News Home Just In Australia World Business Sport Entertainment Weather | Opinion Blogs

Opinion Home Essays Emails Speeches Documents Contact

The road to a low pollution future: rail

By Greg Harvey

Posted November 12, 2008 09:20:00
Updated November 12, 2008 09:40:00

A freight train passes through a suburban railway station

Rail freight is one of the most carbon-efficient methods for transporting freight long distances. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin, file photo)

As Australia edges closer toward the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, it is high time for a serious discussion about the climate debate's poor third cousin: transport.

The transport industry is the third largest emitter of carbon in Australia, behind manufacturing and agriculture.

While all the talk has been about manufacturing and clean coal technology and how the government will offset the costs to business, there has been little serious talk of the need to address our increasing reliance on road transport.

There are immediate opportunities available to federal and state governments to reduce carbon emissions in the short term.

The first is the greater utilisation of rail for long distance freight. Rail freight is one of the most carbon-efficient methods for transporting freight long distances. Road accounts for 89 per cent of greenhouse gases from the freight transport sector. Rail accounts for 6 per cent.

One intermodal freight train travelling between Sydney and Melbourne replaces 150 trucks and saves 45,000 litres of fuel and 44 tonnes of greenhouse gases.

Shifting 20 per cent of Australia's articulated truck task to rail would save 400 million tonnes of fuel each year.

Yet on current trends, road freight is set to increase by at least 118 per cent by 2020. This equates to an additional 50,000 trucks thundering along Australian highways by 2020. Rail freight is on track to increase by only half of that.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government's discussion paper on its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) advocates road freight transport be protected from any cost increase on fuel. No such protection is proposed for rail freight.

Greater use of rail freight is limited by current infrastructure. Significant investment is needed to boost capacity. In fact, some $5 billion worth of work is needed to upgrade rail links between Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. It's a lot of money, but just half the amount the NSW Government has requested from the Federal Government to upgrade the Pacific Highway.

More investment in public transport is equally vital to cutting carbon emissions.

Public transport systems in all states are experiencing large increases in patronage, largely due to the spiralling cost of fuel. But in many Australian cities it has become apparent that public transport systems have been pushed beyond their capacity.

Australians are willing to utilise public transport, if it is available and efficient. However state administrations are struggling to find the funds for important projects - like public transport links reaching out to the mortgage belts of our major cities, which would reduce reliance on cars.

Australia is one of the few countries in the world where the Federal Government does not assist in funding public transport infrastructure. It's time for that to change.

These are difficult economic times. That makes it more important than ever that the Federal Government give top priority to transport projects and assist the states in reaching their transport planning goals.

The science tells us we that we need to act fast to mitigate the effects of climate change. Transport initiatives that enable us to get cars off the road could significantly reduce carbon emissions, fast.

There is an economic cost to build and upgrade the necessary infrastructure but when compared to the alternative, it pales into insignificance. The benefits of smarter transport investment will be there for all to enjoy, immediately - less congestion, better cities, fewer road accidents, less expensive road maintenance and most important, reduced carbon emissions.

I welcome the Federal Government's determination to press ahead with its climate change targets, but let's face up to the challenge of cutting transport pollution, for our future's sake.

Greg Harvey is the national secretary of the Rail Tram and Bus Union.

Tags: environment, climate-change, air-pollution, government-and-politics, federal-government, rail-transport, road-transport, australia

Search for news

Comments (136)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

ravensclaw:

12 Nov 2008 10:22:08am

I have been a long supporter of speed rail for freight and passengers.

Unfortunately it has been the environmental (socialist) activist that has stopped speed rail in its tracks everytime the issue is raised.

Wind farms will kill more native animals then speed rail.

Cheers

Agree (1) Alert moderator
Fratelli:

12 Nov 2008 10:26:11am

Its true. Relying on truck and road transport in a country so large and widely-populated as ours is crazy. Rail is much more efficient.

Having said that, I'm often dubious about taking on the opinion of someone who argues in favour of a certain industry on environmental grounds, when they are in fact a boss in the union for that industry.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Charles:

12 Nov 2008 10:30:10am

The expansion of road networks at the expense of rail infrastructure is incredibly short sighted. Especially in regional areas and peripheral suburbs, rail infrastructure can save money and reduce emissions.

Rail can deliver both passengers and cargo in very large quantity but throughout regional Australia rail lines are falling into disrepair and being removed.

In NSW, the state government sacrifices critical rail infrastructure and keeps building roads, drawing more cars into gridlock, increasing emissions and creating ghettos of outer suburbs. The cost of public transport keeps increasing so that it is more expensive than private motor transport.

Greg Hervey is correct stating that transport infrastructure needs complete government funding and immediate expansion. It should be an integral part of emission reduction targets and made a preferable alternative to private transport.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Paul:

12 Nov 2008 10:30:28am

I'm of the opinion that the rail links need to be upgraded, added to and overhead electric power added.

Global warming is still being debated but at some time in the not to distant future oil will become so costly and scarce it will not be a viable fuel source.

Most "clean" power generation theories seem to lead to electricity.

Electric rail links for hauling freight between major population centres is "future proofing" of our transport infrastructure.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
John R:

12 Nov 2008 10:35:36am

How do you convince business to use rail when it is less convenient and more expensive? There are more unions to deal with, and more points of failure. It would be nice for freight to make more use of rail, but its difficult to justify infrastructure upgrades if there isn't strong enough demand to use it.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Mark:

12 Nov 2008 10:54:56am

Very well said Greg.

Australia urgently needs a big investment in rail infrastructure both for transport and to put limits on our cities' endless urban sprawl.

Perth, under the previous Labor government was showing the rest of Australia how well it could be done with a significant upgrading of public rail.

Tragically the incoming Liberals have demonstrated that they are still a wholly owned subsidiary of the roads lobby by axing Labor's plans to extend the rail network, then announcing a further extension of urban sprawl.

Sydney is in desperate need of public rail infrastructure.

Greg Harvey is spot on - the Federal government needs to intervene to support the extension of public rail and freight rail as a matter or urgency. The matter is far too urgent and important to be left to transport neanderthals like the current Barnett government in WA.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
twobob:

12 Nov 2008 10:56:57am

Shifting 20 per cent of Australia's articulated truck task to rail would save 400 million tonnes of fuel each year.

If fuel was as heavy as water then this would equate to 400 thousand million litres of fuel saved each year. As fuel is lighter then this is then more. Saving this amount of oil imports to our country would see a very different balance of payments. This would make Australia richer and would equate to more work and better wages for all.

One MUST therefore question the sanity of the Howard government who SUBSIDISED this problem by SUBSIDISING fuel used for truck transport. What great economic managers they were not.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Allan:

12 Nov 2008 10:57:50am

I would love an explanation of how Timber (for pulp/chips) can be transported within western victoria cheaper than rail. The rail is very underutilised and stands unused most of the day.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Bob:

12 Nov 2008 11:05:56am

Good to see the Union on the front foot, and at least trying to get the agenda moving in the right direction. Rail is and will always be more enviromentally friendly, and is now even more important that the Government as part of their Nation Building plan, commit to the rapid growth of Freight moved by Rail.

For to long road funding has taken to much of the government transport infrastructure funding (about 90%) and its now time for Rail to get its fare share.

If Rudd is serious this is a no brainer, and should not have had to be raised by a trade union but but a forward thinking and progressive government. both federal and state.

It's becoming clear that it take's organisations other than governments to get the debate happening and the Union should be congratuled for the article, not attacked by those who just have an ideological bent against Unions no matter what they say or do.

Lets not forget Public Transport in this debate either.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Trev:

12 Nov 2008 11:23:03am

Great theory, but difficult to implement.
Rail is efficient to operate on the right infrastructure. That infrastructure is horrendously expensive to build & most of our rail lines were designed for the early 20th century freight task.
If you go outside metropolitan Australia, you see all the lines that have been closed because they were not cost-effective to keep open, because of old design.
In a perfect world, a federal government (states can't afford it) would build new dual line, high-speed, freight & passenger capability that service coastal (mostly passenger) & regional (mostly freight) communities. To drive through the US & see the massive rail networks, with trains consisting of pantech trailers (the trailers the trucks haul along our roads) is a mouth-watering prospect. Imagine how much freight could be taken off our highways, making them safer, fewer emmissions, raods last longer, cheaper to maintain, etc, etc.
Unfortunately rail is not currently sexy, but may become more so under a new carbon-sensitive economy.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Steve:

12 Nov 2008 11:26:53am

There is no question that increased utilisation of rail makes a lot of sense. Rail however is notoriously inefficient and expensive and dominated by left wing unionism and outdated work practices. These issues need to be resolved before any Govt spends billions going down that path.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Robert Stewart:

12 Nov 2008 11:30:08am

The whole nation suffers from the tyranny of distance unlike any other nation on earth. Blind dependence on oil from countries that may have a purpose other than peaceful co-existence would be enough to cause a radical change to our mind set even if the cost of oil was back to $30 a barrel. It makes no sense for Australia to provide $6 billion to support the profit of corporate American car giants who do not fund R and D from the US,but from Australian banks. The Mitsubishi Tonsley plant on 64 Ha in Adelaide is idle. The machinery that made cars can be retooled to make the rolling stock and infrastructure for high speed light rail systems. At $200 million, it is a steal, with its rail line ,space for its own DC gas fired steam generators, an assembly line that would be a Mech Eng dream and a cricket pitch. Staff who live close would return. We can build silent stealth submarines that even the Americans could not detect in exercises off Hawaii and we can build an efficient electric rail system. $6 billion for the uncertain future of the car industry says we can.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Captain Swing:

12 Nov 2008 11:32:14am

Was it Tim Fischer who once said words to the effect of, how can rubber on tar be more fuel efficient than steel on iron. I believe it is a testament to the endemic corruption in the road transport industry (remember the bitumen boeings?) that it has persevered so long. Sure there's room for a healthy truck transport industry but it pales into insignificance when we objectively look at the efficiency of rail. Is there anyone out there who thinks freeways and roads are maintenance free? Of course it would cost to build up our rail services but it is a decision we have to take. Not only for environmental reasons but economic as well.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Polimonitor:

12 Nov 2008 11:50:36am

At last, someone has realised we have a railway network. However, it will be a lot braver government than this current mob of wimps to make the hard decision to favour rail over the truckies unions.

Agree (0) Alert moderator

Opinion

The road to a low pollution future: rail

Search for news

Comments (136)

ravensclaw:

Full Steam Ahead:

pseudomys:

ravensclaw:

Frosty:

ravensclaw:

Brad:

Charles:

G:

ravensclaw:

G:

Odge:

CP:

Brad:

Charles:

Fratelli:

Patch:

watcha:

Wambo:

Brad:

Spooky:

me:

WP:

Brad:

CP:

John Michaels:

John:

Mike:

james:

WP:

m1scha:

PaulD:

John Michaels:

Charles:

sinekal:

Charles:

james:

WP:

katie:

chalkie:

Paul:

John R:

Charles:

james:

Sam Guest:

Brad:

Sam Guest:

pete:

Brian:

John R:

twobob:

Patch:

Reddog:

Polimonitor:

Brad:

Dave:

katie:

Mark:

sinekal:

james:

Peter:

Timmac:

Mike:

twobob:

John R:

Allan:

Bob:

John O:

Mark K:

Captain Swing:

cam:

Peter:

Trev:

Brad:

james:

Steve: