridor earlier rather than later because: Density of land use increases; Land values increase; Land use becomes more fragmented; Environmental standards tighten; and Community impacts on affected landowners increases over time through development. 1.4 Future high capacity infrastructure - The very fast train option The cost of construction and operation is a major factor in high speed rail development. Existing very fast trains have required substantial public funding, but this investment has been offset by the service and broader benefits they provide. The US in recent times has created a government bond scheme through a public referendum to raise capital for the designated planning and implementation of high speed rail corridors. There is significant scope for the sharing of infrastructure corridors. Presently, linear infrastructure providers in the areas of electricity transmission, gas, water, communications and transport often manage their corridors separately. That said, there is a long history of sharing of corridors for roads, electricity distribution, telecommunications and communications cables. Increasing population densities and the consequent rise in land prices make a compelling case to share corridors, especially along the east coast. Governments, primarily state governments, have preserved transport corridors and gained some land use appreciation by leasing sections of the preservation. However more infrastructure corridors need to preserved, with detailed planning required and realistic implementation phased and considered. 2% 17% 21% Given the approach is incremental; parts of the corridor could be implemented before other parts had been fully acquired. The key, in our recommendation however, is that the corridor be preserved now. 19% 11% HSR Stage km/h 21% Preserving these corridors must consider the civil readiness factors of HSR specifications as minimum. These technical geographic and topographic elements that must be addressed assuring HSR civil readiness, are reducing minimum requirements as the technology of motive power, structure and subsequently weight of HSR rolling stock, and the number of motors per car affecting efficiencies for steeper terrain on routes for HSR. 16% Unimproved Land Value Increase Travel Time Savings Reduction in External Costs Road De congestion 33% Wider Economic Benefits The corridor preservation phase may take up to two years and must also include environmental, urbanisation and growth factors and commence to capture elements feeding into the detailed planning phase that can take up to 15 to 20 years which is the experience in the US. This phase could be reduced in time for the regional spine networks that would eventually link into the consolidated East Coast HSR corridor.

19 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 19 Figure 5 Population increase along Australia s East coast Sunshine Coast Brisbane YEAR Gold Coast Casino Ballina Grafton Coffs Harbour Port Macquarie Taree POPULATION Newcastle Gosford Sydney Wollongong 10,000 50,000 1,000,000 Geelong Albury Latrobe Valley Canberra 100,000 Melbourne 500,000 2,000, Projected population Australians are choosing to live along the coast in growing numbers. This demographic trend will continue in the long-term and increase demand for connecting households with energy, water, communications and providing better access to employment and services. Having high-capacity, high-speed transport connections are essential to allow a wider choice of places to live. It also enables people to live in more affordable locations, rather than having to live close to their place of work. Australia s population is forecast to reach 26.7 million by 2026 and could be as high as 36 million by Demographic change will see three-quarters of the nation s workforce and of its total population living in major cities in that time. The cities will face overwhelming, but avoidable, congestion problems. The cost of avoidable congestion was put at $9.4 billion in It is expected to multiply to $20.4 billion in 2020 and more than $80 billion in Figure 6 Population growth of capital cities vs. Australia total Source ABS 2008b. Medium growth assumptions (series B) People (million) Figure 5 presents a model of which the primary focus is to illustrate projected growth on Australia s eastern seaboard. Cities in the future will face significant congestion problems that will impose an estimated cost of $80 billion a year by 2050 in the absence of effective infrastructure development. Figure 6 underlines this situation, showing median population growth assumptions for the capitals and Australia as a whole from 2008 to Capital cities Australia total

20 20 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 1.6 Current infrastructure requirements and capacity constraints Australia s east coast requires an integrated infrastructure corridor for the sharing of services, in particular transport, which must take into account: Population density and growth in the major cities, and creating increasing density in regional centres surrounding the capitals and in coastal regions; Increasingly congested air corridors, roads, ports, regional rail freight and passenger metropolitan lines; City housing choice, housing affordability, and location; The sea change and tree change phenomena as more people move from larger urban areas to the coast and inland rural areas, and the impact of an ageing population; A long-term move towards lower fossil-fuel based transport modes; Limited airport and air corridor capacity to cater for additional transport demand; The need for efficient public transport connectivity in urban and regional areas and linking them; Congestion of infrastructure service corridors within and between cities to service electrical, gas, water, communications and other services such as the in-progress National Broadband Network; and That major cities contribute nearly 80 per cent of the national Gross Domestic Product, 75 per cent of Australia s employment and are the principal locations for 70 per cent of all business. Unless congestion is addressed, productivity will be constrained in the future. Much of the infrastructure recently constructed in Australia is world-class. However, current transport infrastructure is straining to provide sufficient capacity for people in and around cities, as attested by the daily experiences of commuters in Sydney and Melbourne in particular. It must be recognised that rapid transit yields a more efficient use of land space than cars. Rail is the most efficient use of land transport corridors, however the speed of rail needs to be increased to make it a preferred choice of travel. 1.7 Meeting future transport needs Effective transport leads to productivity growth The development of very fast train services in Europe and Asia has resulted in enhanced accessibility between regions, growth in regional centres and the decentralisation of employment growth, as well as increasing property values. The situation contrasts with Australia where regional rail lines servicing Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are not up to standard, roads are at capacity during the peak periods, with the creep of shoulder peaks continuing to exacerbate the problem. This issue affects both freight movement to already congested ports and airports, and rail, and road traffic within already congested CBDs. The forecast tripling in Australia s freight task will escalate infrastructure utilisation and constraints within existing transport corridors, requiring planning and development to cater for demand and achieve greater efficiency and productivity. Increasing travel times, resulting in delays and higher transport costs, act as a constraint on productivity. A recent Productivity Commission report indicates that increases in the efficiencies of energy and transport infrastructure have potential to yield a GDP increase of 2 per cent Limitations of existing systems More public transport does not automatically result in greater customer satisfaction, and in fact an increase in supply will not automatically lead to a corresponding increase in demand and satisfaction 2. Frequency of services is an important factor, but public transport advocates such as the Melbourne Public Transport Users Association rank reliability and speed as equal considerations among commuters. Metropolitan rail operations, primarily heavy rail, are constrained by shared junctions, mixed traffic, entropic technology and subsequent upgrade and interface issues, and operate at the lowest optimal speed. External factors are reducing the opportunities for state governments to improve services. These factors include freight running, various braking curves, outmoded signalling, reliability measures related to poor timetable specification, risk aversion of public and government expectations, and land corridor capture. NSW s RailCorp has spent years developing and building a clearways program that allows for clear sectors on the rail network, but it still runs trains in peak hour at an average of 37 km/h with some trains at 150 per cent crowding for 80 per cent of the journey 3. The common experience of rail passengers within Melbourne of delays and lengthening travel times contrasts with the V/Line service from Southern Cross station to Geelong, which operates at an average speed of 97 km/h over the route distance of 75 km. The journey time of 46 minutes is extremely acceptable and linked directly to the regional liveability of the Geelong region and satisfaction levels with the rail service. Similarly, Perth s Mandurah service operates over an equivalent distance of 70 km at a speed of 86 km/h. As with the Melbourne Geelong line, the new Perth line is proving a government and regional success. Notably this line runs through the median of a road corridor. Sydney s intercity rail fleet serving Kiama, Lithgow, Wyong, Gosford and Newcastle has average speeds of 48 to 65 km/h, much lower than the 115 km/h maximum speed capability of RailCorp s CityRail rolling stock. Dedicated sections to higher rail speeds and more frequent services are the keys to congestion relief and would create a modal choice that will not become apparent until services move to higher speeds and compete with other modes such as cars. Progress is being made toward building the infrastructure spines, but a broader, integrated strategy is essential to capitalise on the benefits. Even if people can be encouraged to live and work in outlying or regional centres, unless the coverage and capacity of the transport network is increased, this will cause overcrowding on public transport and congestion on the roads. 2 The Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No.4, Compendium of Cityrail Travel Statistics, seventh edition, July 2010.

21 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 21 Efficient rail is the lowest cost transport mode on all inter-capital corridors for long-distance haulage of freight. Therefore, any initiative that reduces rail operating costs and encourages the transfer of freight from road to rail will improve the productivity of the transport sector and sectors that rely on transport. Given the critical role that land transport plays in moving freight to and from ports, and therefore in Australia s international competitiveness, achieving a substantial modal shift from road to rail for long-distance freight haulage will provide major economic benefits Investment decisions impact on productivity and congestion Historically, there has been significant underinvestment in rail freight infrastructure 4. Over the last several decades, road expenditure has accounted for approximately 70 per cent of Australia s infrastructure spending, with the remaining 30 per cent divided between rail and ports. Between 1974 and 2004 the Commonwealth invested $58 billion on roads and only $2.2 billion on the rail freight network. Freight transported by rail uses one-third the fuel required for road transport per tonne of freight, and produces only one-third of the nitrous oxide, half the volatile organic compounds and less than two-thirds of the carbon monoxide. The Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation found that for freight transport, the social and environmental costs of transport by road are approximately five times those for transport by rail. Road transport currently dominates in Australia. Trucks transport almost 90 per cent of the freight between Sydney and Melbourne and 76 per cent between Sydney and Brisbane. On the Sydney to Melbourne haul, this requires the movement of some 3000 trucks a day. 1.8 Importance of government leadership Major infrastructure projects require political leadership and backing to eliminate or manage the risks of procurement, planning, and funding. It is incumbent upon governments to provide clarity by defining rules for approving and funding projects as well as providing predictability for the scale of the longer-term funding. Governments must therefore become involved in the promotion of policy and planning towards desirable outcomes and give infrastructure long-term political support for city and regional populations to understand the legitimacy of transport policy and project implementation. There is evidence of a correlation between the strength of the political control and sponsorship of projects and their eventual success. According to a 2010 KPMG report, the United Kingdom Government was decisive in committing to the Docklands Light Rail network, and the French Government likewise had a strong role in defining the capital investment priorities of the Paris Metro. Project success is most likely where political control and sponsorship was high and there was a high level of integrated authority. It was lowest in the cities and regions where there was little central control and planning. National governments need to provide certainty about the required process for infrastructure development to secure funding for projects that meet their criteria. Centralisation of funding also seems to force stronger accountability on project delivery authorities, and ensure funding programs extend beyond election cycles. Well-planned cities are central to the nation's continued economic growth and to the wellbeing of local communities. In fact, few areas of public policy have the potential to improve the day-today lives of Australians as better urban policy. Australians will undoubtedly become wealthier on average in the years to come but whether or not their lives become easier and more enjoyable as a result will depend largely on how urban life is structured. The eventual development of a national urban policy through the Council of Australian Governments follows this rationale. The policy must be about creating cities that are more productive and globally competitive, more liveable, and more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. It is providing a spatial perspective on the major issues facing Australia: housing, transport, infrastructure, water, climate change, health, education and social policy generally. And the state and territory jurisdictions are readily cooperating on better urban planning through COAG. The establishment of the COAG Planning Taskforce and the December 2009 COAG agreement on strategic planning for the future of capital cities was a significant step. Its progress is being overseen by the COAG Reform Council, with the support of a newly-appointed expert advisory panel chaired by former Deputy Prime Minister, Brian Howe, to ensure consistency of planning systems between the capitals. The planning of capital cities needs to be long-term and strategic, fully integrated, and coordinated across all three levels of government. This will result in urban planning that identifies policy and practical infrastructure priorities and addresses issues of national importance, including economic growth, population increases and population ageing. Under the COAG agreement, all states will have capital city plans that meet the criteria by 1 January 2012, with decisions about future Commonwealth urban and infrastructure funding to be tied to those plans. As an example, the Southeast Queensland Regional Plan and Programme demonstrates best practice in integrating transport, water, energy and services infrastructure planning up to The plan provides a pipeline of projects to encourage both public and private investment and is a model for workable partnerships between state and local governments. The recent announcement of the new Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority to drive future transit-oriented development and urban renewal is further proof of action from state governments on integrated urban planning and recognises the importance of linking state-level action and national planning. The authority will include a Commonwealth representative, ensuring a national perspective is applied to the vision for Australia's largest city. 4 Rail Freight Transport in NSW, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service Briefing Paper No. 8/2009

22 22 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 2.0 Infrastructure Planning A National Approach 2.1 Infrastructure planning in Australia Planning for infrastructure has traditionally not been done in a nationally coordinated fashion, with major projects primarily being planned and implemented by state governments. Many major projects that the states are undertaking as part of the Federal Government s national stimulus plan are being implemented with freight movement and congestion factors driving the benefits case. However, the basis for allocating funding for most projects was that they were, or were close to being, shovel-ready, and not necessarily that they fell within a coherent, coordinated policy framework incorporating population movements, urbanisation, distribution and logistics, sustainability, connecting ports and dedicating corridors for high-speed connectivity of all essential utilities. The Commonwealth s rollout of the National Broadband Network is perhaps the only genuinely national, futuristic infrastructure project currently underway. Quite apart from the $43 billion NBN program, the capital that the Australian Government allocated from the Building Australia Fund in was directed primarily towards roads, metro rail, ports and freight infrastructure. Australia now needs to step back and determine high capacity infrastructure corridors in areas where people want to live and then to preserve them. Such corridors should be shaped to suit utility requirements, which will become increasingly valuable as population density rises. Due to population projections, there is an urgency to protect long, preferably straight, infrastructure corridors that can accommodate civil-ready, more cost-effective utilities for the east coast of Australia. Accordingly, this report demonstrates the merit of a staged, longterm approach that builds to the point at which a very fast train becomes a realistic, viable option, delivering real benefit. However, it is firstly imperative to preserve infrastructure corridors that Australians require for the next generation and beyond for services such as transport, energy, water and communications. 2.2 Demand building towards high-speed rail Increasing population density and worsening congestion are driving us towards a transformation in the way we move people. Road congestion is an endemic factor of daily life and business in and around the major east coast population centres. Rail congestion, too, is becoming an increasing problem. Air traffic congestion in the Sydney Melbourne corridor, already the third busiest air corridor in the world, is another important factor. There are many international examples and lessons for Australia; the issue is whether we can implement policy and programs that are Due to population projections, there is an urgency to protect long, preferably straight, infrastructure corridors that can accommodate civil-ready, more cost-effective utilities for the east coast of Australia. based on global experience and acknowledge that while benefits may not be initially captured; planned, incremental, coordinated, generational programs can create a national vision servicing the majority of Australians, with the benefits being realised over the long term and in fact decades ahead. Infrastructure Australia s recently commissioned national freight network strategy has potential to recommend better rationalisation of rail networks to get better use of Australian ports due to bottlenecks. The preservation of infrastructure corridors can contribute to the realisation of freight strategy objectives, through shared usage of these corridors for freight and passenger transport. There is an option for freight trains to run at night. This would not impact transit during the day when demand is higher. An alternative or additional solution may be dedicated freight transport on the residual rail network and passenger only on the HSR corridor. In consideration of these alternative options, this paper recommends that a broader vision of a total east coast infrastructure corridor network must be considered. 2.3 Towards a national infrastructure planning approach The Australian Constitution gives responsibility for land-use planning to state governments, which in turn delegates some planning to local governments. However, some infrastructure is of national significance, as recognised by the Australian Government in its establishment of Infrastructure Australia. The Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 provided the legislative authority to establish Infrastructure Australia. The intention was to establish a nationally consistent approach to planning, assessing, funding and implementing Australia s infrastructure. The primary function of Infrastructure Australia is to coordinate, document and prioritise the nation s infrastructure requirements, and assist the various states, territories and regions in ensuring that infrastructure needs are met in a timely and coordinated fashion.

23 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 23 The financing of infrastructure projects is guided by the Federal Government s overarching principles that projects should: Address national infrastructure priorities; Demonstrate high benefits and effective use of resources; Efficiently address infrastructure needs; and Demonstrate they achieve established standards in implementation and management. Implicit in these project assessment principles is the notion that an equivalent level of stringency is applied to the advance planning phases such as infrastructure corridor planning. In addition to this, the COAG National Objective and Criteria for Future Strategic Planning of Capital Cities supports these planning principles and provides guidelines for capital city strategic planning systems as per Table 2. TABLE 2 COAG National Objectives and Criteria for Future Strategic Planning of Capital Cities Capital City Strategic Planning Systems should: 1 Be integrated: - a. across functions, including land-use and transport planning, economic and infrastructure development, environmental assessment and urban development, and b. across government agencies; 2 Provide for a consistent hierarchy of future oriented and publicly available plans, including: - a. long term (for example, year) integrated strategic plans, b. medium term (for example, 5-15 year) prioritised infrastructure and land-use plans, and c. near term prioritised infrastructure project pipeline backed by appropriately detailed project plans; 3 Provide for nationally-significant economic infrastructure (both new and upgrade of existing) including: - a. transport corridors, b. international gateways, c. intermodal connections, d. major communications and utilities infrastructure, and e. reservation of appropriate lands to support future expansion; 4 Address nationally-significant policy issues including: - a. population growth and demographic change, b. productivity and global competitiveness, c. climate change mitigation and adaptation, d. efficient development and use of existing and new infrastructure and other public assets, e. connectivity of people to jobs and businesses to markets, f. development of major urban corridors, g. social inclusion, h. health, liveability, and community wellbeing, i. housing affordability, and j. matters of national environmental significance; 5 Consider and strengthen the networks between capital cities and major regional centres, and other important domestic and international connections; 6 Provide for planned, sequenced and evidence-based land release and an appropriate balance of infill and greenfield development; 7 Clearly identify priorities for investment and policy effort by governments, and provide an effective framework for private sector investment and innovation; 8 Encourage world-class urban design and architecture; and 9 Provide effective implementation arrangements and supporting mechanisms, including: - a. clear accountabilities, timelines and appropriate performance measures, b. coordination between all three levels of government, with opportunities for Commonwealth and Local Government input, and linked, streamlined and efficient approval processes including under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, c. evaluation and review cycles that support the need for balance between flexibility and certainty, including trigger points that identify the need for change in policy settings, and d. appropriate consultation and engagement with external stakeholders, experts and the wider community.

24 24 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 2.4 Corridor protection land designation and acquisition The need for land acquisition will depend upon the scope within the respective areas to designate corridors. A major benefit is that there is the potential for different infrastructure sectors to share these corridors. Effective forward planning of corridors creates the opportunity to achieve reductions in the cost of infrastructure provision by ensuring suitable corridors are identified and preserved in advance of the need to actually deliver the infrastructure. This avoids the inevitably high cost of retrofitting infrastructure into built up areas where corridors have to be acquired in short timeframes. Infrastructure Australia has commissioned a study that aims to identify best practice in corridor designation in use around Australia and internationally for development of a best practice model and demonstrate its application to an Australian city. The outcome will be an improved process of infrastructure corridor planning which will facilitate a nationally consistent approach to planning, assessing, funding and implementing Australia s infrastructure. Figure 7 illustrates a hypothetical example in which the infrastructure corridor caters for road and rail traffic and utilities including energy, water, and data and communications networks. Effective forward planning of corridors creates the opportunity to achieve reductions in the cost of infrastructure provision by ensuring suitable corridors are identified and preserved in advance of the need to actually deliver the infrastructure. Corridors could also be used for creating spines from major centres to urban centres where the transport used in the corridors will not impinge on further development in readiness for high speed rail. Where the federal government acquires land under the preservation requirements, states may fund the interim infrastructure that will in the long-term augment high speed rail development. As an example, long straight sections could be used for fast trains. In fact, these corridors would be civil ready within mandated guidelines under a Federal Government urban and transport planning regime. Figure 7 Illustrative graphic of a potential corridor with shared infrastructure

25

26 26 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 3.0 Connecting Australia The Case for High Speed Rail in the Future 3.1 What is high speed rail? High speed rail is a type of (primarily) passenger rail transport that operates at speeds greater than 200 km/h. Despite an absence of a standard definition for high speed rail, common characteristics to most high speed rail systems include: travel speeds greater than 200 km/h; purpose-built, continuous welded rail tracks to allow for greater speeds; the absence of at-grade pedestrian crossings; electric overhead lines used to drive the system; and the use of in-cab signalling. In recent times, operational high speed rail systems have attained routine travel speeds of greater than 300 km/h as a consequence of progressions in technology. For example, the TGV in France routinely achieves speeds of 320 km/h, while China s new system operates routinely at 350 km/h. High speed rail has been successfully constructed in many countries across Asia and Europe and is currently being developed in North and South America. The transformational impacts of high speed rail were first seen in the opening of the Tokaido Shinkansen in 1964 a step change in speed and reliability through creation of a new line dedicated to high traffic flows between major cities and optimised in all its engineering and operational aspects for that purpose. Two of the fundamental advantages offered by high speed rail are speed and capacity. The maximum commercial speed of very fast trains has increased steadily since that first Japanese line was opened. The 300 km/h standard of a decade ago is now 350 km/h. It is edging nearer to the 400 km/h mark believed to be the sound barrier of high speed rail, a point where diminishing incremental journey time savings of going faster are being outweighed by exponentially increasing energy costs. 3.2 The role of high speed rail in delivering REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT Key findings from a European study 5 have identified the following benefits to smaller cities, towns and rural areas, which may provide lessons for Australia: High speed rail can act as a catalyst for regional renewal. It is associated with the economic and social recovery of a number of large and small towns and cities, and regions; High speed rail enhances accessibility and mobility, and generates a wide range of positive economic impacts; Business will migrate to take advantage of lower costs and lifestyle opportunities if the conditions in the investment destination are right. The environment has to be supportive, and facilities well serviced; Access to high-speed rail can assist in halting regional population decline. It may halt a move to the city or encourage some movement into the outlying regions. In Europe many of the people who choose to commute have high incomes and their spending has helped to boost local economies. This has not led to the emptying out of the major cities, and the numbers of people involved in such lifestyle changes are generally manageable in a local context; High speed rail can open up tourism opportunities. Even former rust belt cities have been surprised at the level of visitation that high speed rail access can stimulate. However, this will not happen automatically, even in areas with spectacular tourist attractions; High speed rail access can be a catalyst to accelerate business visitation; New investment and higher spending in a region will stimulate job growth. There is compelling econometric evidence from France and Europe in general that areas serviced by high speed rail have higher employment than other areas, varying in proportion to travel time savings; Some regional authorities have been successful in stimulating job growth in higher value added services activities, particularly those in the knowledge economy, which in turn elevates and broadens the skills base of the region. This includes growth in research and development, information technology design, higher education and training facilities; and All centres visited in Europe that were serviced by high-speed rail benefited from an increase in property values. This is so well accepted and anticipated that property values rise in a location well before the service opens for business. The most successful regional renewal programs in France and Europe driven by high-speed rail have involved cooperative planning and investment. This has involved cooperation between different levels of government as well as public-private partnerships. The next generation of high speed rail projects in Europe will be more reliant on cooperative investment and concentrate even more upon stimulating regional development. 3.3 A little history The first country to construct a dedicated high speed rail line was Japan with the introduction of the Shinkansen, or Bullet Train, in 1964, connecting the major cities of Tokyo and Osaka. The Shinkansen offered a quick and reliable alternative mode of transport to air or road. The success of the Shinkansen in gaining market share from air travel inspired European railways to follow the same path. 5 Coburg Initiative Study Tour, 2009

27 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 27 France was the first European nation to provide services of high speed rail with the introduction of the Train a Grande Vitesse (TGV) in 1981, connecting Paris and Lyon. Germany followed, establishing the Inter-City Express (ICE), providing multiple sections of track to relieve a shortage of capacity in the face of growing demand on existing routes (Nash, 2009). Other European nations such as Spain and Italy continued the introduction of high speed rail with an aim to link inter-operable networks into a more comprehensive network service. High speed rail has also extended to other parts of the world. Major plans have been recently proposed for expansion of China s high speed rail and in the United States Purpose of overseas high speed rail networks High speed rail has gained in market share in many countries to the extent that it directly competes with air travel. In a world where increased security requirements have eroded the time savings or affected air travel and emphasis on sustainability continues to grow, high speed rail is regarded as the premier travel mode in Europe, especially in terms of upmarket passenger demographics, quality of service and travel experience, industry self-image, and the cosmopolitan nature of direct links between major city centres 6. Currently operating on approximately 2000 kilometres of track, France s TGV was introduced to relieve a shortage of capacity on existing railway lines and provide greater connectivity to major cities on dedicated railway tracks. The appeal of the TGV was its ability to provide quick and reliable access for passengers to many major cities. The French Government now has dedicated high speed track to more remote parts of the country, accelerating the transfer from road to rail and given an alternative to short-haul air travel 7. The Atla Velocidad Espanola (AVE) high speed rail system was introduced to the Spanish rail network in 1992 to improve connectivity between major and provincial cities with a greater ambition to link inter-operable high speed rail networks in Europe. The first line was built between Madrid and Barcelona. The network has grown to nearly 2000 kilometres stretching from Malaga to Barcelona. The aim of the government was to stimulate the country s economy in the south and revitalise stagnant towns by connecting regional cities to the country s two leading business districts in Madrid and Barcelona. Primarily used for passenger transport, freight movement is not uncommon for the AVE. Japan s Shinkansen was purpose built to improve rail accessibility across mountainous terrain and provide direct, efficient passenger transfer. Also known as the Bullet Train, this high speed rail service enabled day trips between Tokyo and Osaka, the two largest cities in Japan. While the previous express service took six hours and 40 minutes, the Shinkansen had reduced the travel time to three hours and ten minutes by Governance The creation and implementation of high speed rail internationally is a product of the relationship between private and public authorities. The governance of high speed rail is not uniform on an international scale, with responsibility for infrastructure, technology and operations residing with various organisations. The TGV can be considered a national product, the result of an exclusive relationship between the French Government, SNCF (the French national railway) and the private sector company, Alstom. The railway infrastructure is owned by RFF whereas the operation of the system is attributed to SNCF Voyages, the longdistance branch of SNCF. The development of high speed rail in Europe is governed by the high speed Interoperatibility Directive and its associated technical standards. This critical piece of European legislation ensures a consistent approach in respect of the technical delivery of crossborder high-speed rail systems. The Spanish Government s railway company, Renfe, has been responsible for operating the AVE high speed rail system since its inception, although opportunity exists for the inclusion of private operators in the future. Private sector companies including Alstom, Talgo, Bombardier and Siemens have been responsible for delivering the AVEs technology and infrastructure. Until 1987, the networks of Shinkansen high speed railway lines were operated by the government-owned Japanese National Railways. In 1987, Japan Railways Group, commonly known as JR Group, took over most of the assets and operations responsibility from Japanese National Railways. The JR Group comprises several for-profit companies, consisting of seven operating companies, as well as the Railway Technical Research Institute and Railway Information Systems Co., Ltd that do not provide rail services. The seven operating companies are broken into six passenger operators, separated by geography, and a nationwide operator. 6 International Union of Railways (UIC) Jean-Marie Guillemot of the Reseau Ferre de France (RFF) (Guardian 2009) 8 Rail CRC, 2009.

28 28 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Taiwan s High Speed Rail The high speed rail network of Taiwan was established with the aim of enabling the people of Taiwan to live within a one-day peripheral circle. Established with a maximum operating speed of 300 km/h, the system was built to connect to 94 per cent of the nation s population. Unusually for a high speed rail project, the AUD$17 billion network was built as a Build-Operate-Transfer PPP. During construction, the Taiwan High Speed Rail Consortium ran into financial trouble, causing the government to throw a AUD$1.4 billion lifeline at the project, in exchange for a 40% stake in the company, making the central government the single largest shareholder in the project. Since then, the project has continued to hit financial hardship. There are considerable lessons to be learned from the Taiwanese case, most significantly that we need to be upfront and clear about the need for government investment and participation in any high speed rail proposal from the outset. However, this does not mean private investment and PPPs are not appropriate. Engaging the private sector will be essential if Australia is to invest in very fast trains; it simply must be done in a responsible, considered manner Finance options Financial support from government is essential to the success of most high speed rail networks. Most established high speed rail networks are financed by government, or government in partnership with the private sector. The French Government has been responsible for funding and supporting the TGV high speed rail systems since their inception. In 2008 the French Government made a commitment to develop and expand on the success of the TGV and support the growth of faster and more efficient high speed rail technology. Since Spain opened its first AVE high speed train route between Madrid and Seville in 1992, the Spanish Government has been responsible for financing the high speed system. Under a plan devised by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero, Spain has committed to constructing 10,000 kilometres of high-speed track by Funding for the initial construction of the Shinkansen was shared between the government arm, Japan National Rail, and a US$80 million loan from the World Bank. However, due to issues in labour management relations and large deficits incurred by Japan National Railways, the Shinkansen railway network is now funded between the private body, Japan Railways Group, and the Japanese Government. While the future of transportation in most major cities lies in a mix of heavy, metro and light rail, buses, cycling and cars, the future of intercity travel for distances up to 1000 kilometres belongs to high speed trains Lessons learned The success of the TGV has seen the continued expansion of the high speed network within France and across its borders. SNCF and Alstom have investigated new technology and designed a faster high speed rail unit, the Automotrice a Grande Vitesse (AGV). These high speed multiple units are driven by distributed power rather than separate power cars. The popularity of the high speed rail network has attracted many passengers who would otherwise use air travel, resulting in a fall in flight demand and in some cases, flight operations altogether. Station location and route allocation are factors that require considerable attention. The AVE has brought economic development to provincial towns serviced by the high speed line. Local towns once considered lifeless have witnessed surges in tourism and investment. Now accessible to major cities, regional towns are demanding business conventions and facilities to accommodate them. As described by Mr Angel Ros, Socialist Mayor of Lleida, The AVE is a high-end railway, and simply by virtue of being on the route, your city becomes a high-end destination. 9 Now resurgent, these towns can and do attract inward investment, which in turn creates more jobs and a stronger economy. However, the costs of constructing such a system have been monumental. By 2020, it is envisaged that Spain will spend close to 100 billion euros on infrastructure and billions more on trains. While the future of transportation in most major cities lies in a mix of heavy, metro and light rail, buses, cycling and cars, the future of intercity travel for distances up to 1000 kilometres belongs to high speed trains. The construction of the Shinkansen network has been an expensive exercise, forcing the reform of Japan National Rail and imposing substantial debt upon the Japan Railways Group at various stages of the network s construction. Those nations looking to establish their own high speed rail network must recognise the financial implications of adopting such a system. Among other issues, noise pollution has prompted the construction of noise barriers, automatic braking systems such as Urgent Detection and Alarm System have been installed for earthquake zones, and water system innovations have been introduced to address problems caused by heavy snow. While examining the future of high speed rail is a key component of this report, the case studies cover the international experience with very fast trains, which presents a compelling case for our rationale that Australia should take a carefully planned, coordinated, long-term approach to the transition to high speed rail and ultimately, when the circumstances are right, to a very fast train. 9 New York Times, 2009/05/30

29 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 29 US High Speed Rail The US has recently committed to establishing an incremental approach to developing a national high speed rail network linking major cities. In January 2010, President Barack Obama stated that investment is how we can break ground across the country, putting people to work building high speed rail lines, because there s no reason why Europe or China should have the fastest trains when we can build them right here in America. The US currently has one high speed rail line Amtrak s Acela Express service from Boston via New York, to Washington, D.C, averaging a speed of 109 km/h but briefly reaching 240 km/h at times. In February 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the US Government allocated an $8 billion jump-start to the states for HSR construction and $1 billion per year for the following five fiscal years. Starting in the middle of the global financial crisis, the government began a selection process, requiring states to bid for high speed rail projects, undertaking all the modelling and planning required to prove these routes were needed. To bridge the substantial financing and funding gap, high speed rail projects have been approached as partnerships between state and federal governments and the private sector. One of the major recipients of early federal funding was the California high speed rail proposal, running 2000 miles from San Diego to San Francisco, and hitting speeds of 350 km/h. This project is certainly one of the more interesting in the US, as the California State Government has instigated a Revenue Guarantee Plan which guarantees to private sector participants that a minimum level of revenues would be received in the event that system revenues are significantly lower than forecast. The US is not too dissimilar from what this paper proposes for the Australian case an incremental, long-term, strategically planned network of corridors, laid out with transparency for all to see. Figure 8 Funding Sources: A scenario of possible funding sources in a u.s example $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 Millions of Expendture Dollars $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $ State Bond Funds Federal Assistance Local Contributions Private Funding

30 30 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 3.4 Snapshots of current overseas VFT projects COUNTRY CHINA Country Morocco COUNTRY Brazil ROUTE CHENGDU - GUANGZHOU Route Kenitra-Tangier ROUTE Sao Paulo - Rio de Janeiro SPEED 350KM/H Speed 320km/h SPEED 350km/h LENGTH 1376KM Length 200KM LENGTH 518km STATUS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Status Under construction STATUS Tendering underway OPENING 2014 Opening 2015 OPENING 2016 COUNTRY USA COUNTRY Japan COUNTRY Germany ROUTE Tampa, FL Orlando, FL ROUTE Aomori - Hokkaido ROUTE Erfurt - Leipzig/ Halle SPEED 300km/h SPEED 360km/h SPEED 300km/h LENGTH 135km LENGTH 148km (mostly underwater) LENGTH 123km STATUS Planned STATUS Under construction STATUS Under construction OPENING 2014 OPENING 2015 OPENING 2016

31

32 32 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 4.0 Developing a Realistic Scope 4.1 Preliminary engineering function Although the purpose of this report is primarily to discuss the economic, planning and policy issues related to a proposed high capacity infrastructure corridor, some preliminary engineering was undertaken for reference in the economic analysis, including for a very fast train. The following section provides a summary of the engineering issues and assumptions that were considered, however it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an engineering solution or technical recommendations. The study is based on a simplified high level corridor alignment, which attempts to link the key geographical areas and address the main constraints along the route. Specifically the alignment aims to provide a preliminary reference on which the high level guide costs can be based. It must be noted that no operational analysis has been undertaken. Additionally it is recommended that a detailed implementation study be conducted to confirm the feasibility of the route and identify the key constraints. significant greenfield works would still be required. An indicative corridor route is shown in Figure 9. It was assumed that transit time savings could be achieved through individual system improvements or a synergistic combination of several smaller improvements. Potential areas for improvement included: Alignment improvements and deviations Signalling Rolling stock and power supply alternatives Corridor infrastructure improvements Separation of high speed services from slower services, specifically freight. Figure 9 Indicative Infrastructure Corridor Route, showing potential La Trobe alignment 4.2 Design and alignment Engineering approach Increasingly countries throughout the world are adopting common design standards in respect of high speed rail. This has the effect of reducing long-term costs and improving overall system reliability. This approach is most noticeable in the European Union with the recognition that shared technical standards have major inter-regional benefits. Unique in developing the route alignment for the east coast of Australia outlined below was to assume that incremental steps will be taken to reach the final objective. In addition while it is proposed that the corridor be a high capacity infrastructure corridor it is ultimately the rail geometry which controls this alignment. For this reason the alignment discussed in this section assumes that the geometry must be suitable to highspeed rail. The study began by looking at using the existing north south rail corridor and upgrading the existing infrastructure in incremental stages. However, as explained in the assumptions below, this approach had to be reconsidered once it was realised that any modification to the existing alignment while attempting to reach an intermediate stage would become redundant once the ultimate high speed rail option was required. To reach the desired high speeds of more than 350 km/h at the final stage, Built up area National Park City or Town Proposed East Coast HSR Alternative HSR corridor

33 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Design assumptions The following design assumptions have been adopted for this study: Single use rail traffic the proposed high speed rail system would be used by high speed passenger traffic only. Mixed use traffic would potentially result in a reduced ride quality for passengers and increased maintenance problems due to the varying vehicle characteristics. Should freight trains require passage along the corridor, additional lines would need to be added adjacent to the high-speed passenger lines. Existing passenger lines could also be converted exclusively to freight use once high speed lines are operational, ultimately allowing for full grade separation along the east coast. An alternate solution was considered for managing mixed traffic including segregated operation or the addition of existing infrastructure. One possible option is to operate freight services at night when passenger demand is lowest. Existing rail corridors are inadequate for high speed traffic a preliminary review of the existing track alignment has found the geometry of the existing rail corridor cannot typically be used for high speed traffic particularly to the north of Sydney. It is assumed that outside the three key metropolitan areas of Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne the proposed high speed alignment will be greenfield works. Utilisation of existing corridor and rail infrastructure within the metropolitan areas of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne the proposed alignment will remain within the existing corridor where possible. This will require significant upgrading works to be completed along these suburban networks. It is anticipated that in Sydney and potentially elsewhere, extensive tunnelling will need to be undertaken. Transit time values in the absence of any detailed operational modelling, the transit times specified in this report have adopted average speeds over the route. Corridor protection high capacity infrastructure corridors need to be reserved, particularly near metropolitan centres and populated regional areas. Coordinated planning a high speed rail initiative cannot be implemented independently. A coordinated national infrastructure plan must take it into consideration varying state requirements and the existing and proposed rail infrastructure Entry to cities The feasibility of establishing an efficient entry into the major cities Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra represents a significant engineering component of the study. An optimum solution needs to be found with respect to cost, efficient operation, passenger catchment areas and environmental impact. In particular any option must consider the long-term plan for railways within the cities to ensure that the entry does not conflict with such plans but, wherever possible, augment them. Any augmentation of existing metropolitan rail may attract funding from the existing operators/ owners, depending upon the railway ownership structures of the city in question. Options for high speed rail entries into cities fall into two categories; existing corridors, such as entries to Gare De Nord in Paris and Waterloo in London, or new corridors, such as the Eurostar Rail Link to St. Pancras, London. The use of existing corridors is generally less expensive compared with new corridors because much of the existing infrastructure may be utilised. They also represent less environmental impact on the basis that any additional impact is an incremental increase to that which already exists. The major disadvantage of using existing corridors is their impact on rail operations, particularly availability, reliability and transit time. This report does not intend to spell out exactly where rail services will enter and exit the capital cities on the route this would need to be the subject of a large feasibility study involving all levels of government. It is noted, however, that considerable tunnelling would be required if very fast train services were to be introduced on new track to purpose-built stations. For some major Australian cities, it is unclear whether the CBD is the best location for very fast train stations. In many instances, platforms for very fast train services must be extremely long, and space in the CBD of Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney is very limited. This may require upgrading of metropolitan rail networks to link high-speed rail terminals with the existing transport infrastructure Operations For traditional steel wheel on rail high speed technology, service reliability is greatly reduced if operated with lines shared with existing metropolitan services. High speed rail services have conflicting operating goals to metropolitan ones. High speed services are timetable dependent, and customer expectations are for trains to run precisely to prescribed times. However, metropolitan railways are increasing becoming less timetable dependent, with customers demanding regular services rather than timetabled ones. This creates a conflict in that it makes it difficult for a high-speed service to find an available path between the metropolitan services and as the demand for metropolitan services increases over time, this conflict is compounded. Hence, shared running on existing lines with metropolitan services greatly reduces the reliability of high speed train services due to the difficultly of establishing available pathing.

34 34 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors With shared running of services, the maximum availability of pathing for high-speed services is achieved through running at the same speed as the existing metropolitan services. This would be further optimised by directly minimising the existing service patterns. However, this would require the high speed service to adopt the same stopping pattern and run at the same speed as the existing service, which would greatly reduce the overall transit time. An alternative use for high speed running is to provide new track on existing corridors. Depending upon the level of service, this may be a single track with passing loops provided at strategic places. This new track could be dedicated or shared with other express style commuter services, however the high-speed service should be given priority. Any new corridor would probably require the track to be underground which, depending upon the type of high-speed rail service, may also include stations. The advantage of a new corridor is that it could be utilised to provide other tracks for new metropolitan services, which would spread the project funding Assumed route alignment Guide costs and transit times described in the report are based on a high level route alignment developed by joining assumed destination nodes along the east coast between Melbourne and Brisbane. Although this route is not necessarily the optimal scheme, as route definition was outside the scope of this report, it provides an indication of the time saving that can be achieved between the major east coast cities. It is important to note that this study has assumed the Sydney to Melbourne route via Albury/Wodonga as this is where population and demand appear most conducive to a high speed rail service. However, we have also considered that a potential option would be to proceed from Canberra to Melbourne via a La Trobe valley alignment, and this appears on all maps as a dotted line. The final route alignment would naturally be a matter for further analysis. For the purpose of this study the following nodes, as shown in Figures 10 and Table 3, have been adopted to define the route. Figure 10 Potential Sydney to Sunshine coast corridor AND Potential Melbourne to Sydney corridor, showing assumed Albury alignment and potential La Trobe alignment City or Town Built up area National Park Highway Proposed East Coast HSR Alternative HSR corridor Watercourse Railway

35 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 35 Table 3 POTENTIAL STATION LOCations Northern Route Sydney CBD Hornsby Gosford Newcastle Taree Coffs Harbour Casino Gold Coast Brisbane CBD Sunshine Coast Proposed implementation stages Southern Route Sydney CBD Sydney Airport Campbelltown Canberra Airport Albury melbourne Airport Melbourne CBD This paper proposes an incremental approach rather than a major project that has to be completed before any benefits can be realised. The guide costs and transit times described in the report are based on a high-level route alignment developed by joining assumed destination nodes along the east coast between the Sunshine Coast and Melbourne. Although this route may not be necessarily optimal, it provides an indication of the time saving that can be achieved between the major east coast cities. Two recommendations are drawn from this initial investigation regarding the proposed staging of a high-speed rail system: Corridor protection. High capacity infrastructure corridors need to be reserved, particularly near metropolitan centres and populated regional areas. Coordinated planning. A high speed rail initiative cannot be implemented independently. A coordinated national infrastructure plan must take into consideration varying state requirements and the existing and proposed rail infrastructure. Specifically the interaction and coordination of national freight rail activities must be considered. It has been assumed the infrastructure upgrades will be categorised into three separate implementation stages: 1. Existing conditions Existing rolling stock is a mix of suburban electric, interurban electric and regional diesel rolling stock. The existing track infrastructure presents a heavy constraint on the train operations and significantly limits track speeds. The system is predominantly non-electrified with the exception of the metropolitan areas. 2. Intermediate stage Proposed corridor alignment upgrades, including civil, bridges and tunnel works, are completed and permit speeds in excess of 350 km/h. Diesel rolling stock and signalling is incrementally upgraded to permit higher speeds up to a maximum of 160 km/h. The lines are unchanged from the existing conditions with the system predominantly non-electrified with the exception of metropolitan areas. 3. Ultimate stage Power and signalling is upgraded and new rolling stock procured that permits speeds in excess of 350 km/h. To maximise the value of the intermediate stage works, the proposed staging plan could consider: An interim overhead wiring system that supports existing rolling stock, i.e. 1500v DC, but can be later upgraded to support high-speed rolling stock where current OHW requirements are 25kv. Interoperability of existing rail infrastructure with upgraded rolling stock. It should also be noted that if additional government funding became available, and if transit times competing with air travel were a key driving outcome, Stage 1 could be bypassed to go directly to Stage 2 at 350km/h, for example on the Sydney to Canberra corridor. table 4 POSSIBLE Implementation Stages Stage Max. Line Speed (km/h) Infrastructure Rolling Stock Comment Existing Situation Varies (Less than 160 km/h in most areas) with averages from 30 to 80 km/h in Metro areas. Existing infrastructure including sections of track consisting of tight curves, steep grades and conflicting train movements. Existing rolling stock mix of suburban electric, interurban electric and regional diesel rolling stock. Victoria, with assistance from Infrastructure Australia, is upgrading regional lines to 160 km/h capacity. Stage 1 Intermediate Stage 160 km/h Geometry, bridges, tunnels upgraded to permit speeds greater than 350 km/h. Signalling upgraded to allow for speeds up to 160 km. New electric or diesel (potentially electric) rolling stock capable of 160 km/ h+. All realignment works completed to HSR design specification, however common rolling stock will service the route. Express trains will become more frequent. Stage 2 Ultimate Stage Greater than 350 km/h Infrastructure upgraded to allow for speeds greater than 350 km/h. New high voltage AC rolling stock. Infrastructure upgrades would include modification to already upgraded bridges,tunnels, culverts etc. required for highspeed traffic. Rolling stock from Stage 1 to be cascaded onto the local metro networks.

36 36 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Indicative transit times When considering the transit time savings that can be achieved through the implementation of high-speed rail the study has considered incremental change in average speeds only. For this study it was considered impractical to develop a detailed transit time simulation model. Interim and total distances, current travel times by mode and the distances and travel times for high speed rail are set out in Table 5. Note: High speed rail average speeds assumed in this table are Indicative only and require detailed simulation analysis to confirm their values. The transit times are estimated directly from the average operating speeds shown. table 5 Indicative Route Transit Times Source Current Road Distance (km) Google Map May 2010 Current Road Travel Times (h:m) Google Map May 2010 Current Air Travel Times (h:m) Qantas/ Jetstar May 2010 Current Rail Distance (km) AECOM Eng estimates Current Rail Time (h:m) AECOM Eng estimates HSR Rail Distance (km) AECOM Eng estimates HSR Stage 1 (160 km/h Max) Point to Point Rail Time (h:m) AECOM Assumed operating speed 100km/h AECOM Assumed operating speed 150km/h HSR Stage 2 (350 km/h Max) Point to Point Time (h:m) AECOM Assumed operating speed 300km/h Northern Route Sunshine Coast (Cooroy) to 126 2:08 n/a 131 n/a 131 1:19 0:53 0:26 0:25 Brisbane Brisbane to Gold Coast 73 1:03 n/a 85 1: :51 0:34 0:17 0:16 Gold Coast to Casino 166 2:27 n/a 127 n/a 99 1:00 0:40 0:20 0:19 Casino to Coffs Harbour 184 2:47 n/a 197 2: :43 1:09 0:34 0:32 Coffs Harbour to Taree 230 3:07 n/a 229 3: :00 1:20 0:40 0:38 Taree to Newcastle 169 2:15 n/a 216 3: :33 1:02 0:31 0:29 Newcastle to Gosford 91 1:24 n/a 82 1: :45 0:30 0:15 0:14 Gosford to Hornsby 53 0:45 n/a 47 0: :25 0:17 0:08 0:08 Hornsby to Sydney 25 0:34 n/a 34 0: :20 0:13 0:07 0:06 Northern Route Total Northern Route Direct Drive Southern Route Sydney to Campbelltown Campbelltown to Canberra Canberra to Albury Albury to Tullamarine Tullamarine to Melbourne Southern Route Total Southern Route Direct Drive 1117 km 16:30 NSA-Syd: 1:35 BNE-Syd: 1: km 13:50 OOL-Syd: 1: km 13: km 58 0:54 n/a 55 0: :33 0:22 0:11 0: :58 Syd-CBR: 0: : :09 1:26 0:43 0: :20 n/a n/a n/a 303 3:02 2:01 1:01 0: :14 n/a n/a n/a 289 2:53 1:55 0:58 0: :21 n/a n/a n/a 27 0:16 0:11 0:05 0: km 11: km 10:10 Syd-Mel: 1:30 CBR-Mel: 0:50 n/a n/a 888 km AECOM Assumed operating speed 320km/h

37 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Proposed corridor profile Although the design approach is focused around providing a high speed rail system, this is considered to be only a component of the wider scheme. The ultimate aim is to provide a high capacity infrastructure corridor that could accommodate complementary non-rail infrastructure, like power, gas, water and telecommunications services in addition to the proposed high speed rail lines. Several potential opportunities were identified during the study, which should be considered in any further investigations: Combined road and rail corridor Combined passenger and freight rail corridor Combined infrastructure corridor that could potentially contain other services including power, gas, water and telecommunications infrastructure Use of sections of single line high speed track, depending on operation and demand requirements, while providing a corridor capable of carrying multiple tracks Constraints Several difficulties were identified when considering high speed rail options in Australia. They include, but are not limited to: Topography One of the more significant constraints to providing a high speed rail system in Australia, particularly along the east coast, is the topography and requirement to traverse the Great Diving Range at several locations. Traditional low speed rail alignments are affected by the topography but not to the extent of high speed rail. Corridor availability There are limited land corridors available for the implementation of high speed rail infrastructure, specifically close to metropolitan centres. As indicated above, typically the geometry of the existing rail corridor along the east coast, particularly to the north of Sydney, cannot be used for high speed traffic due to the circuitous nature of the existing alignment and requirement for long straights and wide curves. In response to the reservation that high speed rail is not suitable for Australia because distances between our major centres are too large, or the total population and population density are not high enough, recent experience from Europe and elsewhere has shown that rather than thinking about high speed rail in the traditional sense of a railway, i.e. servicing many centres on a route, high speed rail should be thought about in terms of a corridor. distances and populations in Australia between the major capital cities are not too different to existing successful high speed rail networks in Europe and the United States. The following diagrams, Figures 11 and 12 demonstrate that distances and populations in Australia between the major capital cities are not too different to existing successful high speed rail networks in Europe and the United States. In fact the total population of the Australian East coast add up to more than three times the population of the French TGV track by covering only an additional 50% in distance. This suggests that the Melbourne Brisbane population to distance ratio may be even more suitable for HSR infrastructure than the French TGV route. These provide a useful counterpoint to the arguments against high speed rail, and show that there is nothing particularly unique about Australia s geography and the lack of population centres in regional areas through which high speed rail could pass. table 6 Estimated City centre to City centre journey times City HSR Rail Distance (km) HSR Stage 1 (160 km/h Max) Point to Point Rail Time (h:m) HSR Stage 2 (350 km/h Max) Point to Point Time (h:m) AECOM Assumed operating speed 100km/h AECOM Assumed operating speed 150km/h AECOM Assumed operating speed 300km/h AECOM Assumed operating speed 320km/h From Brisbane to Newcastle 712 7:22 4:55 2:27 2:18 to Sydney 863 9:10 6:07 3:05 2:53 to Canberra :08 8:07 4:05 3:50 to Melbourne :37 12:26 6:16 5:53

38 38 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Figure 11 Australian east coast corridor AND recently completed French TGV route Brisbane Population 2.0m Calais Population 0.08m 93 km Lille Population 1.2m 727 km 247 km Sydney Population 4.3m 833 km 465 km Canberra Population 0.3m Melbourne Population 4.0m Marseille Population 1.2m Total Population 10.6 million Distance 1,439 km Total Population 2.78 million Distance 926 km Figure 12 USA east coast corridor AND Spanish high-speed corridors Boston Population 4.5m 300 km 327 km New York Population 8.3m Madrid Population 3.01m 504 km Barcelona Population 4.7m 400 km Washington Population 8.3m Seville Population 0.69m Total Population 12.8 million Distance 627 km Total Population 8.4 million Distance 904 km

39 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Technology, infrastructure and rolling stock In respect of high speed rail technology, the key areas for consideration are typically rolling stock, signalling, communications, track fastening systems (permanent way) and power supply. At this point, any recommendations regarding a preferred technology or system would provide limited value. In addition, more advanced technology is likely to be in use in the timeframe proposed to complete the final stage of this project. Planning of very fast train networks can take up to 15 to 20 years to final design phases. When it is deemed that a high speed rail system is feasible, a detailed study will be necessary to evaluate all current available technology, and a functional specification prepared. As the proposed ultimate high speed stage greater than 350 km/h is not intended to be introduced for a number of years, the early stage must aim to allow for the future operations and technology. It will therefore be essential that in the initial stages, the system is future-proofed by avoiding the adoption of a technology that will be superseded. Alignments should be designed to allow for speeds higher than 350 km/h as speeds greater than this may be the benchmark at the time this final stage is implemented. As high speed rail becomes more common, as is currently occurring in several countries around the world, Australia will have the opportunity to adopt a proven system that suits our specific topography, geodemographic, economic and social position. Not only will this provide confidence that the system will be introduced successfully, it will also present opportunities to efficiently procure a world-class system. A current example is in China where, under a technology transfer agreement with Siemens, Velaro trains are being cloned. It is being suggested that this could result in a less expensive rolling stock option for high speed rail projects in the United States. The Channel Line high speed rail link used off-the-shelf technology, and the latest plans for England s HSR2 have a requirement for off-the-shelf technology that is factory and operationally tested and commonly used Staging approach The staged approach to delivering a high speed rail service, as proposed in this report, provides several advantages when implementing a new system. Incremental improvements allow for the staging of new infrastructure to match available funding, maximise the efficiency of the existing infrastructure and immediately realise the benefits of the new infrastructure by making early gains in the areas that will benefit most from the improvements. The key goals of staging the project would be to provide a step change to high speed rail that ensures: 1. Immediate gains An intermediate stage program of works will allow for immediate gains to be achieved yet pave the way for further significant speed improvements once the ultimate stage is completed. The scheme must provide incremental improvements that will permit increased speeds and reduced transit times. Additionally, the proposed interim staged infrastructure must not become redundant for the ultimate stage to proceed. 2. Future-proofing the network An intermediate stage, whereby the infrastructure corridor is made civil ready, with civil and structural engineering works completed to a level where little additional modification is required to accommodate the ultimate stage works, will potentially provide greater confidence in the success of the technology that is adopted in the ultimate stage. By selecting technology at a date closer to its actual implementation, the project will potentially cost less as new technology is proven and more readily available. Typically the staged approach assumes that the civil infrastructure works will be completed initially and the remaining, technology dependant infrastructure and rolling stock will be implemented at a later stage. It has been assumed that this staged approach would occur over several decades, hence the timeframe is indicative only and will depend upon passenger demand, social, technological and economic factors.

40

41 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Economic Benefits 5.1 Introduction The development of a major high capacity infrastructure transit corridor, to cater for uses such as high speed rail, along the east coast of Australia will generate significant economic benefits regionally and nationally. Those benefits not only include the conventional travel user benefits such as travel time and cost savings, and non-user benefits such as decongestion at highways and airports, but also many other wider impacts. Other benefits include external benefits, increases in land values, freight efficiency improvements, and wider economic benefits. Potentially, there will also be a monetary benefit in the deferral of the construction of a second Sydney Airport. And by committing to the construction of the high speed rail network, it will improve the chances for Australia to host major international business, exhibition and sporting events in the future, which will bring direct benefits to the Australian economy. Modelling undertaken in the early 2000s by the Allen Consulting Group for the Speedrail project (linking Sydney to Canberra) estimated a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 2.2 for the project, showing that despite the substantial costs associated with building a highspeed rail corridor, the benefits can be substantial. 5.2 Travel time benefits Conventional user benefits refer to the generalised travel time and cost savings to high capacity transit users. The approach is well documented in international standard transport appraisal guidelines such as the Australian Transport Council s National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia and the UK Department of Transport s Web Transport Analysis Guideline (WebTAG). Understand existing travel demand and mode share for all modes Understand the future demand growth Estimate future travel demand and mode share for all modes under the Business as Usual scenario Estimate the future travel times for high speed rail at Stage 1 and Stage 2 Calculate mode share using future travel times at Stage 1 and Stage 2, and hence future high-speed rail demand using a logit model approach Calculate total travel time savings at Stage 1 and Stage 2 Calculate a monetary value of total travel time savings at Stage 1 and Stage 2 using an assumed value of time. This paper presents the results of a high-level analysis on future high speed rail demand and benefits. Only the key travel corridors have been considered in the analysis, which are separated as short distance and middle to long distance. Table 7 below shows estimates for the annual number of passengers for 2010 and the respective mode share for car, train and air sourced from publicly available data sets. For simplicity purposes, the bus and train modes are considered in conjunction. An important point is that high speed rail stations are generally located in or very near central business districts, as opposed to airports which are often several or many kilometres away. Naturally, an additional factor in determining total travel times is that people travelling for business or leisure on very fast trains have the advantage of arriving in the centre of the city, not having to find transport, i.e. taxi, bus, etc, and then commute to the CBD. These factors have not been calculated in the analysis undertaken by AECOM. The estimation of high capacity transit user generalised travel time and cost savings include the following steps:

42 42 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors TABLE 7 Main competing modes and the mode shares for 2010 Corridors Main competing modes Annual number of passengers 2010 estimates Mode Choice (%) 2010 estimates Source of Data and Assumptions Key short distance corridors Sunshine Coast - Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Sunshine Coast - Gold Coast m m m m m m 94% 6% 93% 7% 96% 4% ABS Census Journey to Work data for SE Queensland 10, factored to represent all trips 11 and projected to 2010 estimates 12 Newcastle - Gosford m m 78% 22% Gosford - Sydney Newcastle - Sydney m m m m 49% 51% 73% 27% ABS Census Journey to Work data for Sydney 13, factored to represent all trips and projected to 2010 estimates 14 Sydney - Campbelltown m m 60% 40% Key middle to long distance corridors Brisbane - Sydney Air m m m 78% 20% 2% Brisbane Melbourne Sydney Canberra Sydney Melbourne Gold Coast Sydney Air Air Air Air m m m m m m m m m m m m 94% 5% 0% 7% 89% 4% 82% 16% 2% 71% 28% 2% Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics - information sheet 26 Passenger movements between Australian cities to Note: The BTRE data on the Sydney/ Melbourne to Gold Coast segment is shown as a combined total. It is assumed that Sydney accounts for 60% and Melbourne accounts for 40% Gold Coast Melbourne Air m m m 71% 28% 2% TABLE 8 Population growth per annum Regions and Corridors 2010 to to to 2051 Source of Data Sydney/ Hunter/ Illawarra SDs 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% NSW Transport Data Centre - October 2009 Release Population Forecasts for Sydney, Hunter and Illawarra SDs 2006 to 2036 Brisbane/ Gold Coast/ Sunshine Coast SDs 1.9% 1.4% 1.1% Queensland Planning Information and Forecasting Unit Queensland s future population 2008 edition Brisbane - Sydney 2.8% 2.4% 2.0% Brisbane Melbourne 2.9% 2.4% 2.0% Sydney Canberra 2.0% 1.7% 1.4% Sydney Melbourne 2.4% 2.0% 1.6% Gold Coast Sydney 2.9% 2.7% 2.1% Gold Coast Melbourne 2.9% 2.7% 2.1% Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics - information sheet 26 Passenger movements between Australian cities to See Queensland Government Office of Economic and Statistical Research publication census-2001/journey-work-south-east-qld-c01/journey-work-south-east-qld-c01.shtml#flows 11 using an assumed factor of 4 to factor from 2-way JTW trips to represent all purpose daily trips and an assumed factor of 330 to factor from daily trips to annual trips 12 Based on the annual growth rates estimated from Queensland Government Office of Economic and Statistical Research publication demography/population/tables/erp/erp-ucl-qld/index.shtml 13 See 14 NSW Transport Data Centre October 2009 Release Population Forecasts 15 See

43 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 43 Note: Government releases only provide population forecasts up to 2031 or There are indications that population growth beyond 2031 will be slower than the 2021 to 2031 horizon and a factor of 0.8 on the growth rates is assumed to estimate the growth rates. Future travel demand and mode shares for the Business as Usual (BaU) scenario are shown in Table 9, while the present base and future travel times are compared between the different modes in Table 10. table 9 Mode shares for 2021 & 2051 Business as Usual Scenario Corridors Main competing modes Annual number of passengers 2021 estimates Mode Choice (%) 2021 estimates Annual number of passengers 2051 estimates Mode Choice (%) 2051 estimates Key short distance corridors Sunshine Coast - Brisbane m m 94% 6% m m 94% 6% Brisbane - Gold Coast m m 93% 7% m m 93% 7% Sunshine Coast - Gold Coast m m 96% 4% m m 96% 4% Newcastle - Gosford m m 78% 22% m m 78% 22% Gosford - Sydney m m 49% 51% m m 49% 51% Newcastle - Sydney m m 73% 27% m m 73% 27% Sydney - Campbelltown m m 60% 40% m m 60% 40% Key middle to long distance corridors Brisbane - Sydney Air m m m 83% 16% 1% m m m 87% 13% 1% Brisbane Melbourne Air m m m 97% 3% 0% m m m 98% 2% 0% Sydney Canberra Air m m m 6% 90% 3% m m m 5% 92% 3% Sydney Melbourne Air m m m 84% 15% 1% m m m 86% 14% 1% Gold Coast Sydney Air m m m 76% 23% 1% m m m 81% 18% 1% Gold Coast Melbourne Air m m m 76% 23% 1% m m m 81% 18% 1% For the purpose of economic benefit calculations the average speeds for Stage 1 and Stage 2 are assumed to be 100km/h and 250km/h respectively (Note: these are conservative estimates compared to table 5. The speed at Stage 1 is assumed to be under 160km/h and the speed at Stage 2 is assumed to be under 350km/h. Travel time and time savings compared to the business as usual scenario were calculated and shown in the table 10.

44 44 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors TABLE 10 Base and future scenarios travel time comparison for the competing modes Corridors Main competing modes Business as Usual (BaU) Travel Times 2021 Stage 1 (160 km/h Max) 2051 Stage 2 (350 km/h Max) 2021 Stage 1 Time Savings from BaU 2051 Stage 2 Time Savings from BaU Key short distance corridors Sunshine Coast - Brisbane 128 mins n/a 79 mins 31 mins 49 mins 97 mins Brisbane - Gold Coast 63 mins 69 mins 51 mins 21 mins 18 mins 48 mins Sunshine Coast - Gold Coast 191 mins n/a 130 mins 52 mins 61 mins 139 mins Newcastle - Gosford 84 mins 92 mins 45 mins 18 mins 47 mins 74 mins Gosford - Sydney 79 mins 87 mins 45 mins 18 mins 42 mins 69 mins Newcastle - Sydney 163 mins 179 mins 90 mins 36 mins 89 mins 143 mins Sydney - Campbelltown 54 mins 57 mins 33 mins 13 mins 24 mins 44 mins Key middle to long distance corridors Brisbane - Sydney Air 95 mins 702 mins 797 mins 517 mins 207 mins 282 mins 590 mins Brisbane Melbourne Air 145 mins 1312 mins n/a 1050 mins 420 mins 262 mins 892 mins Sydney Canberra Air 50 mins 218 mins 267 mins 162 mins 64 mins 105 mins 203 mins Sydney Melbourne Air 90 mins 610 mins n/a 533 mins 213 mins 77 mins 397 mins Gold Coast Sydney Air 80 mins 639 mins n/a 466 mins 186 mins 173 mins 453 mins Gold Coast Melbourne Air 140 mins 1249 mins n/a 999 mins 399 mins 250 mins 850 mins Note: Business as usual travel times are estimated from Google, Countrylink and Qantas/Jetstar websites, i.e. existing travel times have been assumed. Time savings are estimated from the comparison of current rail travel times and Stage 1 or 2 rail travel times. In cases where there is no existing rail travel time, the road travel time is used for comparison purposes.

45 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 45 As the purpose of this study is to provide high-level and indicative estimates, new calibrated high speed rail mode choice models have not been examined. Instead, logit model parameter values have been drawn from past research and study. More robust estimates can be generated with recent stated and revealed preference surveys and a robust calibration and validation approach. It is recognised that there are distinct behavioural characteristics for short distance and medium/long distance travel, and therefore two logit models have been used to estimate the future mode share of high speed rail. The short distance mode choice model, which assumes the competing modes are car and train, employs a dispersion parameter of and a mode constant of 60 minutes in favour of cars, which accounts for the convenience of car travel and access and egress requirements to and from rail stations. The long distance mode choice analysis employs the logit relationship estimated from the Steer Davies Gleave paper 17, as shown in Figure 13. It is assumed that impacts to car demand are minimal and the key competing modes are air and rail. To account for the additional time spent getting to and from airports as well as the more robust check-in and security check requirements at airports, a penalty of 60 minutes have been assumed per direction, i.e. to or from airports. For this study, fares have been assumed to be the same for both air and rail modes. The Sydney to Canberra corridor is a special case, where a short distance model is applied for car vs rail travel and a long distance model is applied to air vs rail travel. Using the short distance and long distance models, mode shift and travel time saving predictions are estimated as shown in Table 11. Figure 13 Long distance market share model Source: Steer Davies Gleave, % 90% 80% MAD-SVQ-2004 FRA-CGN-2005 FRA-CGN-2002 Rail Market Share 70% 60% 50% 40% LON-MAN-2005 LON-PAR-2005 PAR-MRS-2005 LON-PAR-2002 LON-MAN-2002 PAR-MRS-1999 MIL -ROM % LON-EDI % 10% MAD-BCN-2002 LON-EDI-2004 MAD-BCN % Rail Utility Value - Air Utility Value 16 The mid-range value quoted in the Major Scheme Appraisal in Local Transport Plans - Part 3: Detailed Guidance on Forecasting Models for Major Public Transport Schemes, sopo.org/pdfs/msapart3.pdf has been assumed. 17 Air and Rail Competition and Complementarily, Steer Davies Gleave, August ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/studies/doc/2006_08_study_air_rail_competition_en.pdf

46 46 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors TABLE 11 Mode shift and travel time savings Corridors Main competing modes 2021 BaU Annual Demand 2051 BaU Annual Demand 2021 Stage 1 Annual Demand 2051 Stage 2 Annual Demand 2021 Stage 1 Travel Time Savings 2051 Stage 2 Travel Time Savings Key short distance corridors Sunshine Coast - Brisbane Train m m m m m m m m 1.95m hours 12.66m hours Brisbane - Gold Coast Train m m m m m m m m 0.97m hours 9.10m hours Sunshine Coast - Gold Coast Train m m m m m m m m 0.26m hours 1.58m hours Newcastle - Gosford Train m m m m m m m m 0.27m hours 0.98m hours Gosford - Sydney Train m m m m m m m m 7.68m hours 24.10m hours Newcastle - Sydney Train m m m m m m m m 1.40m hours 3.91m hours Sydney - Campbelltown Train m m m m m m m m 6.14m hours 19.28m hours Key middle to long distance corridors Brisbane - Sydney Air Train m m m m m m m m m m m m 0.13m hours 17.78m hours Brisbane Melbourne Air Train m m m m m m m m m m m m 0m hours 1.84m hours Sydney Canberra Air Train m m m m m m m m m m m m 0.57m hours 2.03m hours Sydney Melbourne Air Train m m m m m m m m m m m m 0.08m hours 20.99m hours Gold Coast Sydney Air Train m m m m m m m m m m m m 0.07m hours 9.63m hours Gold Coast Melbourne Air Train m m m m m m m m m m m m 0.04m hours 1.80m hours *Sydney Canberra to train shift n/a n/a m m Note: The rule of half has been applied to new rail users for the calculation of future years travel time savings. Assuming an average value of time of $10 per hour in 2006 prices and values 18, which equates to $11.5 in 2010 prices and values, with a growth rate of 3.5% a year comprising 2.5% inflation and 1%pa VOT growth, the estimated travel time savings for 2021 Stage 1 are $307 million per year in 2010 prices. With the step change in technology and speed, the estimated travel time savings for 2051 Stage 2 are $2.5 billion per year in 2010 prices. In addition, the travel times and time savings in this analysis are very conservative so as to not exaggerate patronage analysis. 18 Based on the Australian Transport Council National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia, Part 4 Urban Transport, 2006, page 46

47 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Decongestion benefits Australia s transport systems will come under pressure from a combination of changing conditions in the future. Populations of cities will increase, putting strain on already straining transport and utility networks. Even if people can be encouraged to live and work in outlying or regional centres, without an increase in the coverage and capacity of the transport network this will cause overcrowding on public transport and congestion on the roads. A Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) study 19 estimated the social cost of congestion over the Australian capital cities for 2005 to be $9.4 billion. The national total is spread over the capital cities with Sydney the highest at around $3.5 billion, followed by Melbourne at $3 billion. The cost is projected to rise to an estimated $20.4 billion by High capacity transit will provide high quality and speed travel experience to travellers, and hence will attract users from other modes of transport to shift to high capacity transport from their original mode of transport, i.e. cars, air. This will allow congestion relief of the existing roads and airports. As an indication, research on road decongestion benefits by the Victorian Department of Infrastructure found that the potential value of road decongestion can range from 17 cents to 90 cents per vehicle kilometre. These values cover both time and vehicle operating cost changes, and allow for any induced traffic effects resulting from reduced car travel demand. The peak time/moderate congestion level value is 64 cents per kilometre change in vehicle travel, presented in June 2004 prices. 5.4 Wider economic benefits High capacity transport could create a viable commuter connection between regional areas to major cities. By reducing travel times to employment centres, the employment market is increased for regional areas. Likewise, improved connections will attract businesses searching for premises and make outlying centres a viable alternative as a base outside of the capital cities. This has the added benefit of increasing job opportunities in regional areas. A wider economic benefit of improving accessibility is improved labour supply. When people make decisions about whether or not to work, where to work and how much to work, they take into account many things, including not only the wages on offer but also the costs associated with each option, including time forsaken, commuting costs and stress. This means high commuting costs can lead people to work less or in less productive jobs, and be lower paid, than they would otherwise. Reducing travel time and costs along desirable routes may cause people to enter the labour market or move to more productive jobs as a result. There are three labour market impacts 20 : More people choosing to work as a result of commuting time savings because the cost associated with working has fallen. Some people choosing to work longer hours because they spend less time commuting. Relocation of jobs to higher-productive areas because better transport makes the area more attractive and accessible to firms and workers. Other wider economic impacts, in addition to improvements to labour supply, result from the advancement of agglomeration economies and the presence of imperfect competition. Agglomeration means the geographic clustering of firms and workers. Firms are more productive when near to other firms because they have access to a large variety of inputs to their activities and their inter-association leads to a higher take-up of innovation. Many firms are also more productive when they have access to a large labour market. Improving accessibility facilitates the clustering effect and expands the labour market. In addition to conventional time savings measured in traditional cost benefit analysis, imperfect competition benefits seek to measure the additional value to society of the additional activity the worker now can undertake instead of travelling. Under the assumption of perfect competition, the two values hourly labour cost and marginal hourly productivity are identical, so labour cost is a good approximation for conventional benefit calculation. In reality this is not true. On average, firms are able to charge more for their products and services than what they cost to produce. This means that the value society places on the worker s output from one hour s additional work is higher than the cost of the worker s time to the firm. By valuing workers saved time at the level of costs to the firm rather than the value to society, current transport appraisal underestimates the benefits of in-work travel time savings. The United Kingdom Department of Transport s web-based Transport Analysis Guidance, which provides guidance to the appraisal of public transport, refers to Feldman et al (2008), who suggest wider impact benefits would add between 10% and 30% to the conventional benefits. It is argued that given the scale and nature of high speed rail compared with the conventional urban transit schemes, high speed rail is assumed to achieve the higher rate, i.e. 30% of conventional benefits. 5.5 Savings in external costs According to the UIC report 21, rail is responsible for less external impacts compared with cars, buses and air travel for the same amount of passenger kilometres of travel. Encouraging the shift of passengers from other modes to the rail mode will reduce the external costs of travel. The Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation Report 22 quotes the UIC report figures and provides a comparison of the external costs for each mode, as shown in Figure 15. The external costs considered include upstream process, impact on urban sprawl, landscape, climate change, air pollution, noise and accidents. As shown in the figure, the rail mode is by far the most external friendly mode. In 2008 values, it generates an external cost equivalent to 20 Euros per 1000 passenger kilometres of travel. This is followed by bus and air. Private cars generate the most external costs, equating to 87 Euros per 1000 passenger kilometres of travel. 19 BTRE Working Paper 71 - Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities, Transport, Wider Economic Benefits, and Impacts on GDP, UK Department for Transport, High-speed Rail: Fast Track to Sustainable Mobility, UIC, Paris, High-speed Rail: Strategic information for the Australian context, CRC for Rail Innovation, 2010

48 48 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Figure 14 Comparison of average external costs for rail versus other transport modes Source: UIC, 2008 and CRC for Rail Innovation, (Euros per 1,000 passenger-kilometres) Upstream process (energy production disposal waste,etc.) Impact on urban sprawl Landscape Climate change Air pollution Noise 0 Accidents Private Bus Rail Air Assuming inflation was at 2.5% per annum and using a foreign exchange rate of Aus $1 to 0.68 Euro 23, the monetary external costs for the four modes of travel in 2010 values and prices are: Private car $128 per 1000 passenger kilometres of travel Bus $56 per 1000 passenger kilometres of travel Rail $29 per 1000 passenger kilometres of travel Air $71 per 1000 passenger kilometres of travel 5.6 Deferral of a second Sydney airport The solution to air congestion building secondary airports is extremely expensive, and in many cases in European cities air corridors are diminishing. There are no longer scheduled air routes between Paris and Brussels and 90 per cent of people travelling between Paris and London now use high speed rail. There have been numerous studies undertaken for a potential second Sydney airport as the number of domestic and international passengers continue to grow. In 1999, the cost for the second Sydney airport was reported to be in the region of $6 billion to $8 billion 24. A more recent media article said the cost of building a second Sydney airport had inflated to $15 billion 25. While the final cost depends on many variables such as land value and airport size, industry analysts have confirmed for Infrastructure Partnerships Australia that $15 billion is a reasonable estimate of the cost of building a second Sydney airport. The CRC for Rail Innovation report strongly suggested that Sydney airport capacity issues should be considered in conjunction with future high speed rail options. High speed rail could reduce demand for busy air routes around the east coast 26 and alleviate the need for a second Sydney airport. It could also potentially provide the option of using Canberra and/or Newcastle airports to augment the capacity of Sydney airport. High speed rail offers a premium rail service that can be a genuine alternative to air and car trips on short to medium duration trips. In addition to competing on travel times, rail passengers can move around more freely, use mobile phones, laptops, and hold meetings. Passengers do not need to go through security screening, restrict what they can take on board, or wait to pick up luggage. Passengers overall are more comfortable and experience less health problems, such as in-flight dehydration, pressure change sensitivity, or nervousness and anxiety. With the implementation of high speed rail, deferring the construction of the second Sydney airport, could save up to $15 billion in 2010 prices. 23 Foreign exchange rate in June Government delays decision on second Sydney airport, ABC News, 17 August Do the numbers support the Very Fast Train, The Melbourne Urbanist, 3 May The Sydney-Melbourne air corridor is recognised to be one of the busiest in the world, the BTRE paper, Passenger movements between Australian cities, estimates that by 2031, the annual number of air passengers at the corridor will reach 9.2 million.

49 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 49 Figure 15 Plot of unimproved land prices per square metre against travel time to CBD for Sydney, in 2009 values and prices 6,000 Paddington Land Value ($) per Square Metre 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Bellevue Hill Dover Heights Manly Cronulla Travel Time to Sydney CBD (mins) 5.7 Land value increase from improvement in accessibility Research shows that improvement in the accessibility to city centres has the potential to add value to land and property, and hence, land value would increase as a result of the much improved accessibility to city centres generated by the implementation of high-speed rail. The most recent example can be drawn from the UK s Kent to St Pancras high speed rail link, operated by London Southeastern Railways. Since its commencement in 2009, journey times to London from Ashford have fallen by more than half to 37 minutes from its original 83 minutes. It immediately attracted London commuters who opt for country living styles to relocate to Kent while they can still enjoy reasonable accessibility to the city. The recent Colin Buchanan Report (January 2009), commissioned by London and Continental Railways, found high speed rail services to London will stimulate demand for property in Ashford, pushing up house prices by up to 7.5 per cent, an increase of 12,800 per property in 2006 prices. House prices around the new Ebbsfleet International Station in West Kent, which enjoys a quick 17 minutes journey from London St Pancras Station with the new high speed rail link, are estimated to experience an increase in value in the magnitude of 5.7 per cent to 14.4 per cent, i.e. an increase of 10,400 to 30,200 in 2006 prices. The report estimates that the new high speed rail link will result in house price increases in the Kent area by between 950 million and 1.6 billion. In the Australian context, a high speed rail link that connects the state capital cities of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne with their satellite suburbs will make those suburbs attractive to live and work in as a result of the significant improvement in accessibility to the CBDs. For example, if there was a high-speed rail link from Gosford to Sydney CBD and the travel time was reduced by half, it would immediately attract some commuters to relocate to Gosford for country style living, and hence drive the demand for houses and their values. The same would apply for Brisbane and Melbourne. A recent article published by the Australian Financial Review 27 said if high speed rail leads to new housing and commercial facilities for about 2 million people of the projected 13 million increase by 2049, as much $20 billion could be raised from tapping into land value increases, Land value increases as a direct result of transport investment have not been considered as part of the economic benefits in conventional scheme appraisal approaches such as the National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia and the UK Department of Transport s Transport Analysis Guidance, to avoid potential double counting.. However,land value increases may provide a source of funding for transport projects. There are established international methodologies for the capture of the increase in land value to subsidise the capital costs of transport investment, e.g. through council tax, stamp duty, development contributions, and so on. Using publicly available data on unimproved land values for Sydney and Brisbane sourced from state government departments; AECOM has carried out its own analyses to estimate the potential increase in unimproved land prices per square metre as a result of the travel time improvement from high-speed rail. Firstly, in Figure 15, unimproved land prices per square metre are plotted against the travel time to the CBD in minutes. It is found that the unimproved land values per square metre correlates well with a power function of the travel times to the CBDs, as shown in Figure 16. A comparison of the unimproved land prices per square metre against travel time to the CBDs for Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast are shown in Figure 16. Using the relationships shown in Figure 16, travel time improvements and the consequent estimated land value increases are shown in Table 12 and Figure Bye Crowded Sky, Hail Fast Rail, The Australian Financial Review, 23 December 2009.

50 50 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Figure 16 Comparison of unimproved land prices per square metre against travel time to CBD relationships for Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast (2009 values and prices) 6,000 Land Value ($) per Square Metre 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Sydney 2009 Land Values Brisbane 2009 Land Values Gold Coast 2009 Land Values Travel Time to Sydney CBD (mins) TABLE 12 Travel time improvement in regional cities Regional Cities Capital Cities Current Travel Time and Land Values Stage 1 Travel Time Stage 2 Travel Time Gosford Sydney 87 mins 45 mins 18 mins Hornsby Sydney 37 mins 20 mins 8 mins Campbelltown Sydney 57 mins 33 mins 13 mins Figure 17 Comparison of unimproved land prices per square metre against travel time to CBD relationships for Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast (2009 values and prices) 6,000 Land Value ($) per Square Metre 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Stage 1 Travel Time from Campbelltown to Sydney (33 minutes) - $640/sqm Stage 2 Travel Time from Campbelltown to Sydney (13 minutes) - $1900/sqm 44 mins saved 24 mins saved Current Travel Time from Campbelltown to Sydney (57 minutes) - $340/sqm Travel Time to City Centres (mins)

51 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Value of options land acquisition cost savings Over the past 10 years average land values have been increased at a rate greater than the real GDP growth. If this trend continues, it provides an opportunity for government to acquire and preserve the necessary lands at a more economical price in the near future. AECOM analysis of NSW Department of Lands and Queensland Government s Department of Environment and Resource Management unimproved land value data sets estimates the average nominal growth in the unimproved land values per square metre for the key coastal cities and towns, shown in Figure 18. The 2009 unimproved land values per square metre for the key coastal towns and cities have also been estimated from the data sets. As would be expected, Figure 19 illustrates values are highest in the inner city areas of the capital cities. Figure 18 Growth (% Change) in Unimproved Land Values per annum for the Key Coastal Towns and Cities 12.0% 10.0% NSW (1996 to 2009) Queensland (2007 to 2009) 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Sydney 0-20km Sydney 20-40km Sydney 40-60km Sydney 60+km East Gosford Wamberal The Entrance Wyong Eleebana Edgeworth Merewether (Newcastle) Mayfield (Newcastle) Taree Port Macquarie Coffs Harbour Grafton Ballina Lismore Murwillumbah Tweed Heads Brisbane 0-20km Brisbane 20-40km Brisbane 40-60km Figure Unimproved Land Values per square metre $3,000 $2,500 NSW (2009) Queensland (2009) $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 Sydney 0-20km Sydney 20-40km Sydney 40-60km Sydney 60+km East Gosford Wamberal The Entrance Wyong Eleebana Edgeworth Merewether (Newcastle) Mayfield (Newcastle) Taree Port Macquarie Coffs Harbour Grafton Ballina Lismore Murwillumbah Tweed Heads Brisbane 0-20km Brisbane 20-40km Brisbane 40-60km

52 52 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors The key message in examining the land value increases across the entire East Coast corridor is that land values will continue to increase in these regions, and acquiring the land for the corridor will only get more expensive with time. While the acquisition of the land for the entire Sunshine Coast to Melbourne would be in the billions of dollars now, it is likely to be in the tens of billions of dollars by the middle of the century. It is critical to remember that a corridor can be reserved without being acquired. It is also important to note that the portions of the corridor which are the most viable to have high speed rail in the short to medium term are those closest to capital cities, and it is those corridors which will experience the most dramatic property value increases over the coming decades. There is therefore an imperative to reserve the entire corridor now, as well as begin acquisition in areas of greatest potential use and where benefits are most readily harnessed that is, in proximity to our urban areas. 5.9 Immediate versus staged corridor acquisition Acquiring corridors that are suitable for high capacity transport infrastructure will have a considerable cost, because a significant amount of land is needed and there is limited flexibility when acquiring straight corridors. However, it will be even more expensive to acquire corridors in the future compared to now, given increases in land values and increasing density of land usage. The case for early acquisition also depends on the holding costs, represented by Government Treasury discount rate. The trade-off between lower purchase costs now plus holding costs compared to higher purchase costs later can be expressed in terms of a break-even ratio. Another way is to understand this is in terms of option values. Acquiring corridors now creates call options to build high capacity infrastructure in the future. The value of these options depends on the cost of acquiring now compared to later, the probability that the corridor will be needed at some time, and the relative difference between the rate of growth in real estate prices and the public discount rate. If real estate prices are forecast to increase at the same rate as Treasury s discount rate, then there is a very compelling case to acquire corridors now for future use, whether for infrastructure or indeed any land usage. However, real estate prices tend to increase more slowly than the Treasury discount rate. AECOM s analysis shows that if real estate prices were to increase at 4 percentage points less than the Treasury discount rate, then there would be no strong case to preserve now in case rather than acquire later if needed. Figure 20 shows the break-even probability of corridor options over time, for a range of differences between real estate price increases and Treasury discount rate. For each line, if the probability of needing the corridor at any time is greater than plotted, then it is preferable to acquire the corridor now rather than later. For example, if real estate prices were to increase at two percentage points less than the Treasury discount rate, then there would be a strong case to acquire corridors now rather than later, provided that the probability of needing the corridor was greater than 60% after Based on indicative current dollar values, AECOM estimates that the corridor would have a purchase price in 2009 of $13.7 billion. By contrast, a purchase of the corridor in 2030 would cost around $57 billion, assuming land price increases of around four per cent real plus the impact of urban expansion. The purchase price is discounted back to $17.7 billion in 2010 using a discount rate that is two per cent higher than land price increase (namely, six per cent), generating potential revenue of $3.3 billion per annum based on a return from the corridor of one per cent of value per annum. There would be a net saving of $5 billion of purchasing the entire corridor now rather than in 2030, which breaks even if the probability of needing the corridor is greater than 62 per cent. These dollar values are indicative only and are based on unimproved land values in NSW, transferred to other states. It is important to note that neither IPA nor AECOM is advocating full acquisition of the entire corridor now these figures provide an indicative guide which shows that, in this analysis, it makes sense to acquire the corridor if there is a greater than 62 per cent chance of needing the corridor in the future (based on the above assumptions), which is of course dependent on further studies, and ultimately government policy. A crucial fact is that it is possible to reserve corridors to prevent development that would rule out a future very fast train without acquiring them. Figure 20 Break-even probability of Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne corridor options Min probability that infrastructure needed 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% acquire corridor when needed premium 2.5% premium 2.0% premium 3.0% acquire corridor now premium 0.0% 0% Year when infrastructure needed premium 1.0%

53 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 53 The break-even corridor reservation probability is illustrated in Figure 20. As discussed above, the option value depends on relativities between forecast increase in land prices and Government Treasury discount rate. The option value is very sensitive to this relativity, as is any decision about whether to acquire now in case the corridor is needed or later if it is needed. NSW Treasury recommends a discount rate of 7% pre-tax in real terms, with sensitivities at 4% and 10%. The ABS house price index for New South Wales shows that the annual growth rate in house purchase prices is approximately 4% per annum compounding. Infrastructure Australia also recommends discount rates of 4%, 7%, and 10%. The difference between long-term increases in house prices and Treasury s central discount rate is approximately 3%, which favours corridor acquisition if there is a reasonable probability that the corridor is needed (88% in 2020, or 93% in 2050). Furthermore, there are other benefits of early acquisition that have not been included in preceding analysis, as follow: No allowance has been made for the costs of negotiating with multiple landowners. However, over time density of land usage will increase, so acquiring the same corridor will require negotiations with more landowners, increasing the transaction costs. If the corridor is acquired by compulsory acquisition, there will be additional costs of complying with acquisition processes as well as potential social impacts. These costs will also increase over time, because processes are likely to become more onerous. No allowance has been made for these costs. In summary, government decision frameworks should favour early acquisition of corridors that are ready for high capacity infrastructure if there is a reasonable probability that corridors will be needed More efficient freight operation There are other cost savings and benefits of developing a very fast train which this study has not quantified. For example, the diversion of existing passenger rail rolling stock to operate at the new high-speed rail track will improve the operational efficiency for rail freight. Diverting passenger services away from the existing rail network will improve the operational performance of rail freight. It is anticipated that utilising existing rail networks for better freight corridors would deliver substantial benefits in terms of freight capacity and speed Tourism and business events Compared with the existing rolling stock, the premium service provided by high speed rail will also enhance the quality of travel experienced by travellers. Tourists may be attracted to make new trips on high speed rail services. A well-connected national highcapacity transit network will enhance the status of Australia as a nation and increase the probability of successful bids for major international exhibition and sporting events such as EXPO, the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. Experience in Europe has shown that a substantial portion of revenue derived from ticket sales comes from tourists, and in Australia it is expected that this would also occur to some degree. In addition, opening up regional areas to new tourism investment would be considered to be another benefit of the network. A well-connected national high-capacity transit network will enhance the status of Australia as a nation and increase the probability of successful bids for major international exhibition and sporting events such as EXPO, the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. It is well researched that these events will bring direct economic benefits to the Australian economy. It also offers potential to make Australia a more accessible location for conventions and major conferences of government and nongovernment organisations Employment benefits The original Speedrail proposal estimated that up to 15,000 construction jobs could be created by the development of a very fast train line between Sydney and Canberra, and 2430 new permanent jobs would be established. No specific figures have been generated for this report as this study focuses more specifically on the reservation of high capacity infrastructure corridors, rather than the construction of a particular segment of a new rail line. However, it is important to note the potential benefits in employment that could come from rolling out a new very fast train network incrementally Reducing reliance on fossil fuels In 2007, transport generated 15 per cent of Australia's total carbon dioxide emissions. Of this, road travel contributed 87 per cent 28. Transport is largely powered by fossil fuels, either directly by liquid or gaseous fuel or indirectly by electricity. Burning fossil fuels produces emissions such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide and particulates that can cause air pollution or contribute to global warming. Transport modes produce different levels of emissions. 28 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Department of Climate Change, May 2009

54 54 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors A New South Wales Parliamentary Library paper underlines the environmental credentials of rail: The transport of freight by rail is widely recognised as having significant environmental benefits compared to the transport of freight by road. Freight transported by rail uses one third of the fuel required for road transport per tonne of freight hauled. It produces only one third of the nitrous oxide, half of the volatile organic compounds and less than two thirds of the carbon monoxide. Rail is twice as energy efficient as road, even after fuel use has been included for road pick-up and delivery from rail terminals, manufacture of transport equipment and construction of roads and railway lines. One freight train between Melbourne and Sydney replaces [up to] 150 semi-trailers and saves 45,000 litres of fuel and 130 tonnes of greenhouse gases, compared with road haulage. 29 If the aim is to reduce greenhouse emissions, it would be desirable to encourage more people to travel by rail than by road or air for the same trip, regardless of distance. We add a caution that it might not be desirable, however, to encourage longer trips by rail to replace shorter rail trips just because a higher speed mode has made it more feasible; for example, being able to live further from work. There are also issues with creating satellite towns. Sustainable transport is not a different kind of transport but a movement, or policy in some countries, that aims to minimise the environmental, social and economic costs associated with transport, with a future goal of attaining sustainable transport systems. It co-exists with other movements such as sustainable cities and sustainable development. In environmental terms, sustainability refers to the use of natural resources at a rate that allows the planet to regenerate those resources, in social terms, to equity between all members of the human race and in economic terms to the viability of an undertaking; for example, a project must produce at least as much value as it costs to undertake. An emissions trading scheme is just one example of potential future policy context to which businesses and individuals may have to adapt. The introduction of the formerly proposed bon Pollution Reduction Scheme is currently on hold but it can be assumed the pressures on existing systems and networks, and the depletion and higher cost of traditional fuel sources, will lead to increasing costs of transport in the future. Therefore, irrespective of the direction of future transport policy, it will be of interest to Australians to investigate methods to reduce fossil fuel use and in doing so work towards sustainable transport use. One way to reduce the external costs of transport is to changing a mode of transport to a less polluting option, such as from car use to bus, from air to rail, road or sea, road freight to rail freight. It is entirely feasible that Australia s future high-speed rail network could also be powered by renewable energy such as wind, making the entire rail network carbon neutral, or even carbon positive. Recent examples have shown that offsetting the power usage of a major project through investment in renewable energy can have important social and environmental dividends. The decision to power the Kurnell desalination plant in Sydney entirely by renewable energy has been widely regarded a success. It is entirely feasible that Australia s future high-speed rail network could also be powered by renewable energy such as wind, making the entire rail network carbon neutral, or even carbon positive. Recent studies from the US have confirmed the environmental credentials of high-speed rail, noting that while high speed rail has the potential to be the lowest energy consumer and greenhouse gas emitter, appropriate planning and continued investment would be needed to ensure sustained high occupancy Safety benefits The predicted diversion of trips from road to rail would reduce the number of fatalities per billion passenger kilometres and therefore reduce the cost of transport related accidents to the nation. Both air travel in Australia and high speed rail travel internationally have incredibly strong safety records, so any safety benefits from the introduction of a very fast train would expected to be from the consequent reduction in car travel National road pricing Discussion of a potential future high speed rail network in Australia must naturally be forward-looking and consider issues which may emerge over the coming decades. One such issue is road pricing, and the potential introduction of a National Road Pricing scheme. In 2010, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, in partnership with SAHA, released a discussion paper on the potential role of a national road pricing scheme for Australia 31. The paper found that all existing 29 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Department of Climate Change, May Chester, M and A Horvath (2010) Life-cycle assessment of high-speed rail: the case of California. 31 IPA (2010) Urban Transport Challenge: A discussion paper on a role for road pricing in the Australian context.

55 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 55 road-related taxes, fees and charges could be abolished and a single, user charge implemented to charge motorists based on their individual impact on the road estate. There is a need to manage transport demand to reduce pressure on infrastructure. Even with demand management measures, there will be a strong need for additional infrastructure. Road pricing will both assist in the provision and maintenance of funding as well as facilitating the management of transport demand to achieve a more efficient and sustainable transport system. As the Henry Tax Review notes: Existing institutions have not led to the most efficient use and supply of roads. Prices are essential to making the best use of roads The challenge is formidable. It requires coordination across all levels of government. But reform would promote the best investment in and use of our roads, lift national productivity, and improve the lives of millions of Australians. Analysis undertaken for IPA by SAHA has shown that the current road-related expenditure of $ billion ( ) could be raised by a light vehicle road user charge averaging just 4.6c/km. A charge averaging 10.4c/km for light vehicles could generate revenue equivalent to that currently derived from road related fees and charges. Depending on any eventual scheme design and pricing structure, it is likely that the proceeds of a future road pricing scheme would provide a significant recurrent stream of capital for investment in transport infrastructure projects, including possibly High Speed Rail. A road pricing scheme based on distance, location and time of travel could improve equity outcomes across society by: Increasing the accountability of road users for the impacts arising from their road use; Removing upfront fees and charges that act as barriers to vehicle ownership thereby reducing the impacts of social isolation; and, Reducing the current, disproportionate fees and charges that apply to some heavy vehicles. motorists are given the incentive to use private vehicles less to drive down their personal or business costs Economic impact on the aviation sector Analysis undertaken for this paper shows that on a number of key routes, building a very fast train network would see people shift from air travel to rail. The implications of this for the aviation sector are significant. This report has not looked in detail at the economic impacts that high-speed rail would have on airlines, airports, or related industries, however it is important to note that airlines around the world are seeing high-speed rail as an opportunity, not a threat. For example, the Virgin brand is synonymous with aviation in Australia, however it has diversified its transport offering in the northern hemisphere and is equally known for running quality passenger train services in the United Kingdom. It is also important to note that QANTAS was a key associate on the original Speedrail consortium, which looked at a Sydney to Canberra and Sydney to Melbourne very fast train route, indicating that the airline has wanted to be involved in a future high speed rail project in Australia. Naturally, more work would need to be done on the impacts to the aviation sector if high-speed rail progresses, however, for the purposes of this study, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia notes that there may be considerable interest from multiple airlines in operating trains on the route, particularly if the network were structured with an open access regime allowing service competition. Given that the route proposed in this study includes links to major airports such as Sydney and Canberra, which potentially augments their catchment areas, the aviation sector should see very fast trains as an opportunity, not a threat. There is potential that the introduction of a national road pricing could be used to help fund the staged introduction of an east coast high capacity infrastructure corridor and eventual very fast train. Hypothecating the revenue generated by a road-pricing scheme towards road improvements, urban mass transit and high-speed rail would ensure that people have options to leave their cars at home and foster public acceptance for both. In addition, a national road pricing system would be expected to create a beneficial patronage uplift effect on high-speed rail, as

56

57 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Environmental Constraints for Infrastructure Corridors 6.1 Introduction This section discusses the environmental issues and constraints arising from the introduction of a future linear infrastructure corridor along the route proposed between Brisbane and Melbourne. The potential environmental benefits associated with the eventual introduction of the linear infrastructure corridor are addressed in Section 5.0 Economic Benefits. The environmental characteristics and sensitivities of introducing a corridor to meet the future infrastructure needs of a growing population are complex and unique. There is significant potential for disruption to natural ecosystems. In addition, given the scale and nature of the corridor required, it will inevitably pass through established communities, most notably in the urban areas surrounding the major cities of Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne, resulting in potential amenity impacts on residents. Early consideration of the environmental constraints applicable to the introduction of the corridor is an integral component of the design process and will influence the detailed planning and infrastructure coordination work necessary to support the introduction of the corridor and as far as possible ameliorate the environmental impact. The approach has been to undertake a high level review of environmental information relating to the proposed corridor route to highlight potential constraints and issues that may influence its route and design. This process has been instrumental in identifying potential issues that could result in an eventual infrastructure project being delayed or threaten its viability. A high level, desk based assessment of the potential environmental issues associated with the introduction of a future linear infrastructure corridor has been undertaken. The assessment has established the general context for the infrastructure corridor and has been used as a means of identifying the key issues that will need to be considered in the later introduction of infrastructure. Further detailed consideration of these issues will be instrumental in determining a preferred route for any future infrastructure project, to ensure that environmental risk associated with any such project is minimised and to ensure that tailored mitigation measures are introduced. This more detailed investigative work would be essential to ensure that data in respect of environmental issues surrounding any infrastructure project is complete and correct to form a robust basis for route development and importantly to prevent issues arising once the project advances to the assessment phase. Commencing efforts to reserve the corridor is preferable in environmental terms because it: Allows for early consideration of national environmental matters allowing opportunities to develop appropriate mitigation measures; Provides greater certainty for local communities and developers over future development intentions; and Provides capacity to achieve better environmental outcomes and address the cumulative landscape impacts associated with the introduction of the corridor. 6.2 Environmental FACTORS As with other linear infrastructure projects, a final project developed within the corridor could potentially result in the introduction of a significant new landscape feature. The environmental impacts associated with the introduction of the corridor are two-fold: Development impacts by means of land disturbance and clearing of a relatively narrow linear route which may affect vegetation, indigenous cultural heritage items, and existing land uses, without careful management. Operational impacts on the environment including noise, visual impact and changed access patterns at the regional and local levels. The corridor would traverse through a landscape that contains a rich and diverse array of protected areas with high environmental sensitivity possibly including national parks and areas with Commonwealth or state level heritage significance, including both Indigenous and non-indigenous sites. Table 13 lists the principal environmental constraints, which are discussed in detail below. Table 13 The key environmental issues associated with the introduction of the corridor Heritage World heritage sites Register of the national estate National parks Commonwealth heritage State heritage Flora and fauna National parks Conservation reserves State forests Threatened species and communities Protected habitat Wildlife corridors Soils, water and hydrology Registered contaminated sites Hazardous facilities Landfill sites Acid sulphate soils Salinity Ramsar sites Wetlands Flood plains

58 58 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors Heritage: Heritage constraints require avoidance of areas of national significance and areas with high cultural and Indigenous heritage value that may occur within the potential corridors. Items of heritage significance may be listed under local, state or federal legislation or may be currently unrecorded. Areas and items of heritage significance can range from a spiritual connection to the land or area to physical buildings or relics. In some instances it may not be possible to avoid heritage items. In such cases appropriate mitigation measures would be required. In China, the construction of the Zhengzhou Xi an railway project involved the relocation of heritage sites where sites could not be avoided. Elsewhere this approach has not been appropriate, although it was rejected as a possible means of addressing impacts on heritage buildings as a result of the Channel Tunnel crossing in the UK. Relocation was considered to be too damaging to the fabric of a number of buildings, and instead measures to strengthen and support the buildings to withstand the vibration impacts of the rail project were introduced. Flora and fauna: As with all major infrastructure projects it is important to consider the ecological values and potential impacts on flora and fauna within the study area. Particularly, the identification of any critical habitat, threatened species, wildlife or ecological communities, and/or their habitats as defined under relevant state and federal legislation. Specific issues are likely to include: Avoiding areas of national significance, world heritage listed areas, national parks, state forests and ecological endangered communities. Avoiding protected Wetlands, Ramsar Wetlands, Littoral Rainforest, Saltmarsh areas and other non-designated environmentally sensitive areas as justified by suitably qualified ecologists. Minimising disruption to terrestrial and aquatic fauna habitat, vegetation associations and habitat corridors that occur along potential linear infrastructure corridors. Mitigation measures adopted in the UK to address impacts on threatened species associated with the development of the Channel Tunnel rail link included a combination of displacement and translocation. Water voles were displaced to adjacent habitat by techniques such as spreading predator odour as well as vegetation management. Breeding boxes were used to move hazel dormouse from affected woodland to nearby undisturbed areas. Other species were translocated as a last resort measure. Soils, water and hydrology: The avoidance of geologically and hydrologically sensitive sites is important in protecting water quality and the stability of the rail corridor. This can be achieved through: Minimising the length of corridor that passes through flood prone areas and crosses waterways. This could be achieved through the use of aerial structures supported on piers. Avoiding corridors that traverse sensitive soil profiles, including alluvial, acid sulphate soils and highly erodible soils. Avoiding steep slopes and excessively undulating topography that would require significant earthworks and increase the risk of erosion Other considerations Socio-economic: Generally, social and economic impacts associated with major linear infrastructure projects rarely occur in only one spatial or temporal context. Rather, there is inevitably a variety of receptors which require assessment and management throughout the evaluation of route options. Social and economic considerations should include: Minimising the severance of communities and avoiding changes to access patterns. Minimising significant social challenges by early identification of the corridor and adoption of suitable policy measures to protect land within the corridor from future development, providing certainty for existing communities, and progressive acquisition of property. Minimising the length of the corridor that traverses areas of high agricultural value. Minimising changes to industry, commerce and employment, exploring potential employment and commercial benefits. Minimising land use impacts and property acquisition and adjustment. Effective community consultation will be an essential mechanism in dealing with socio-economic issues arising from the introduction of the corridor. Action now, in the form of property acquisition and policy, to ensure the protection of the route would provide certainty and help to limit these social impacts in the future. Of course, many communities would potentially benefit from the increased access provided by a vastly improve transport link, such as high speed rail. Utilities and infrastructure: Given the length of the corridor, utilisation of existing utilities and infrastructure would reduce the cost and impact of the project. Key considerations would include: Utilising existing road, rail and utility corridors where possible. Reducing crossings over major roads and rail infrastructure and relocation of utilities. Noise and vibration: Noise assessment is a critical social and environmental issue during the construction and operation of linear infrastructure projects, most notably where these involve the introduction of transport infrastructure. The integration of this assessment and noise mitigation into the design of different options is an important part of the evaluation of these options. Urban design, landscape and visual impacts: The corridor would pass through a large number of urban environments, increasing the potential for urban design challenges and visual impacts. In the UK the use of tunnels is currently being explored as a means of minimising the visual impact on the proposed high-speed rail link from London to the north of England on the Chilterns, a recognised Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A similar approach has been adopted in the US in respect of the California high-speed rail project. Track design incorporates a combination of tunnels and aerial structures to minimise its overall footprint and impact.

59 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 59 Effective community consultation will be an essential mechanism in dealing with socio-economic issues arising from the introduction of the corridor. Action now, in the form of property acquisition and policy, to ensure the protection of the route would provide certainty and help to limit these social impacts in the future. In other areas, linear infrastructure projects have been used as an opportunity to revitalise the urban landscape. The redevelopment of St Pancras station in London in association with the introduction of infrastructure for the Channel Tunnel rail link, for example, had enormous regeneration benefits, resulting in investment to create a high quality townscape. Ecologically sustainable development: Consideration of the principles of ecologically sustainable development should be included in the assessment of route options. This may include: Sourcing of construction resources from local suppliers and manufacturers. Minimising the ecological footprint of the corridor. Supporting local, regional and national economic growth. Minimising waste and resource use. Improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 6.3 Corridor characteristics In general terms, the key factors to address with the Melbourne- Brisbane linear infrastructure corridor are: Heritage: Avoiding destruction or damage of heritage sites/items. Avoiding visually scarring of the landscape. Flora and Fauna: Reduction in environmental quality of vegetation and habitat, in particular national parks and state forests. Fragmentation and severance of habitats. Cumulative impact on protected areas at a regional level. Impacts on endangered species and reduction in the ecological value of habitat. Fragmentation and severance of habitats. Cumulative loss of biodiversity at a regional level. Loss of aquatic habitats and infrastructure damage. Loss of landscape features. Creation of barriers to wildlife. Soils, water and hydrology: Increased severity of risk of exposing acid sulphate soils or spreading salt accumulation. Increase environmental, safety and health risks associated with water and land contamination and consequently incurrence of remediation costs. Potential to impact on flood prone areas and increase flood hazard. Potential to impact on water quality used for potable water supplies. Other issues: Displacement of homes. Visual impact associated with the introduction of new urban features. Severance of land holdings. Reputational damage of an area, e.g. world heritage site, national park. Disruption to local businesses. Specifically, introduction of the corridor along the identified route would need to address, but is not limited to, the following matters: The route may traverse the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve, which is listed as a world heritage site. Numerous threatened species are identified within the vicinity of the proposed route. The route may extend through several national parks, state parks and nature reserves. The route would extend through areas of flood-prone land. The route would travel through established urban communities potentially resulting in issues of displacement and amenity impact. Water supply catchments at Moss Vale would be need to be monitored. The route would require river crossings at several points. 6.4 Environment risk management This review of the environmental constraints affecting the introduction of the corridor highlights its degree of exposure to environmental risk and the need for long-term planning. Environmental matters are a potential risk to fulfilling project commitments, gaining development consents, achieving construction program and delivery of a project on time and to budget. Archaeology and ecology in particular are two risk areas where unknowns and seasonal effects could have a significantly damaging impact on a project s program. These issues are therefore important reasons to invest in appropriate levels of environmental design and management planning in advance. The project s large scale and cross-state nature renders it highly visible and potentially contentious. Public expectation of effective environmental management will be high and the project is likely to be subject to significant scrutiny in this regard.

60 60 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors In preserving a corridor for future infrastructure, the following environmental principles should be adopted: Avoid areas of high conservation significance such as national parks, RAMSAR wetlands and other areas with high biodiversity values, both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Avoid areas of high cultural heritage significance, Indigenous and non-indigenous. Reduce the potential for noise and other adverse operational impacts on nearby communities. Avoid impacts on strategic land uses such as energy and mineral deposits, forestry resources, and investment intensive land uses. Optimise land take. With reference to the key environmental issues of heritage, flora and fauna and soils, water and hydrology, the following sequence to the option selection should be adopted: 1. Avoid 2. Minimise 3. Mitigate 4. Offset In all cases the most appropriate means of mitigating impact is avoidance, i.e. ensuring the corridor alignment is designed to bypass these sensitive areas. Where avoidance is not possible, options to minimise given the anticipated nature and scale of the corridor, extending through four states and numerous local government areas, some disturbance to nature conservation areas is inevitable. Field surveys will be required at detailed design stage and appropriate strategies to deal sensitively with protected species and habitats. An extensive phase of project planning, community and stakeholder consultation and Environmental Impact Assessment would be required. This process would provide an opportunity to refine the alignment of an eventual route and develop suitable mitigation measures where necessary. Detailed design of the route would provide an opportunity for consideration of environmental limitations and targeted mitigation measures would be proposed. General mitigation measures may include: Track realignment to avoid environmental constraints. Minimise crossings and or crossing lengths of protected areas, wildlife corridors and rivers. Detailed ecological and contamination assessments. Maximise use of existing transport and infrastructure corridors. Community and stakeholder consultation. Detailed environmental impact assessment. Design out impacts through early consideration of access and local traffic, flooding and acid sulphate soils. Minimise overall land take through use of existing infrastructure. Specific mitigation measures would need to be developed at project level to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Examples of mitigation measures employed on linear infrastructure projects elsewhere are shown in Table 14. Table 14 Examples of mitigation measures Key Issue Heritage Flora and fauna Undertake a watching brief, close working between earthworks contractors and archaeologists. Contribution to conservation bank or natural management area. Relocation of sensitive species. Construction of wildlife underpasses, bridges and/or culverts. Introduction of sound walls to limit affects of noise, vibration and light on fauna. Fencing to guide fauna towards crossings coupled with suitable habitat and topography for target species. Provision of compensatory habitat. Landscape restoration. Other Issue Urban communities Visual impact Soils Early acquisition of properties. extensive public engagement including consultation with NGOs, government agencies, general public, community and local interest groups. Use of tunnelling to reduce extent of above ground works. Minimise height of infrastructure. Programme of landscape restoration. Minimise land take by introducing steep side slopes to avoid impact on sensitive habitats. Reuse of surplus spoil from the project in appropriate areas.

61 High Capacity Infrastructure Corridors 61 THE WAY FORWARD recommendations This report has identified a realistic and pragmatic approach toward establishing a shared high capacity infrastructure corridor for the east coast of Australia. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and AECOM believe the time is ripe for a considered debate on how Australia anticipates meeting the infrastructure needs of a growing population in the time towards High speed rail has a role to play in Australia, although it may not be feasible for some time. However, recognising that it will be required to cater for future demand means there is an opportunity to act now to protect a corridor along which it can run, and ensure we do not preclude its future development. This report recommends embarking on six critical phases towards planning, future-proofing and developing Australia s infrastructure on the eastern seaboard to cater for both transport and utility services: 1 Undertake a detailed corridor profile and implementation study to identify and protect a high capacity infrastructure corridor between the Sunshine Coast and Melbourne, to future-proof Australia s infrastructure capacity on the eastern seaboard. Protecting a high capacity infrastructure corridor between the Sunshine Coast and Melbourne will require concerted action by the Federal Government and a high level of cooperation with state and local governments. A key outcome of this process should be an improved process of infrastructure corridor planning which will facilitate a nationally consistent approach to planning, assessment, funding and implementing Australia s infrastructure. 2 Ensure the corridor is suitable for high speed rail. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and AECOM have recognised that the east coast of Australia will, in all likelihood, require a new high speed rail corridor over the coming decades. We recommend the infrastructure corridor be future-proofed to ensure its suitability for high speed rail, that is, have very low curvature. It should also facilitate other utilities, including road, energy, data and communications, sharing the corridor. 3 Commit to a firm timeline for the procurement of the first economically feasible segment of a future network. After undertaking corridor and economic analysis indicating that the project will deliver benefits, the Federal Government should commit to a timeline to procure and construct the first economically viable part of the east coast network, to provide certainty to industry and the community that high speed rail is part of Australia s future. 4 Reserve the corridor, and target capital expenditure towards incremental improvement. The plan set out in this report is to target capital expenditure in ways that produce incremental benefits, rather than deferring benefits until all capital has been spent. In addition to improving the present value of benefits, this approach will increase confidence in the expenditure program. It will also enable the program to be modified in the light of experience and changing circumstances and technology. Acquiring the corridor will have substantial costs, however not acquiring the corridor will be far more expensive in the long term. 5 Spend when feasible in line with a long-term vision for infrastructure corridors, integrated with other policies. Having a long-term vision to develop infrastructure corridors enables governments to tailor spending to suit fiscal circumstances. For example, in times of budget surplus, governments could invest in straightening alignments. Conversely, should there be a case for government-funded stimulus, then governments could spend on portions of infrastructure. In essence, the infrastructure plan for Australia s east coast is defined in principle in the Council of Australian Governments strategic planning criteria for capital cities, agreed in December Prepare an integrated infrastructure plan for Australia s east coast. Establishment of the COAG Cities Planning Taskforce, the requirement for all states to have capital city plans by the beginning of 2012 and the national freight network and ports strategies being prepared for Infrastructure Australia are a positive start for future national infrastructure planning. The most advantageous process towards developing high capacity infrastructure corridors is to link it with the planning in progress under COAG and Infrastructure Australia. The next step clearly is to mould those plans into a long-term nation building infrastructure strategy.

62

63