One sure bet is that any estimates put forward by Albanese would be even more rubbery than Swans Budget estimates.
Folks,
That would be the understatement of the week. Even if you were to take these figures "presented" seriously, ( and if you do, you must be be smoking some really good sh1t, where can I get some) the claimed a rate of return of 0.8% -- even if the input figures were accurate, 0.8% is within the area of uncertainty for even a properly costed project that will only cover a period of 2-3 years.
40 years ?? That is "call the men in the white coats" stuff.
In assessing the cost/benefit of any significant project, you have to discount claims by a factor known as "proponent bias" ---- ie; reduce the value of the claimed benefits, and increase the claimed costs, as just part of the workings of a proper cost/benefit analysis.
Our dearly beloved CASA is a world champion when it comes to proponent bias on cost/benefit analysis.
Tail Wheel, with a few specialist exceptions, like the French post trains, all the high speed rail I know of run on dedicated lines, not mixed lines. Even the InterCity 125s in UK have their own dedicated lines --- the whatever they are called fastest trains in NSW are based on these UK trains, but, in the old money, instead of cruising ay 125-135 mph, in NSW they rarely reach 60mph, and there are lots 20-30 mph restrictions --- in fact more restricted than unrestricted.
It is crazy that the train timetable Sydney-Newcastle is now slower than in 1948, thanks to lots of sever speed limits on deteriorated track.
T-28D is on the money, I think part of Labor's place in the opinion polls is the general populous is not stupid, and don't much appreciate being treated as if they are as thick as two short planks.
I do not know of any HS Rail network that is not Government ( you and me, the mug taxpayers) subsidized, the European subsidies are huge, despite the population density.
A better comparison would be Amtrak in the US, given the greater US distances (don't forget, western Europe more or less fits into Victoria and NSW) and the lower than European population densities, even though much greater than Australia, you cannot sustain a truly honest argument for HS rail down the US east coast corridor, let alone the rest of the country.
As Mr. Boeing says, 3000m of rail gets you 3000m, 3000m of runway gets you anywhere.
In fact, the total seat mile costs and energy consumption costs per seat mile (this is the bit the Greenies hate) are highly competitive with even "highish" speed rail, and usually beat genuine HS rail. As for the environment, it is only the nuclear powered grid in France that shows a "green" benefit over air, and somehow I can't see our Greens fervently promoting a major nuclear power generation program to make electric rail "green".
Tootle pip!!