Inland Rail is a crucial project for Australia’s future and for the viability of the national highway network. As our population grows, the road network will become increasingly congested with large trucks. Creating an inland rail link between Melbourne and Brisbane will remove hundreds of thousands of truck movements off the road, while providing safer and faster freight transit.
Inland Rail has been problematic from the start due to the LNP Government’s decision to use a route (an alignment) that favoured certain landholders, airport owners, and port owners – in other words party donors. To please these interest groups, Inland Rail was designed to cross the Condamine River floodplain east of Millmerran before going across to Toowoomba, then down the range into Brisbane, with the The Port of Brisbane being the primary export port.
This route is patently stupid for several reasons. Crossing the Condamine floodplain is not technically feasible. The embankment necessary is located on about 30 m depth of clay, which becomes waterlogged and soft with a rain event known to occur, on average, every two years. Running a 40,000 tonne train across soft ground is unsafe. Even a few days of rain will require speeds to be slowed to 40 km/h, causing shipment delays, higher cost and destroying agriculture in the region through frequent flooding as flood water builds up behind the embankment.
Have we learnt nothing form the MITEZ rail link, which was also built across a floodplain and has been a drain on taxpayers ever since.
The second reason is because the Brisbane rail network is close to capacity and the corridor is constrained, meaning extra lines can’t be added. By the time trains are running along Inland Rail, there will be no slots left to bring the freight to the port. This is why there is now an insane suggestion to build a 60 km TUNNEL under Brisbane to bring the freight through.
You think cross-river rail is a disaster? This project is ten times the length, and should be ten times the cost = $60 billion – just for the tunnel. And remember, this is all taxpayer’s money that will never be repaid from rail revenue.
One Nation supports directing Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, where a modern container facility is currently under construction. This would require the alignment to turn north before Millmerran and head up to Dalby, with Wellcamp Airport and Brisbane freight coming back to the existing line, something that will be no slower because of the higher speeds available on this alignment.
Port of Gladstone is best located, cheaper and more efficient than Brisbane, with room to grow. The best news of all – the Millmerran to Port of Gladstone route has a strong advocate with IPG and is already holding offers of finance from infrastructure investment funds.
One Nation’s solution means no public money and a smarter route. ALP/LNP means $60 billion of taxpayers money for a slower, unreliable and more costly option.
Inland Rail is a multi-billion dollar project aimed at extending the existing inland railway line that currently runs between Melbourne and Parkes, and up to Brisbane. This will be a combination of existing and new sections of rail. The idea is to have a north south connection between Brisbane and Melbourne that can shift hundreds of thousands of movement from road to rail freight. This line will need to be upgraded to accommodate double-stacked container trains that are 1.8 km long.
One Nation supports rail transport over road transport, but for this to be effective, the rail service must reflect the needs of the industry. This means trains need to depart according to industry schedules, reliable connections need to be maintained, and fair pricing offered. Inland Rail, in its current form, will provide none of those things. The current alignment (route) in QLD takes the line across the Condamine floodplain, which is, quite frankly, a stupid idea. The deep clay soil in that area cannot support a railway line without horrendously expensive supports, which will then act as a dam during a flood. The Brisbane Port access is constrained, meaning the railway line across Brisbane and into the Port is running close to capacity, with no easy way to extend it. The Port of Gladstone offers a much better option. The line can go inland up the Mooney Highway, then through Wandoan to Banana and onwards to Gladstone. This direct, flood-free alignment will provide a cheaper and more reliable transit option.
A new container handling facility is being built in Gladstone, with an intermodal connection to the railway. Gladstone is perfectly positioned to serve as Australia’s gateway port for container traffic from Asia. Best of all, the Port is located away from the city and is strongly supported by local councils. Despite inquiring about this option, it appears the floodplain alignment remains the preferred option. This is not good enough! One Nation will continue to campaign for Inland Rail to run through to the Port of Gladstone.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. I have a number of questions, but I think they’re fairly short and straightforward. Recommendation 1 of the Schott report into the ARTC was to address skills deficiencies in the ARTC. I note that you’ve hired a new chair, Mr Peter Duncan. Has Mr Duncan ever built a railway?
Mr Johnson: Mr Duncan is the chair of the board. His skills go to requisite skills to be able to lead a board and our organisation. He is certainly familiar with long linear infrastructure, the engineering infrastructure. He’s very familiar with that from his prior roles.
Senator ROBERTS: What sort of long—
Mr Johnson: Roads and water. It’s really not a matter for me to comment on the appointment of other directors and Mr Duncan in a role. What I would say is that the board are working really well with myself and holding me to account to make sure we’ve got the requisite skills to operate, maintain and create the network. Further to the recommendations, a key recommendation from Dr Schott’s report and the review was the establishment of the Inland Rail subsidiary and the establishment of the board in parallel. That’s why we sit here today. Nick is the new CEO to Inland Rail. That subsidiary is now fully fledged. They have both a chair and a board in place for the construction of Inland Rail.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate and understand the distinctions between governance, management and trusteeship, if you like. He has not built a railway, but he has done other long infrastructure. The other new senior hire is Dr Collette Burke, who is a qualified engineer. Can you confirm her engineering qualification, please?
Mr Johnson: I know that Collette is an esteemed and qualified engineer, but I don’t have those details in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we get it on notice, please?
Mr Johnson: No problem.
Senator ROBERTS: There are reports—these may be old—that Dr Burke is also contributing to the Marinus Link from Tasmania to Victoria and Snowy Hydro 2.0. At these still current appointments?
Mr Johnson: Like all directors, Collette as a director on the board has made clear what other commitments she has and whether are any conflicts at play. I can confirm that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: So she is still on the other two boards?
Mr Johnson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, has the government made any other appointments to ARTC that address the skills deficiencies identified in the Schott report?
Senator Carol Brown: I don’t have that information with me, but I can take it on notice.
Mr Miller: Of course there’s a secondary board now, the subsidiary board of Inland Rail, whose directors all have extensive infrastructure experience.
Senator ROBERTS: In the earlier discussion on Inland Rail, I asked about what has been called the Goondiwindi to Gladstone alignment. I was advised that this is in the hands of the Queensland government. I find that surprising, when the Commonwealth government is paying for the project. It sounds like the Queensland government is going to decide how the Commonwealth spends the money. The Goondiwindi to Gladstone route is substantially cheaper, and I know there is at least one private partnership trying to get the attention of government with extensive expertise in railroads, freight, construction and shipping. They have money to spend. They’re willing to make a commitment, especially on the Surat Basin link from Moranbah to Banana. I don’t understand why, when the government is juggling budget deficits moving forward, it’s proving so hard to get even a meeting about a public-private partnership happening on this alternative route.
Mr Johnson: Just to be really clear, there are a few things happening there in parallel. Inland Rail Pty Ltd, headed by Nick, are continuing the work around the design of the route that heads over the Toowoomba range to Ebenezer, and working closely with the National Intermodal company on the connection at Ebenezer. That’s what Inland Rail are focused on. I am aware that there is some early business case development for other alternative options—Goondiwindi or Toowoomba to Gladstone—that the Queensland government have had some insight into.
Senator ROBERTS: So both Goondiwindi to Gladstone and Toowoomba to Gladstone are being considered as alternative business cases?
Mr Johnson: I have heard that both are. That’s right. I am acutely aware of the private interest that you’ve mentioned, and we’ve made it clear to the proponent—as we would for anyone who was interested in either developing, adjoining or working around the network, given we’re really the national rail network manager—that, when they get to the point that they’re at an EIS, an environmental impact statement, we’d be happy to support what type of views or impacts that would have, in a practical sense, and suggest what they might consider in that input. We have met, so I’m a little bit lost with the statement that it’s hard to get that meeting.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve already been working with them?
Mr Johnson: We’ve had a couple of meetings about what we can do at different stages, as they progress their development, to offer them whatever practical support we can, as we would for any other adjoining infrastructure manager.
Senator ROBERTS: So would you be willing to meet with a private investor who’s willing to fund the railroad construction from Surat Basin, from Moranbah to Banana?
Mr Johnson: We meet with a number of proponents. That one is a long way from our network, but nationally we’ve met with a number of people who are looking at different things, mostly where it’s connected to our network.
Senator ROBERTS: How about Inland Rail? Would you be willing to meet the investor to consider this?
Mr Miller: We’d be willing to meet to assist with indicative pricing that we have experienced per kilometre. It’s outside our scope in terms of our current remit. We’re going from border to Toowoomba and then down to Kagaru, and that’s where our focus is, around the environmental approvals and land acquisition, at present.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the vast majority of the cost of Inland Rail—from Toowoomba to Brisbane—as I understand it.
Mr Miller: It’s a significant part of Inland Rail. It’s not the vast majority.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We can argue about that at another time. Does the ARTC have any other publicprivate partnerships in place for Inland Rail? By ‘private’, I mean actually contributing private funding to the project.
Mr Johnson: No. The private partnership contract has ceased.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the ARTC have any signed agreements in the Queensland leg of Inland Rail? If so, which?
Mr Miller: Signed agreements?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Miller: With agencies or—
Senator ROBERTS: Any agreements committing Inland Rail to—
Mr Miller: Yes, we do. We have multiple land agreements in place. We are well developed with our environmental approvals.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s for the Toowoomba to Ebenezer route?
Mr Miller: That’s from the border to Toowoomba—the Gowrie route.
Senator ROBERTS: Across the Condamine?
Mr Miller: Across the Condamine. We expect to be in a position to go to public exhibition No. 2 in the last quarter of this year with that EIS approval.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the sunk cost of Inland Rail specifically for the Queensland sections? You can do that on notice.
Mr Miller: I will do that on notice. I can advise the Senate that to date—or to the end of March—we have spent $4.3 billion on the entire program.
Senator ROBERTS: In Queensland?
Mr Miller: No, across the entire program.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could I have the—
Mr Miller: The sunk cost for Queensland?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. The rail line from Ebenezer to the port of Brisbane is constrained. The available capacity on that line does not allow for the volume of freight necessary to ever get the construction costs back. The cost of the tunnel down the mountain is without a doubt $20 million, and it won’t be necessary if the rail line terminates in the port of Gladstone. Are they considerations you’re working on in the back of your mind?
Mr Miller: Our current scope of work is to take double-stack container trains to Ebenezer, and then they are transitioned to single-stack to Kagaru. That’s our scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I don’t understand why this economic reality has not been seized upon to reset the planning towards the Goondiwindi to Gladstone route, with freight destined for the airport at Wellcamp coming down from the Miles intermodal to Wellcamp. Are you considering that as part of the alternative?
Mr Miller: We’re not considering an alternative, but what we are considering is getting the environmental approvals and land acquisition to Toowoomba as a priority, and we’re continuing with the Kagaru section, with three EISs concurrently in that space.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware of the massive concerns about the Condamine crossing?
Mr Miller: Yes, we are, and we’ve undertaken very significant hydrological studies. Those studies have been to a flood panel and have been accepted as part of the EIS process.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the foundations for the elevated section of that line, which will be fairly lengthy?
Mr Miller: Yes, there is going to be an elevated section through the Condamine to improve resilience and reliability during flood periods.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the cost?
Mr Miller: We are working through the costs. The costs will be subject to the conditions that, ultimately, the EIS from the Coordinator-General’s office in Queensland puts upon us, plus the timeline, in terms of when that’s going to be built with inflation and the like, and the design and geotech that’s going on. We’re also doing some embankment trials in that area to ascertain what settlement impacts there will be, and what that means from an engineering perspective, so we can more accurately define the cost and scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the outcome of this review by ARTC and the Queensland government of the Queensland leg, in my opinion, must lead to the abandonment of the Condamine floodplain crossing of this railway line; otherwise the railway line won’t be built. That’s my opinion. I’d like to know your feedback on that. What are you getting in the way of reassurance from Inland Rail?
Senator Carol Brown: We take our advice from the experts.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they outside Inland Rail or inside?
Senator Carol Brown: Thank you for your view.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you getting experts from inside Inland Rail, as well as outside Inland Rail, especially on the Condamine crossing?
Senator Carol Brown: We get our expert opinions from Inland Rail, as well as our departmental people, but thank you for your view. I’ll pass it on.
The Australian Rail Track Corporation is projected to spend $494 million dollars on acquiring property for the proposed Inland Rail route. Despite rumors of certain people buying land on the route prior to the purchases, the government refuses to release who they are acquiring the properties from with nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.
Transcript
Happens when you don’t think it through. Thank you, Senator Roberts over to you.
Thank you, Chair. And thank you all for appearing tonight. What is the current budget for property purchases for the Inland Rail project?
It’s $494 million.
494 million, thank you. In the last estimates, I asked Infrastructure Australia a simple question. Who owns the land being purchased by Inland Rail? And I received this response on notice. Quote, the full cost of the property acquired for the Inland Rail project will not be known until all 13 sections of the project are completed. The cost will eventually come out. That’s the end of the quote. Cost will eventually come out, but apparently ownership will not. Firstly, when is Inland Rail scheduled for completion?
Current schedule of completion in late 2026.
[Malcolm] 20.
2026.
2026, thank you. My office is aware of reports as to who bought land prior to the announcement of the Inland Rail alignment, which we of course pay no heed to. So is it the position of the Minister that the public will never be told who owned the land the Australian taxpayers just spent 494, or will spend $494 million buying, and that we’ll have to wait until 2026 or later to find out how much we paid for it?
Yeah, I think per that previous answer, it would not be our intent to disclose the information about individual landowners.
So the taxpayers are paying for something but won’t receive any any accountability for it until another four years, if it’s finished on time? So we can’t find out as representatives of the taxpayers. Okay, let’s move on. In 2010, the ARTC stated Inland Rail would not be cost effective if completed in 2021, but may provide a positive net value by 2035 against a projected cost of $9 billion if rail freight demand increased. In the 2015 business case briefing paper two, the ARTC found $16 billion in GDP increase over the first 50 years. The project tonight I understand we were told is now stated to have a total cost of $14.5 billion, with solid third party, independent assessments, at over $20 billion, some well over $20 billion. When was the last time the cost benefit of Inland Rail was calculated in terms of net present value? And specifically, what was the total financial benefit to the taxpayers over the payback period? And what is the payback period, and what project cost did you do the sums on?
Do you want to give business case?
Do you want me to take?
Yeah.
Yeah, okay. So since back in 2020 when the increased equity was provided, there was an update to the economic benefits. So there was a revised assessment that came out with a net $18 billion economic benefit over that same period, 50 years, that you mentioned. And in that sort of same timeframe, the Commonwealth Government also did some further studies that looked at some of the economic benefits that would be capitalised, not just from that $18 billion which is really associated with efficiency improvements in the supply chain, but then a further $13.3 billion that was found to be catalysed by the stimulation of further regional economic industry and development. So that was probably the the latest updates in that regard that were undertaken.
And perhaps I can just add the comment that we haven’t seen the full business case. Much of it has been redacted from memory. And the assumptions, in particular, just slight changes in the assumptions can dramatically affect the business case and all the claimed economic benefits. And we’re kept in the dark about some of the assumptions. So I’ll go on to the next question. The Inland Rail business case relies on a series of calculations about transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst many others. By way of example, the share of freight Inland Rail will attract supposedly on the Melbourne to Brisbane route will go from 26% currently to 62% by 2050. And that’s one of the massive assumptions. And these assumptions, models, and calculations are said to be commercially sensitive. So, as I’ve said a minute ago, they’ve not been made public and will not be made public. Is that a correct statement?
It’s exclusive.
Look Senator, the business case for Inland Rail was produced in 2015, which was the last one. Simon, do you want to make?
Yeah, it was certainly public. And I’m not sure exactly what assumption you’re looking at, Senator. It’s not-
Well, I’ll read them again. The transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst other things. And some of the reports that were submitted or made by some of the big four accounting firms or management consulting firms, they’re not available. And we understand that two reports contradict each other.
So Senator, the information that you went through is available. We can certainly, we could talk through it tonight or we could certainly come back to you outside of the session with that information.
We’d appreciate you coming back, that would be great.
Yeah, absolutely. I’m only aware of one. Sorry, I’m aware of one macroeconomic report to do with the assumptions around the GDP and also the market share figures, which was undertaken by the PWC Deloitte. EY undertook a more specific reasonable analysis. We’re not aware that they contradict. They were looking at quite different elements of the benefit streams of the programme.
Well, perhaps we could show you what we mean by that with the reports and with some documents, and you could at the same time as you can come back with your assessment. And we’re happy to arrange that with our office.
[Simon] And we’d been more than happy to do that, Senator.
Thank you very much. Minister, why is this project proceeding when the taxpayers are most likely to lose tens of billions of dollars if the taxpayers are not benefiting qui bono? So who is?
Well, I think based on the answers you’ve received and some of those things that’ll be taken on notice and subject to further conversations between you and the officers from ARTC, I think some of the assumptions underlying your questions may still be in contention. But obviously, the principle is that it’s a project worth backing and the government remains willing to do that for the good of the country. But obviously, further detail required to satisfy the questions you’ve asked so far. And hopefully the officers will give you the answers you’re after.
Okay, Chair, I’d just like to ask two questions, following up on what you asked. Thank you. The preferred alignment from the ARTC 2010 Melbourne-Brisbane alignment study became the final alignment in the 2015 programme business case. Is there any significant change between those two alignments? Because on a map they look the same.
The short answer is yes, that there were some minor adjustments. Off the top of my head, I’m probably couldn’t navigate through all of those. But the Inland Rail, route history document, does detail those and gives a lot of further detail. We can come back with some more if you need.
That’s on the website.
Yeah, that’s on the Inland Rail, the ARTC website, yep.
Okay, thank you. Last question to you. And this may be touching on something that Senator Van asked about. In the last estimates, I asked Major Transport and Infrastructure Projects about Inland Rail environmental impact assessments. And Ms. Hall, the First Assistant Secretary replied, the route has actually been set. This is a quote. The route has actually been set. The purpose of the environmental assessment processes are to give confidence to the communities that the environment is protected. So environmental impact assessments are still underway, and yet the route is set. Is it a statement of fact that the final Inland Rail route was decided before the environmental assessment of that route had even been started? So are you backfilling the project? Backfilling the EIS’s?
Senator, I think you’re referring to me. The route has been set. The purpose, as we’ve just discussed before, Minister, Mr. Helena has said is that an EIS process is designed to give assurance to the community, give assurance to the regulatory requirements. A coordinator general, for example, in regards to Queensland will set the conditions by which that piece of infrastructure needs to be built. So that is the purpose of an EIS process.
The assumptions about the business case for Inland Rail are difficult to get a hold of. All of the Government Departments I talk to duck and weave and point the finger at other departments who then point the finger at someone else. We just want transparency about the true cost and assumptions that one of Australia’s largest infrastructure investments is being built on.
Transcript
Inland rail. In August, I contacted the RRAT chair Senator Stirl and asked for the big four accounting firms. Ernst & Young, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte to attend a hearing of the RRAT committee to explain their data that underpins the entire inland rail project. The 24 hour turnaround time. So I just want to get this straight Minister. Inland rail is Australia’s largest infrastructure project since the snowy mountain scheme. Is it correct to say that you are refusing to show the committee or the Senate, the data that justified the spending on $25 billion in taxpayers’ money?
Is that question to me Senator Roberts?
Yes.
I’m afraid I can’t answer that question because I represent urban infrastructure and inland rail is not an urban infrastructure project.
Is there anyone that can answer the question?
Senator, I just clarify that it’s a $15 billion project.
It depends on how you measure it. Ms. Hall Dewey, there was a series of business cases undertaken for the inland rail project. Now I’m not aware of when was the last one.
The last- Sorry, Senator. Jessica Hall, first assistant secretary, Major transport and Infrastructure projects. The business case was released in 2015. And that’s the last business case that was made available. In regards to additional information that has been provided, my understanding is that ARTC releases anything that isn’t commercial and confidence. So, it would just be a question of the fact whether that information was commercial and confidence or not.
Well, Ms. Hall, thank you. My understanding is that the business case was released but the fundamental assumptions in which the business case is built were not released. And that’s what we want to see with the material from the four consulting companies. Because without that basic assumptions, we can’t tell whether it’s feasible or not.
Well, the business case did go to infrastructure Australia and infrastructure Australia, I think put it on the infrastructure priority list.
Are we able to get a look at the assumptions there? They’re fundamental to understanding whether or not inland rail is viable?
Well, I think the information around inland rail has been made viable because BCR has been made public.
BCR?
The Benefit Cost Ratio.
But without the assumptions, how can we assess that ourselves?
Well, I think that’s the role of infrastructure Australia. The infrastructure Australia has assessed that and said that it’s a viable project.
When’s the infrastructure Australia
They’re on this evening at 9:45.
Okay, thank you. So, that’d be able to tell me the details about the 24 hour turnaround time?
I think ARTC would be the best organisation for the 24 hour turnaround times. They’re not currently scheduled for today though, Senator.
No. Do you know when they are scheduled?
I don’t believe they’re scheduled for this estimate, Senator Roberts.
Okay. So is there any possibility that the real figure for compensation for loss of property rights along the inland rail route is ever going to be made public before the project is built?
I think we’d have to take that on notice Senator. I’m not quite sure what you mean in regard to loss of property rights. There’s compensation paid to anybody whose property is acquired.
Yeah. We’d like to know who’s getting the money? Who’s being compensated? We’d like to know who owns the land.
We’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Okay. Thank you. So why is it structured? Why is inland rail structured so that the data that could challenge the preferred alignment is locked up in the big accounting firms and can never be brought into debate? It seems like to me that the government is trying to keep this vital data from us.
I don’t think so, Senator. I think any information as I said, that is not commercially sensitive in regards to ARTC entering into contracts is being made publicly available.
The alignments for the route, also subject to environmental impact assessments and studies through state relevant state jurisdictions. So the usual regulatory approach for this and the control of final approvals for alignments lies with states through their environmental approval processes. More appropriately, ARTC can probably answer in detail on this, but of the 13 major project elements of each of those will be subject to an environmental and consultation process that then goes through the relevant jurisdictions approval arrangements which is subject to different state and territory law, depending on which state it’s in it crosses Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
So you’re saying it’s not finalised yet. And it’ll ultimately be in the hands of the states that you need environmental approval?
Yes. Environmental approval is in the hands of the state jurisdictions.
And that could affect the route?
It can. Yes We think the route is currently set and the environmental approval processes are underway. The final detail of the route though I think is question best for the ARTC that’ll be to do with engineering solutions around.
The route has been set. So, the route has actually been set. The purpose of the environmental assessment processes are to give confidence to the communities and to the states and to others about what provisions ARTC has to put in place to make sure that the environment is actually protected.
Will we ever know who owned the land that was purchased for the inland rail and what price was paid for it?
I’ll take that on notice, Senator. We should be able to get you something in regards to that.
Thank you very much.
So, just to clarify, because Senator Stirl has made a valid point about questions taken on notice and amount of time and blah, blah, blah. But just to be specific because I’m not entirely sure what that question is that you’ve just taken on notice. So you talking about in Queensland, you talking about the entire route from Victoria. So what you want is the-
The names of the people.
The names of the property owners.
Correct.
And the amount they’re being paid for their acquisition of the inland rail route through their property.
Correct.
And I’ll take long notice to see what information I can provide in regards to that. Because there’ll be a whole lot of issues in regards to personal information being provided.
Yes, so I’d imagine that not everybody wants that too.
It’s quite a complex requested 17,000 kilometres of route traversing a lot of different territories.
In the communities and among our constituents, there are a lot of questions being asked about that. A lot of questions.
Yeah. I understand.
And I appreciate that I guess it’s just been clear about if you can narrow that that would probably be helpful if you want to question and answer back quickly.
Well, I think what you’ve done is helped narrow that process.
Yesterday I attended a hearing into the Inland Rail project. The massively expensive project will see up to 40 heavy freight trains a day travel through southern Queensland to Acacia Ridge. (20 into Brisbane and 20 out)
Inland Rail uses passenger lines through south west Brisbane that local residents were promised would never be upgraded to heavy freight. That promise, by Labor Premier Beattie has now been broken by Premier Palaszczuk.
It is telling that neither Premier Palaszczuk nor any of her administration had the courage to front the inquiry to respond to the criticism of the route her Government is promoting.
The Mayor of Logan City Darren Power testified that within 20 years more than 50,000 residents would live with 1km of the train line, putting up with noise and vibration from 1.8km long heavy freight trains 24 hours a day.
The current plan is to terminate the line at Acacia Ridge, and not upgrade the rail link to Brisbane Port until 2040. This stupid idea will put hundreds of additional A double heavy freight trucks and related traffic onto local roads that can’t handle the traffic they have now.
Inland Rail’s preferred alignment also goes across the Condamine floodplain near Millmerran. Building a 2m railway embankment across a major floodplain is a really bad idea. The small culverts being built into the embankment will quickly block during heavy rain and flood out thousands of local residents and businesses.
The much better route through Warwick, along mostly existing freight rail lines was not seriously considered by the ARTC, this is a poor decision.
The budget for Inland Rail now stands at $20 billion and will go much higher. At this cost Inland Rail will never pay for itself. Our investigations into this and listening are going to continue. The more I hear, the more concerned I am about this project.
