Sydney congestion tax (scrapped), 30km/h speed limits (scrapped), high speed rail too (scrapped - fed election result?)

[g-boaf]

Under investigation:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/con ... 5ak19.html

A congestion tax for Sydney’s CBD and distance-based road user charges will be considered by the NSW government under long-term plans to overhaul the state’s transport network amid escalating budgetary pressures.

A cabinet sensitive document obtained by the Herald and Nine News warns that road users “do not pay the true costs” of driving and causing congestion around the city and floats broader road-use charging as a potential remedy.

I can’t wait to see the shock jocks react to that. Their rage will be like nothing we’ve seen so far.

But this is an important step. Reducing speed limits will help encourage cycling on roads because our cycling network is rather disjointed and crumbling in places.

It’s unlikely this will happen because it will upset the majority of people who want to drive. But if through some miracle it does, then it will make the roads better. There is no need for 60km/h on local suburban streets.

[bychosis]

There is no reason for any non arterial urban road to be more than 40km/h. 30 just makes sense for the CBD. Look at the average speeds achieved, lowering the limit will barely affect the average.

Congestion tax will work to reduce unnecessary travel into the CBD - until ‘cOsT oF LiViNg’ causes the gov to provide a rebate on tolls and congestion taxes.

[familyguy]

100% great idea. That and per km usage charges to cater for EV use and inevitable excise shortfalls.

Worth it for the comments alone. I think a lot of complainants are overestimating how many times they might drive to the CBD. Like a work colleague who complained to me once that the Kent St bike lane had ruined that part of the city. Oh, and when was the last time he drove down Kent St? In 2012

I can count the number of times in ten years that I've driven into what would likely be bounded by a congestion charge on one hand.

[g-boaf]

My local back streets allow people to go 50km/h, and people go 60! It's madness.

Look at the average speeds achieved, lowering the limit will barely affect the average.

Excellent point too. People only ever reach 70km/h briefly in the race from the traffic light to the end of the traffic jam ahead. Or otherwise they don't go anywhere. At peak hour in my area everything is grid locked.

We really should have large size cycleways that allow people to reach the major suburban areas quickly (off road), then have smaller local shared paths branching off those. But no, better to build more commuter carparks and mega tunnel projects.

[trailgumby]

We should be writing to our local State and Federal members in support of this, ESPECIALLY the opposition spokesman Chris Minns.

it makes sense on so many fronts and must not be allowed to become a political football or wedge issue like Abbott and Credlin did with the carbon trading scheme.

[g-boaf]

We should be writing to our local State and Federal members in support of this, ESPECIALLY the opposition spokesman Chris Minns.

it makes sense on so many fronts and must not be allowed to become a political football or wedge issue like Abbott and Credlin did with the carbon trading scheme.

+1.

[bychosis]

.... and Domicron has already ruled out the congestion charge.

[g-boaf]

.... and Domicron has already ruled out the congestion charge.

Well that didn’t last long, I knew the policy wouldn’t go anywhere, but that must be a record!

Where did you read that?

[bychosis]

.... and Domicron has already ruled out the congestion charge.

Well that didn’t last long, I knew the policy wouldn’t go anywhere, but that must be a record!

Where did you read that?

Heard a sound bite on ABC radio this morning. Apparently he was happy that his public service are coming up with new ideas but didn’t think this was a vote winner or something.

[trailgumby]

.... and Domicron has already ruled out the congestion charge.

Well that didn’t last long, I knew the policy wouldn’t go anywhere, but that must be a record!

Where did you read that?

Heard a sound bite on ABC radio this morning. Apparently he was happy that his public service are coming up with new ideas but didn’t think this was a vote winner or something.

'
Because after Nick Greiner sold off to developers all the rail corridors that Bradfield had presciently set aside a hundred years ago, it will now cost hundreds of times more to tunnel to provide the required rail corridors.

[g-boaf]

I’ve edited the title to reflect that it has already been scrapped. Carry on, business as usual. More tunnels, more cars, etc.

[bychosis]

Did they scrap the 30km/h idea too? I haven’t heard that detail.

[g-boaf]

Cue the next bit of the cabinet document leak, high speed rail:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/rad ... 5akev.html

Carrying on the tradition of Australian high speed rail, always on time, arrives before elections, departs immediately after.

Won’t happen. Nice infrastructure to make it possible for people to live somewhere outside of Sydney, but we’ve seen it so many times before.

Maybe if they are driverless, have metro seating and operated by a private company then it might happen.

The comments on the article are already ruthlessly sarcastic.

[Thoglette]

Cue the next bit of the cabinet document leak, high speed rail:

At least they’ve retreated to the sane: reasonable quick rail (250kph) vs actual fast rail over sensible distances.

They now need to take a leaf from the freeway builder’s playbook: buy rolling stock (continuously), build a really short section then complain about the congestion at the ends.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[g-boaf]

250/290/320, the trains don’t have any problems with those speeds.

Amazingly for our techno-luddite politicians, TGV runs on multiple voltages, it goes from low voltage, normal speed lines to high voltage ones without even having to stop. It can even stop at normal stations - how high tech is that! (sarcasm alert)

The politicians go overseas on junkets (oops, research trips) to see what is done by Deutsche Bahn and others, then it would appear they want to do something else again - probably with greater cost.

It won’t happen. Some consultants will probably get a few million dollars for another study.

Might as well scrap the idea and spend the money on a network of cycleways.

[Thoglette]

250/290/320, the trains don’t have any problems with those speeds.

300kph is where “high speed” really starts today. And that’s more about track than rolling stock.

Although you’re looking at c. 20km for a TGV or similar to get up to 300kph (Iirc)

I’d have to look up the cites (if anyone is that interested) but cost is driven by how straight the rails have to be (and remain)
160kph/100mph is not much different* to freeway design and 250 (on flat straight bits) is not much harder. 250+ end-to-end is where it gets expensive

* yes I know that’s an oversimplification, particularly re: grades

[caneye]

high speed rail?

but of course. it's federal election year..

[g-boaf]

high speed rail?

but of course. it's federal election year..

+1 - yep, most on-time train service in the world, even better than Japan. Arrives before election, departs immediately after. Then arrives at again four years later.

Better spend all the money on cycleways. It will benefit more than just consultants.

[zebee]

High speed rail sounds good until every town on the route wants a station.

Bicycle infra on those miles of housing estate in the boondocks and bicycle carriages on the train cars would make more sense.

[g-boaf]

This is an example of a traditional high speed train that is perfectly capable to run on normal lower speed tracks:

https://youtu.be/CODg4gaIhO4

Paris to Lyon on LGV then off onto slow speed lines to cross the Alps to Milan. And the onboard cafe car is closed.

It has triple voltage ability (25kV AC, 1.5kV DC, 3kV DC) so it can run in multiple countries. Some of them are even quadricourant. Another typical thing is trains connected together then splitting part way through the journey and each half goes to a different final destination. It's not common here.

So it's not a matter of limiting yourself to a train that only goes to 250km/h maximum - but rather get the best trains available then later on you can upgrade and extend if and when needed. (for example, Lyon-Turin LGV opened by end of decade).

But our politicians would probably go for something slower and bespoke, and knowing the way things normally go here it'd likely end up costing more.

[human909]

So it's not a matter of limiting yourself to a train that only goes to 250km/h maximum - but rather get the best trains available then later on you can upgrade and extend if and when needed. (for example, Lyon-Turin LGV opened by end of decade).

Huh?

The cost of the rolling stock is nothing compared to the cost of the rail infrastructure. It makes little sense to get faster trains if your track cannot support the higher speed and there is no expectation anytime in the near future that they will support them.

You might as well be putting some Zipp wheels on a Kmart Huffy.

[g-boaf]

So it's not a matter of limiting yourself to a train that only goes to 250km/h maximum - but rather get the best trains available then later on you can upgrade and extend if and when needed. (for example, Lyon-Turin LGV opened by end of decade).

Huh?

The cost of the rolling stock is nothing compared to the cost of the rail infrastructure. It makes little sense to get faster trains if your track cannot support the higher speed and there is no expectation anytime in the near future that they will support them.

You might as well be putting some Zipp wheels on a Kmart Huffy.

Huh yes, indeed. We would buy slower trains that likely cost more, because that's what we do very well here with our projects.

320km/h trains overseas run on 100km/h lines without problem. And then later on they build new lines to replace slower sections of track.

And you have the evidence in the link provided (Lyon-Turin LGV opening by end of decade to replace an existing low speed track).

But we wouldn't think for the future, we'll just make decisions that limit what further expansion we could do later, eg, not only Sydney-Newcastle, but maybe a Sydney Brisbane or Sydney Melbourne line, etc.

In any case it's hard to see any of this stuff happening because the cabinet document probably won't go anywhere. So no 30km/h speed limits in suburban areas and almost certainly no high speed rail.

[Cyclophiliac]

Long-term planning on anything doesn't seem to exist in Australia any more. The politicians only seem to care about short-term election-winning strategies, which makes projects such as high-speed rail, hydro power, cycling-friendly trains, etc. doomed to failure right from the start.

[tpcycle]

So no 30km/h speed limits in suburban areas and almost certainly no high speed rail.

I normally ride faster than 30km/h along the flat. It'd be schadenfreude for cyclist hating motorists if police started giving out speeding tickets to bicycle riders going a couple of k over 30km/h in quiet back streets.

[Thoglette]

You might as well be putting some Zipp wheels on a Kmart Huffy.

But that is exactly the model that has driven our “congestion busting” freeway building craze for the past few decades.

Build a bit; discover you can’t drive at 100kph; demand more freeway.

Be it more lanes; more length; more connection; or out-and-out duplication, this model has worked.

There’s always a “shovel ready” project available to regardless of the electorate; the timeframe; or the amount of pork available. If you’re really short of time, here’s a plan for some car parking.

Meanwhile over the same period proponents of rail have proposed multi-billion dollar decade-long projects. Which despite much better triple-bottom-line values have rarely gotten the go-ahead.

Maybe it’s time to learn from the road builders?