That is exclusively a problem of politcal and may be incompetence. It doesn’t change the fact that Australia is extremely well suited for HSR covering the majority of its urban population. All with a single line.
You are aware that your link confirms my point, aren’t you? Countless studies showing that the corridor is feasible and makes sense, yet not a single project in 50 years, where the government has shown the political will to get serious about it, never mind showing long term commitment.
If you want to bring up actual arguments why what is possible in Japan, China and much of Europe is impossible on the Melbourne-Sydney corridor, be my guest.
it seems it wasn’t me who didn’t read your own source:
“Every federal government since this time has investigated the feasibility of constructing high-speed rail with speeds above 200 km/h, but to date nothing has ever gone beyond the detailed planning stage”
Yeah, thanks for confirming my argument. The video is pretty much bringing up the arguments I’d expect. But it really shows how weak they are when they complain about distances being too far when they are actually perfect for HSR and yes, it is enough if individual relations are close enough. That is how many HSR networks work.
But sure, Australia is the only country with mountains and suburbs. And kanguruhs are an unsurmountable issues for rail, but not for highways.
It all boils down to ideology. Weirdly enough it was not impossible to build
inner urban highways though, which required much more space. But then, unlike road infrastructure, rail is required to be proftibale and that is why Australia remains underdeveloped and its airports overloaded.
Add to that wavering back and forth with financial support a generally hostile legal environment towards HSR projects and generally hostile laws to building important large national infrastructure, balooning costs on any infrastructure project. I would not be surprised if more money would have to be spent on bureaucracy and judicial things than on actually building that thing. That is not much different from the US where they need to pay multiple times more per km than in other Western countries with comparable corridors.
I am not downvoting for content but debating style. You started off with ad hominem and then added not a single ( or a few) well defined argument but a video with dozens one liner arguments that cannot be addressed without writing half a book.
But maybe I am indeed in the wrong instance for that and it is indeed a wrong expectation on my side.
That is exclusively a problem of politcal and may be incompetence. It doesn’t change the fact that Australia is extremely well suited for HSR covering the majority of its urban population. All with a single line.
you are free to crique the last 50 years and 10 different government and private enterprise attempts at doing it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Australia
apparently you know better 👍
You are aware that your link confirms my point, aren’t you? Countless studies showing that the corridor is feasible and makes sense, yet not a single project in 50 years, where the government has shown the political will to get serious about it, never mind showing long term commitment.
If you want to bring up actual arguments why what is possible in Japan, China and much of Europe is impossible on the Melbourne-Sydney corridor, be my guest.
i give up mate, if you can’t read i can’t help you
No arguments? A pity.
it seems it wasn’t me who didn’t read your own source:
“Every federal government since this time has investigated the feasibility of constructing high-speed rail with speeds above 200 km/h, but to date nothing has ever gone beyond the detailed planning stage”
Even the US has come further already than that.
You’re confused why it’s not getting past the planning stage?
Maybe watch the video again? You’re literally the guy in it :)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8av3knflbQo
Yeah, thanks for confirming my argument. The video is pretty much bringing up the arguments I’d expect. But it really shows how weak they are when they complain about distances being too far when they are actually perfect for HSR and yes, it is enough if individual relations are close enough. That is how many HSR networks work.
But sure, Australia is the only country with mountains and suburbs. And kanguruhs are an unsurmountable issues for rail, but not for highways.
It all boils down to ideology. Weirdly enough it was not impossible to build inner urban highways though, which required much more space. But then, unlike road infrastructure, rail is required to be proftibale and that is why Australia remains underdeveloped and its airports overloaded.
Add to that wavering back and forth with financial support a generally hostile legal environment towards HSR projects and generally hostile laws to building important large national infrastructure, balooning costs on any infrastructure project. I would not be surprised if more money would have to be spent on bureaucracy and judicial things than on actually building that thing. That is not much different from the US where they need to pay multiple times more per km than in other Western countries with comparable corridors.
Please stop down voting comments you disagree with, it makes you look like a dick
I am not downvoting for content but debating style. You started off with ad hominem and then added not a single ( or a few) well defined argument but a video with dozens one liner arguments that cannot be addressed without writing half a book.
But maybe I am indeed in the wrong instance for that and it is indeed a wrong expectation on my side.