What if Australia had gotten high-speed rail?

There are many people on this thread that know much more about high speed passenger rail than me. I just have one question. Can anyone name the high speed passenger lines that are profitable without a large government subsidy (large is defined as 25% of the total revenue of the line)?
 
According to Wikipedia, the company went bankrupt in July, 2006. I know that Wikipedia is not a great source, but it is hard for me to believe that they are wrong about this. This allowed Getlink to convert most of their long-term debt (namely the cost of building the tunnel into stock). There are very few capital intensive companies in the world that will not be profitable if their plant and equipment are free. My understanding of a profitable railroad is not one that must become bankrupt in order to become profitable.

I repeat my question. Can anyone name the high speed passenger lines that are profitable without a large government subsidy (large is defined as 25% of the total revenue of the line)?
 
In terms of rail transport projects, I think the Inland Rail project will actually have and deliver real benefits. But then again moving freight isn't very 'electorally sexy' for vast majority of the voting public.
 
Can anyone name the high speed passenger lines that are profitable without a large government subsidy (large is defined as 25% of the total revenue of the line)?

The literature points to JR Central's Tokaido Shinkansen (Tokyo-Osaka) having returned the cost of capital rapidly (by the early 1970s) and continuing to be revenue positive for its owners since. Reputedly the JR East and JR West/Kyushu Shinkansen routes are at least profitable in terms of opex (and potentially capex).
 
And what externalities (land use, cultural land use, noise, compulsory acquisition under market, environmental) did JR not pay?

(All long distance modes have similar externalities).
 
And what externalities (land use, cultural land use, noise, compulsory acquisition under market, environmental) did JR not pay?

(All long distance modes have similar externalities).

The Japanese Government and the then JNR thanked the USAAF and pre-war timber building construction for clearing significant amounts of land for the Tokaido Shinkansen. Also, significant levels of early works were done prior to 1945 in tunnelling and other works to create a new alignment to relieve the overcrowded Tokaido mainline. he comparison is difficult because of the different cultures and political settlements in 'East Asia' and 'the West'. The Japanese (and more broadly East Asian) political settlement makes compulsory acquisition at below market rates much easier (Singapore is an excellent example that adapted English land law to achieve this). That said, you'll have to work the answer to your open-ended (and largely rhetorical) externalities question out for yourself.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Briefly, railways are always a real estate play.

Without the East Hills Extention, a lot of land between Holsworthy and Campbelltown is less valueable (at least not without someone spending a b or so on freeways).

Similarly, a HSR between Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra doesnt make money because of ticket sales, it makes money because Goulburn is now a commuter suburb of Sydney, and Albury-Wodonga is now in commuting range to Melbourne.

As well, if you want the big play ... have it done by the same people who own Kingsford Smith, and sell all that off for development. It's already got a not-very-good shopping mall ...
 
Pilots beat the government. Much like the freeway plan was used to destroy the Sydney tram union, or the pacific highway the coastal seamens; HSR is used on pilots. With the assistance of M…ns and C…n property developers and the ALP right the line is pushed through after all the right people manage to acquire development opportunities?

Or is there too much available in inner ring consolidation 1990-2000?
 
One thing it may influence is a faster spread of professional sports leagues outside their traditional bases (Aussie Rules in Victoria, SA, WA.. Rugby codes in NSW/Qld), if teams & especially their fans can travel more easily.
 

Devvy

Donor
I repeat my question. Can anyone name the high speed passenger lines that are profitable without a large government subsidy (large is defined as 25% of the total revenue of the line)?

That's a difficult question to answer. Does profitable just mean revenue is covering operating costs and a bit more? Do you need to pay off construction costs? Do you need to pay off other indirect costs such as noise compensation?

Railways, and high speed lines these days, are always expected to be able to cover their operating costs as well as construction costs, which sounds simple enough. But it's a bit harsh if other transport mediums aren't burdened with the same demands. A quick google search finds several articles about the way that airservices in Australia is broken down, means that international flights hugely subsidise domestic flights. Likewise; do all the taxes related to cars actually fund roads - the whole constructions, maintenance, cleaning, emergency services charges, etc etc. Airports themselves are often government owned and often require subsidies for major construction/renovation works.

The end point I'm trying to make here is that very few transportation methods are clearly profitable when everything is taken in to account. On a simpler line of operationally profitable, and probably covering construction expenses (although difficult to justify due to government funding and opaque payback methods):
- Tokaido Shinkansen, and possible the rest of the Shinkansen network.
- TGV Sud-Est, although the way the network has grown makes me doubt the network as a whole is still profitable.
- Intercity under British Rail was profitable - it operated several 125mph routes so depends upon your definition of high speed.
 
That's a difficult question to answer. Does profitable just mean revenue is covering operating costs and a bit more? Do you need to pay off construction costs? Do you need to pay off other indirect costs such as noise compensation?

Railways, and high speed lines these days, are always expected to be able to cover their operating costs as well as construction costs, which sounds simple enough. But it's a bit harsh if other transport mediums aren't burdened with the same demands. A quick google search finds several articles about the way that airservices in Australia is broken down, means that international flights hugely subsidise domestic flights. Likewise; do all the taxes related to cars actually fund roads - the whole constructions, maintenance, cleaning, emergency services charges, etc etc. Airports themselves are often government owned and often require subsidies for major construction/renovation works.

The end point I'm trying to make here is that very few transportation methods are clearly profitable when everything is taken in to account. On a simpler line of operationally profitable, and probably covering construction expenses (although difficult to justify due to government funding and opaque payback methods):
- Tokaido Shinkansen, and possible the rest of the Shinkansen network.
- TGV Sud-Est, although the way the network has grown makes me doubt the network as a whole is still profitable.
- Intercity under British Rail was profitable - it operated several 125mph routes so depends upon your definition of high speed.
Thanks. I really appreciate your answer. I recognized when I asked the question that it is more complicated than a simple one sentence question. Here in the US, most road costs are paid by the gasoline tax. So users of the highways do pay for the road with some of this gas tax being used to subsidize mass transit. In most other countries, the gasoline tax is even higher than in the US. The sense that I get is that high speed rail is intriguing to many people, but it is really only profitable in a very limited number of high population density areas. This does not mean that there are not other reasons to build high speed railroads.

I do not mean to offend anyone with this statement, but I have asked people about railroads in other situations than this website. It seems to me that this simple question about whether you like or dislike spending tax dollars on railroads correlates with a wide range of cultural, religious, and political beliefs. If the moderator is reading this, I promise to not make any more statements about this.
 

Devvy

Donor
Thanks. I really appreciate your answer. I recognized when I asked the question that it is more complicated than a simple one sentence question. Here in the US, most road costs are paid by the gasoline tax. So users of the highways do pay for the road with some of this gas tax being used to subsidize mass transit. In most other countries, the gasoline tax is even higher than in the US. The sense that I get is that high speed rail is intriguing to many people, but it is really only profitable in a very limited number of high population density areas. This does not mean that there are not other reasons to build high speed railroads.

I do not mean to offend anyone with this statement, but I have asked people about railroads in other situations than this website. It seems to me that this simple question about whether you like or dislike spending tax dollars on railroads correlates with a wide range of cultural, religious, and political beliefs. If the moderator is reading this, I promise to not make any more statements about this.

I completely agree with you; the point is not whether high speed rail should be profitable or not. The point is if "tax revenue should subsidise infrastructure investment." The answer to that will differ wildly upon each person's political outlook, and there's not a correct answer to that.

Here in the UK, petrol/gasoline is heavily taxed, we pay vehicle tax. Sources vary, but approx 25%-33% of the cost of providing the roads are providing by motoring taxes. The rest is made up from general taxation. Infrastructure always costs, and is often provided by the government in order to stimulate the economy in some level. Whether that's right or wrong, I'll leave open to each reader!
 
Assuming it was a coastal one, my guess is that the Libs and eventually Labor would have supported privatising it, making it ridiculously expensive and defeating the purpose in the first place (if various other transport infrastructure projects are any indication), as Air travel would still have been vastly cheaper.

Good case scenario: we have a lot more satellite towns where people can get cheaper property without congregating in the 5 capital cities, with growth in areas like Newcastle, The Central Coast, Wollongong, Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Canberra, Northern NSW Coast and the Sunshine Coast (along with many other areas near the major capitals) would see significant growth

Worst Case Scenario: A White elephant that is scantly used due to it being far too expensive for most of the public to use on a regular basis.

For the 90's, it might have helped the economy during a difficult time but lets be honest, even now it would be the most expensive infrastructure project in the country's history (costing more than the NBN), even if you're linking the 3 major capitals it would cost about $40 billion or so.

Honestly though it still could happen (i'd go on to say its more a question of when than if, though its long overdue in my opinion), hell at this point maybe Hyperloop should be on the table since we're taking so long with it (its been discussed and theorised for decades, no one has ever bothered with it though, rightly or wrongly).Its one of the main platforms Labor are apparently campaigning on for the federal election in May, whether we start seeing trains on tracks before the end of their term though is another matter.
 
Top