It’s always a great time-saver to rewrite someone else’s copy (read press release or news feed?) and it can be a space saver too if you leave enough out. Check this one out:
Stiffer roads would save fuel

Study finds that road surfaces contribute to increased fuel use.

Scientists have found that some road surfaces require more energy to drive along, increasing fuel use.

Wow, a softer road will absorb more energy, who would have thought? So make it stiffer and your car will go further. (Excellent. So why not just replace roads with rails, then, and save a lot more?)

Aside from the obvious, this is a statistical modeling study (and fair enough), not an empirical one. And it’s based on US data. But the conclusion is intuitive anyway. Make the road stiffer (thicker asphalt or replaced with concrete or a blend) and you’ll save on fuel consumption. But what the SMH doesn’t mention in Barry Park‘s version of the story is that the research was conducted as part of the Concrete Sustainability Hub at MIT, which is sponsored by the Portland Cement Association and the Ready Mixed Concrete Research & Education Foundation. Now it’s admirable that the concrete industry wants to make concrete “greener” but it’s also worthwhile noting that they want to remain in the concrete industry, too.

So rather than remake roads with stiffer but carbon-dirty materials like concrete, why not open up the thinking and look outside of the box a bit?  Slow cars down: wouldn’t that also save money? Reduce the weight of cars? Or switch more car trips over to public transport. Or – even better – price fuel higher and discourage over-use – there’s an alternative! If we tore up roads or simply poured more concrete in scheduled replacement we may indeed save a relatively small net amount of fuel but maybe there are cheaper, better ways of achieving that? And in any case when it really matters, say where traffic is at its fastest on a freeway, aren’t they ‘stiffer’ concrete or concrete/asphalt layers already?  

There’s a better account of the story, here:
Civil engineers find savings where the rubber meets the road | News | ECN Magazine

The researchers say the initial cost outlay for better pavements would quickly pay for itself not just in fuel efficiency and decreased CO2 emissions, but also in reduced maintenance costs.

“There’s a misconception that if you want to go green you have to spend more money, but that’s not necessarily true,” Akbarian says. “Better pavement design over a lifetime would save much more money in fuel costs than the initial cost of improvements. And the state departments of transportation would save money while reducing their environmental footprint over time, because the roads won’t deteriorate as quickly.”

This research was conducted as part of the Concrete Sustainability Hub at MIT, which is sponsored by the Portland Cement Association and the Ready Mixed Concrete Research & Education Foundation with the goal of improving the environmental footprint of that industry.

“This work is not about asphalt versus concrete,” Ulm says. “The ultimate goal is to make our nation’s infrastructure more sustainable. Our model will help make this possible by giving pavement engineers a tool for including sustainability as a design parameter, just like safety, cost and ride quality.”

If you are involved in modeling finances and building cost/benefit analyses it’s likely that you already understand that the benefits of a ‘traditional’ Very Fast Train depend on dense population, medium distance and moderate or (even better) weak and possibly unreliable competition. If you don’t line those things up you’ll end up subsidising the line to the end of time. Australia is a case in point. Big, big distances coupled with a relatively low population already well served by strong, reliable competitors – namely airlines. Hence no VFT. However people mistake the success of these airlines in drawing big numbers between centres like Sydney and Melbourne as a sign that there’s room for a VFT. Moreover they mistakenly believe that the VFT will march right in and take its rightful share. Yeah, sure.

The airlines won’t react, will they? Of course not. And the VFT will be super-efficient and competively cheap despite the ongoing maintenance cost not just of the high performance train fleet but also of the all-new, independent rail line that duplicates the existing rail line over the 1,000km or so involved. Plus the opportunity cost of the money spent, including the cost of acquiring land and compensating for loss of resources and noise abatement and you-name-it. Plus the environmental disaster of carving yet another slice through the Aussie bush and farmlands. 

Now it could work if the airlines don’t keep investing in bigger, more efficient aircraft and alternative, less costly fuels. And it could also work if the airlines were made to pay hefty “maintenance” on the airspace that they use (yes, they already pay air navigation and landing fees but they’d have to pay much more). Because airspace, unlike train lines, is maintenance-free. And the air at 30,000 feet is less dense than the air down on the ground, too, so aircraft will always – given current technology – slip through long distances more efficiently, even when it takes so much to get lift-off in the first place. It’s different when you have shorter trips or poor weather, but we are talking about Australia here. The airlines rarely let us down and the distances work to their continuing advantage. 

So a ‘traditional’ VFT will not work. It is a nice insurance policy however, “just in case”. But how much do we want to spend on insurance?

And now these trad VFTs are getting some competition from alternative designs like the evacuated-tube maglev design described below. Imagine if that design got off the ground (pun intended). We’d look a bit silly with our late sally into a VFT that expensively and noisily ploughed through thick air out in the open, wouldn’t we?  

New York to Beijing in two hours without leaving the ground?

The short version of the ETT story is as follows: put a superconducting maglev train in evacuated tubes, then accelerate using linear electric motors until the design velocity is attained. As the motors are integrated into the evacuated tubes, the conveyance capsules which travel in the tube need have no moving or electrically activated parts – passive superconductors allow the capsules to float in the tube, while eddy currents induced in conducting materials drive the capsules. Efficiency of such a system would be high, as the electric energy required to accelerate a capsule could largely be recaptured as it slows.

The full article gives a fair balance but as always the crackpot idea gets the first, most prominent, run. Oh, yes, it’s the SMH, again. And it’s the “Drive” section, so we can pretty much expect this sort of self-serving pro-motoring fluff. In summary the idea is that newer cars are inherently safer, more competent at speed and in braking performance and more protective if it all goes pear-shaped. Can’t argue too much against the idea that newer cars are “better” – but it’s an old argument: I can remember owners of better-handling, higher-performance European cars saying much the same 30 years ago. And it’s a variant on the “better drivers should be allowed to go faster” idea, too. And – ironically – “better” drivers would immediately see the problem: safety is about a combination of driver skill and attention, machine and road design and consistency (or regulation) in road behaviour. It’s not just about the car.

Speed limits are set according to road conditions, including local, surrounding features that are likely to introduce driver “challenges”, and common or “mean” levels of expectation about balancing the wants and needs of all road users. After all it’s not about pleasing just one segment of road user.  

What you especially don’t want (but get anyway) is an inconsistent mix of speeds on our public roads. We already have trucks at a capped speed that sometimes is less than the posted absolute limit, but generally we recognise that and they fit in OK. We have slower vehicles, too, like caravans and cars towing trailers, or simply lower-powered or over-weight vehicles, but again we cope. And we have pedestrians and cyclists, pedal or motor-powered, doing whatever they are capable off. That seems like a lot of inconsistency already, so why add another layer? Why would we want some cars, hopefully identified in some obvious way, allowed to go faster? So that they can get to where they are going in less time, of course. But at what cost?

Consistency is an aid to safety and smooths traffic flow. It allows us to more easily predict approach speeds and plan our driving manoeuvers in advance with some reliability. As in lane changing and overtaking, or in entering or crossing the path of traffic. As drivers we learn to read both the real speed and position of approaching vehicles as well as rely on speed limits to set our general expectations. We don’t expect to see motor vehicles travelling well under or in excess of the posted limit and we find it a surprise when they do. That’s just the sort of nasty surprise we don’t want when pulling out of a side street or changing lanes. Of course people “speed” anyway and create those nasty surprises – but why should we want to legitimise speeding of any sort? What safety benefit is there in allowing some cars to go faster and thus introduce yet more complexity and difficulty into our driving environment?

Think about it. The speed inconsistencies or variations we have now are clearly linked with size, shape and ability. Trucks are physically obvious enough, surely. Caravans, trailers and bike riders are clearly different and obvious to the diligent driver as well. But to distinguish levels of car and thus speed by “newness” is a level of difficulty we really wouldn’t want. It wouldn’t be enough to slap a sticker on the car, we’d have to give it a flashing light as well. And in the most part all it would do is allow these “legally speeding” cars to get ahead of others and catch up to – or cause – the traffic jam up ahead. It’s a whacky, crazy idea. And inherently unsafe, if you actually care to think about it.

Should newer cars have higher speed limits? | Two-way street

So, why does a 1970s Kombi get to do the same speed on our highways as a BMW 7-Series that is engineered to safely cruise along at 200km/h without breaking a sweat?

It’s about consistency, stoopid.

Should newer cars have higher speed limits? | Two-way street

Turning the focus on drivers allows bureaucrats to justify picking the pockets of road users every time they creep a couple of kilometres an hour over the limit.

Lots of people believe that but it’s also an easy way to ignore real safety concerns and just run with your own self-interest.

Thankfully the SMH ends this pice of fluff with some thoughtfulness:

Should newer cars have higher speed limits? | Two-way street

A modern car fitted with every hazard-reducing bell and whistle can be driven by an absolute twit. You say the owners of older cars should have their speed limits restricted? I say bad driving should be monitored, and penalised, more efficiently.

Bravo!

Having ridden close to 300,000km in my lifetime I’ve just about seen everything imaginable, from fiesty kangaroos bent on destroying a peleton to looney drivers determined to rid the road of riders at all costs. As well as, in the majority, careful citizens just getting along. But this Shane Warne whinge is a rare one indeed – complete with tweeting and counter claims, all in the public eye.
And the truth? Who knows. If it wasn’t Warnie it’d be just another day in the bike rider’s office, dodging cars, trucks and buses and keeping as alert as possible.    

Warniegate! The cyclist’s side | Cycling Tips

At this point a pedestrian witnesses were yelling, “Get his rego” and some even yelled out his registration. One woman approached me offering assistance and asked, “Are you OK? Are you going to follow it up? I have the rego ” as she held her phone. I thanked her told her it wouldn’t be necessary – partially because I was in shock but also because I hadn’t yet realised the extent of the damage to my bike and I knew who the driver was anyway.

My girlfriend who had witnessed the whole thing from the adjacent corner now came over to ask if I was OK and what happened. “Shane Warne just ran into me with his car” I replied.

Shane Warne vs. cyclists: registration and number plates — David Johnstone

Shane Warne has managed to get himself embroiled in controversy again. This time it’s with cyclists. Firstly he wrote a series of tweets last week where he called for cyclists to ride in single file, show number plates, and pay registration. Unsurprisingly there were a lot of responses, some of which he retweeted. The classiest of them wasn’t from the wife of a certain famous Australian cricketer suggesting that he “just throw a cricket ball at them if they really annoy u”.

Cyclist hits back at Warne Today’s News – The Mercury – The Voice of Tasmania

The man alleged Warne “lurched his car forward forcing my bike wheel and almost my leg under the front of his car”.

He said following the incident he immediately went to the nearest police station to make a report.

Police have confirmed the man did take his bike to a station and said officers spoke to both parties.

It is believed police advised both parties to take civil action.

A police spokeswoman said due to the minor nature of the event a traffic incident report would not be submitted.

Cyclist hits back at Warne Today’s News – The Mercury – The Voice of Tasmania

Six-time ironman champion Luke McKenzie accused the cricketer of inciting hatred towards cyclists.

Amy Gillett Foundation spokesman David Lee said it was disappointing Warne was using his profile to inflame cyclist-driver tensions.

“Each road-user group has a requirement to respect the rights of the other, and inflaming the situation, whether you are a cyclist or a driver, doesn’t help,” he said.

Bicycle Network Victoria spokesman Jason den Hollander said Warne should be aware of the road rules and obey them, just like other road users.

Why bother with a report when you are going to pander only to those who have expressed their (apparently baseless) opinion anyway? Well to this state government it’s presumably about votes, not safety. They have already turned off speed cameras, even though a report said they were working as a deterrent. (And yes, some were working better than others, but why cull so many?)

And in this latest case NSW has the best and fairest system yet they want to make changes anyway; presumably to win over those who “complained”.

What I really like – or loathe, really – is a minister excusing their poor judgement by saying that “we want to ensure motorists can focus on the road“. Right! So road signs – designed to advise an appropriate speed for those who lack such judgement and powers of observation for themselves – are not part of the road. As drivers we shouldn’t be looking at signs, we should be focused on the road ahead, instead. So presumably whatever signs are left after this should be ignored on safety grounds. Yeah, right. But that’s the logical conclusion to this!

And as for pedestrians or cyclists, well they only become of interest when they are on the road itself and what they may be doing on the verge – or what they may do next – is irrelevant. Apparently. What a thinker this minister is!

Don’t believe me? Read the SMH report:

Speed zone split fairest in country, says report

THE NSW government should retain 70km/h and 90km/h speed zones and there is no justification motorists have a more confusing speed system than other states, a report reveals.

A report for Transport NSW by consultancy group ARRB has concluded ”70km/h and 90km/h speed limits should be retained as viable speed limit options for use on the NSW road network”.

So what does the state government want to do?

 Speed zone split fairest in country, says report

But, despite the findings of his own report, the Roads Minister, Duncan Gay, confirmed last week that a review of NSW speed zoning guidelines had determined that 70km/h and 90km/h zones would be ”restricted”.

”Motorists have complained there are too many confusing speed signs and we have listened to their concerns,” he said. ”We want to ensure motorists can focus on the road when driving instead of constantly looking at changing speed signs.”

Bizarre. So let’s spend money fixing a problem that doesn’t exist. No surprise really.

I have no particular interest in GM’s Commodores – too fat, heavy, big, overpowered, subsidised and just plain wasteful for me (I simply prefer small cars and bicycles, always have) – but it’s nice to see the Aussie GM brand catch up technically (and only maybe, as it’s just speculation) with the 1898 De Dion Bouton or even the late 1970′s Alfa Romeo Alfetta sedan/coupe design. Yes folks, this exciting rear-drive-transaxle “race technology” has not only been around for yonks but has already been made available in reasonably-priced road-going Italian sporty sedans and coupes – and even a Skoda or 2. 

Of course the rest of the world has moved on a tad and is now going for packaging efficiency and fuel economy… but it’s good to see Aussie motor-noters still getting worked up about expensively re-worked oversized conventional 3-box designs. And that’s fine, it’s a free country. I’m just glad I don’t pay their fuel bills.      

Next Holden HSV m,ay adopt racing technology

HSV’S performance line-up is gearing up to soon blur the line even further between racetrack and road, with the brand believed to be working on a rear-mounted gearbox similar to the next-generation V8 Supercars.

Transaxle – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Front-engine, rear-wheel drive vehicles tend to have the transmission up front just after the engine, but sometimes a front engine drives a rear-mounted transaxle. This is generally done for reasons of weight distribution, and is therefore common on sports cars. Another advantage is that as the driveshaft only spins at engine speed it only has to endure the torque of the engine, instead of that torque multiplied by the 1st gear ratio. This design was pioneered in the 1934 Škoda Popular, and then in the 1950 Lancia Aurelia, designed by the legendary Vittorio Jano.

Since this placement of the gearbox is unsuitable for a live axle (due to excessive unsprung weight), the rear suspension is either independent, or uses a de Dion tube (notably in the Alfa Romeos). Rare exceptions to this rule were the Bugatti T46 and T50 which had a three speed gearbox on a live axle.

I’d love to see a high speed train running down the east coast of Australia – I really would – but I doubt that the numbers actually stack up. My instinct is that it’ll be too expensive to build and require endless subsidy. The only way that a fixed, slower and essentially more expensive and inflexible rail service will out-compete an airline over the same route would be by legislatively hobbling the airline industry, or by a catastrophic cost impact on air travel (like a long term failure to source an economically sustainable low-carbon fuel). Of course that catastrophic cost blow out may be just around the corner…  or it may not.    

Having said that, a shorter more focused HST route, say Sydney – Gosford- Newcastle, may actually work. So there’s a crumb of optimism for you.

Now you’d think that Melbourne to Sydney (and vice versa) being the ’4th most busy’ air link in the world would be a good start, but does that ranking really mean anything? OK, yes, it does mean that over 9.3 million seats were offered on that route by the competing airlines in 2010. Most of which were probably filled. But how many of those seats (and hopefully passengers) could be lured onto a train in lieu of a plane? Well this latest report – and I haven’t seen the whole report as yet so bear with me here – seems to suggest 50%. Which is a lot. A whole lot.

The airlines won’t be happy.

But let’s unpack it all a bit. The 50% assumption relates to projected patronage in 2036 – yes, 26 years from now. Underlying that must be some impressive, sustained growth in the total travel market, from under 10 million seats in 2010 to some 50 million in 2036, or an average annual growth rate of some 17%. But that’s not the total market in 2036, if we are to believe the newspaper reports. No, that’s just ‘half the number of plane journeys that would have otherwise taken place between Sydney and Melbourne‘. So I take that as meaning that the HST takes 50% and the airlines also keep half. Which gives us 100 million seats a year between Sydney and Melbourne. Wow. (Hopefully there’s more detail released soon on the numbers.)

So we are being asked to believe that 100 million seats will be available on that route alone, based on a population assumption that must – surely – be around double today’s. Let’s say 40 to 50 million total in Australia and say 8 to 10 million in each of Sydney and Melbourne. Wow again. So much for keeping a cap on population growth (not that we were ever likely to do that).

If you were hoping that a HST would be a “green” initiative, think again. Just to meet these traffic assumptions you must surely have a bigger market, or a more mobile population, or both. If transportation is a major contributor to fossil fuel consumption (and it is) then here we are ramping it up. Of course we would be hoping that a HST takes cars off the roads and (as projected) removes some aircraft from the skies. But when the overall market grows this substantially the savings are only relative to what “may” have been. In other words it may have been worse – but it’ll still be bad.

Not to mention yet another scar down the east coast, cutting native animal populations into ever more isolated groups. At least aircraft fly over wilderness rather than through it. OK, it’s more likely that we’ll lose farmland or dig long tunnels, but inevitably there’s an environmental impact. It’s land locked up. And concrete and steel, laid in a long line. Just so we can get between our capitals – fast. What’s wrong with a phone call? Or a virtual reality link using the NBN? (At least the NBN services all of Australia, not just east coasters.)

But enough of that churlishness.

It’s an insurance policy against the day when air travel becomes unsustainable, isn’t it? Well yes, it is. But is a (worst-case) $108 billion insurance premium a relative bargain? Or not?

The assumptions that must underpin any such long-term assessment and expenditure are fraught with risk, and these risks are too numerous to mention. But here I go, anyway:

• Economic growth remains strong (subject to policy, planning and a lot of luck)
• Political will continues across many governments for many years (subject to everything, really, but currently it looks good)
• Population growth continues unabated (subject to immigation policy but again likely as not)
• The fares proposed are sustainable, or can be happily subsidised by a willing electorate
• People still want to live in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne (and a few regional cities along the route) and not elsewhere (subject to planning policy and cultural shifts)
• People still want to travel (subject to who-knows-what, including cost and available alternatives like virtual reality communications)
• Fossil fuel and alternative fuel costs rise sufficiently to make rail relatively attractive despite airline efficiency gains (fuel costs will certainly rise, but airline seat-mile costs may still fall)
• Environmental impact can be minimised at a reasonable cost (subject to policy and implementation)
• New technologies won’t overtake whatever HST technology is selected  (subject to good, informed decision making and a lot of luck).

 And so on.
         
If I was to summarise the case for an HST down the east coast it would be as an insurance policy or “back up” to air travel should that at any time fail, and as additional competition to the existing and future airlines. It would also free up the current train lines for improved freight services. If effective it could help cut greenhouse gas emissions when compared with other transport modes. It would also be a significant infrastructure project driving job creation and potentiating wealth creation along the chosen route. And it may also make us feel good and proud.

And the case against? Well it’s a lot of money, even spread over 26 years. So that’s opportunity cost to pay. It may also prove to be economically unviable and subject to continual subsidy, especially if it is to be competitive with discounted airline fares. It has an environmental and land-use impact that’s hard to pin down but has to be huge, especially during the construction phase. It also locks us into just one east cost route, i.e. it assumes that Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne plus selected regional stops are the bee’s knees. Sure we can expand later but for now you are either on the plan or lobbying hard to get on it. Or if you are in the west or centre of the continent, forget it. Whereas an airline can change it’s route virtually at will. And you can bet they will. 

But will we do it, anyway? I’m sure this will bubble away, just like it has bubbled away for the past 30 years…
   

Sydney to Melbourne rail trip in three hours

But the study, nevertheless, anticipates plenty of demand for a line, which would help keep ticket prices down. Passengers would be expected to make more than 50 million trips on a high speed line by 2036, about half the number of plane journeys that would have otherwise taken place between Sydney and Melbourne.

But we can’t leave Wollongong out.

Sydney to Melbourne rail trip in three hours

The study, conducted by a consortium including KPMG, Sinclair Knight Merz and Grimshaw Architects, puts a total price tag of between $61 billion and $108 billion for a network linking Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.

The cost depends, in part, on what routes were selected. It would cost more to link Sydney and Canberra via Wollongong than it would to link them via the current Hume Highway corridor.

It would also cost more to develop stations at Central or Redfern than it would to build stations at Parramatta or Homebush. A station at Central could be built for an estimated $13.8 billion, a station at Parramatta for $9.5 billion, and a station at Homebush for $7.8 billion.

Let the lobbying begin.

The GM/Chevy/Holden Volt is a nifty idea – a primary electric engine running off batteries that are topped up as needed by a secondary, smaller, petrol engine. It’s not so much a hybrid, where the 2 engines are more fully integrated and deliver power in concert to the wheels, as an adaptation of an aviation idea: the ground-running power supply that supports an aircraft’s systems pre-takeoff. You’ll see and hear that little beast in the tail of a Boeing 747, happily whining away as the aircraft is prepared for its next journey. It can run the electricals and even start the main engines, giving a beast like the 747 a greater degree of independence on the ground. It’s also like diesel-electric locomotives. So it’s hardly new, is it?

However, in any case, in an electric car it again brings increased independence and even security – in a similar way to a hybrid – by extending the vehicle’s electric-range and removing the “oh-my-god I forgot to charge my battery” fear. So it’s a good thing, even if it doesn’t completely rid us of the infernal combustion engine.

But GM’s marketing spin is deliberate and perhaps misguided. Presumably looking for an edge, a differentiator, or to simply distance itself from any coming ‘green backlash’ they have gone for “best technology” rather than “most green”. In so doing they seek to leverage – get this – that most slick of marketers, Apple. As far as GM-spin would have it the Volt is up there with the iPhone and iPad as techno-masterpieces that get people queuing out the door. Hmmm. It’s arguable whether Apple products actually represent the cutting edge of technology, although they do tend to follow up the real innovators with a smoother, shinier package that hides the insides better than most. (Maybe there is a connection here after all?) And Apple products generally have their appeal as easier-to-use and decidedly pricier icons of technology. So you can see their point. But will truly techno-savvy buyers actually buy this connection? It certainly doesn’t appeal to me – why would I want to associate with what appears to be a queue-all-night sheep mentality? Especially when I know I’m going to pay dearly for my addiction to a brand?

I’ll wait for the Chinese clone, thanks. It’ll be cheaper, more easily modded and simply better.      

Holden targets Apple buyers | Volt electric car

Instead, its maker says, the car will attract those most switched on to technology. US-based Chevrolet Volt communications manager Rob Peterson took time out of his schedule organising the Australian launch of the car this week to speak to Drive about plans for launching the battery-powered car using a petrol engine generator as a back-up, and admitted the car’s buyers were not what the company expected.

“Initially the competition [to the Volt] was perceived to be the Toyota Prius, and then the Nissan Leaf entered into the space,” Peterson says. “What’s happened is that people have now been exposed to the [Volt] and they’ve recognised it as the most technologically advanced vehicle on the road.
Advertisement: Story continues below

“So you’re beginning to see a group of people who want to have the latest and greatest technology – the people who wait out the front of the Apple store to get the iPad 2, the iPhone 4 …

“[Volt buyers] have two reasons to be purchasing. They’re the most technologically advanced, so it fits their personality, but they’re also buying for environmental reasons,” he says.
“It’s not the primary reason why they’re buying it, it’s a secondary reason.

Rumblings? Concerns? Should we be surprised? Nah. The O’Farrell opposition promised us that in government they would sort the infrastructure mess out whilst simultaneously getting rid of the backroom deals betwen mates and fixing the shonky state of finances. And we all know that’s code for replacing one set of mates and deals with another somehow more transparent set, going forward. It’s always going forward, never backward in this game. And no matter how transparent the process it’s always going to be as much about who you know as what you know. That’s called business connections and networking. Going forward, of course.

Sidenote: the higher-quality yet leaner SMH crew managed to turn a simple plural into possessive case as well, as in “the submission’s” below. Can’t help myself, can I? 

O’Farrell on the spot after rail privatisation rumblings

”Paint the picture, get the five-year plans, lock them into forward estimates, view the submission’s coming forward and make sure they are delivered efficiently,” Mr Broad said of Infrastructure NSW’s responsibilities.

”We would be a prime mover in bringing the private sector into those investments,” he said. ”We want us to be a point of call for them [private sector].”

Mr Broad said another aspect of his job would be to provide reports that could act as guides for governments to follow. ”Our reports will be published,” he told the Herald this week.

”If you think of the Industry Commission type reports, which become reference documents … I think that’s a very powerful arm.”

Expect the unexpected, especially at 2AM.

It’s horrific, avoidable, awful. I’ve ridden after midnight and it can be the weirdest, most beautiful time to ride. With empty streets a bike rider can almost ‘own the road’ – and cars can easily be heard coming, too. It can be unnerving though and I was always hyper-aware and alert forhalf-awake drivers. This bunch – unfortunately stopped – must have realised too late that the driver wasn’t looking ahead. She was just coming, irrespective. I won’t prejudge what’s happened but do hope that the primary cause is pinned squarely on a failure to observe the road and its obstacles, irrespective of what the riders were doing (which seems to have been half on sidewalk, half on road – at 2AM I can imagine this happening). It’s a sad and probably contributing factor that the riders were not mobile (ie they should all have gotten off the road if they were just waiting) but I don’t get the impression that a moving bunch would have been somehow more visible or avoidable. That the driver was suspected as DUI and using her mobile as well as not looking at the road seems a catastrophic combination at any time of day or night. Hope there are some speedy recoveries from this accident. Take care.       

Driver slams into group of bicyclists, injures 11 | abc7.com

BALDWIN VILLAGE, LOS ANGELES (KABC) — A suspected drunken driver was taken into custody after plowing into a large group of bicyclists in Baldwin Village early Thursday morning. Nearly a dozen people were hurt.

“It was as simple as a bowling ball knocking out a few pins,” said witness Fred Armstead. “There was no attempt to stop. So she just went one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and just kept going.”

Authorities said the female driver, 27-year-old Christine Dahab, told police she was looking down at her phone when she crashed into the bike riders on the 5900 block of West Jefferson Place just before 2 a.m.

The bicyclists, organized by Midnight Ridazz, ride together regularly and were on a routine ride. The group of bicyclists was waiting for friends below the Baldwin Hills scenic overlook at the time of the accident.

I’m not so sure about the business case for intercity high speed rail. My heart says “yes” but my head says “whoa”. For example I’d like to see a fast train service from Sydney to Newcastle via Gosford – that route just about looks do-able and makes sense on several fronts, even allowing for the inevitably massive on-going subsidy. Plus I’d probably use it. But adding on Canberra, later? Hmm, not so likely. Melbourne? Well I can smell a white elephant in the room somewhere I’m afraid.

The positives sound good indeed. Rail is fast yet greener than even faster, higher-flying airline operations that drop their particulates and condensates at high altitudes, doing bad things (and maybe some good things, it depends) to our atmosphere. One imagines that greener must be cheaper, too, but maybe not for a while given construction costs. And fast new trains are obviously better than slow old trains, so clinging to 19th century infrastructure and ideas just looks old fashioned and silly. We don’t want to look silly and old fashioned, do we?

OTOH fast new trains need a whole new track. A straighter, flatter track, too. Yes, they have more momentum and can climb really well but we are doing this to save energy, not prove ourselves masters of our planet, so the less climbing the better. Which means a sensibly straighter new rail line – or 2, really, as we’d surely double track it – plus new stations and maintenance yards and sidings and whatnot is on the menu. Lots of construction work to drive-up the cost of labour, too. And fast things are noisy, even if they are ‘only’ trains, so noise amelioration will mean sub-optimal deviations and noise containment, massive tunnels and a decent amount of reservation either side. For the whole distance.
 
That’s a lot of land resumption just to go “green”. We may even have to use national parks, or go under them. And wildlife will need plenty of concrete tunnels through which to pass under the fast rail. If you imagined a 150m wide strip of land from Sydney to Melbourne taken over for green infrastructure you wouldn’t be too far off the mark. It may be narrower in one place and wider in another. It may be a tunnel from (say) Liverpool to Sydney’s Central Station and something similar in Melbourne.


Remember, this is just so we can still go fast (for that’s the point, right?) yet feel a bit better about it ’cause it’s “greener” than flying.

It’ll still need electricity, of course (from coal-burning power stations or maybe – just maybe – huge solar arrays) and maintenance crews and all the rest. Plus lots and lots of really green and lovely (not) concrete and steel. Yet it remains somehow a no-brainer “green” project, at least in certain media eyes. Personally I mildly (not wildly) support it as a national project that potentially offers a long-term alternative to air travel in a changing world, but I think the downsides should be thoroughly explored and understood. For instance I’m uncertain that people would actually use it unless it was highly subsidised – and I don’t think that it’s as green as it could be (that may not surprise you if you’ve read this far). Simply going slower would be greener.

What if we revamped existing rail lines, starting with those high-usage commuter routes? Would that make more bang-for-buck sense? Why obsess about the big picture and looking good when what is under our noses hardly smells of roses.

Yet other people leap at the idea, as I suppose I did once as well, 20 or so years ago. Indeed I’d still love to see it in a way; but I doubt I’d use it. I may have used it 20 years ago, and maybe if I had a pressing need to go to Melbourne (which I currently don’t) I’d consider it in the future. Especially so if petrol prices soar – as they will. So there’s some demand in the future, sure, if it is priced – read subsidised – right. Otherwise airlines will just win, again and again. Faster, cheaper, less infrastructure needed. Or why not just use the even-faster NBN-provided internet and stay at home? Surely virtual travel is even greener.

With all of that in mind, this piece on the US right-wing knocking back “green funding” on ideological grounds only is probably more truth than fiction. But there may be big, bad business cases out there that we just don’t see… until we look!

Letter from America: The choo-choo blues – Ethical Corporation

Other than unions, possibly the biggest black mark against rail travel here – if you have a Republican world view – is its greenness. Politicians influenced by the Tea Party like to bundle rail subsidy with action on climate change, renewable energy support and the introduction of electric cars. Their ideological reasoning is that rail will increase the deficit or lead to higher taxes.

That this is also true for roads, bridges, ports and huge government subsidies to the oil and agriculture industries, is something they conveniently ignore.

What is so sad about the dominant anti-green political mood is how it is aiding and abetting this great country’s technological decline. If I were a conspiracy theorist I’d say that China is funding the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives who now sing the dominant political tune in Washington.