Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail (MBIR) Options Analysis[1]

Issues Identification and Alignment Refinement of the Australian Rail Track Corporation Inland Rail Alignment between Toowoomba and the NSW Border

A desktop study prepared by SMEC [July 2015] and tabled in the Queensland Parliament on 13 September 2016

These comments are submitted by Friends of Felton. The comments are confined to the shortlist of options as outlined in the SMEC report and illustrated in Figure 2 attached ie, option 1 through Millmerran, option 2 through Millmerran and Pittsworth, option 3 through Karara and option 4 through Warwick.

On page 72, SMEC gives its preferred combination of route options and then lists four ‘key benefits’ in support. For the purposes of easy identification, SMEC’s preferred option is called Karara. We consider the benefits listed by SMEC in support of Karara to be either weak or misleading, as outlined below:

First Claimed Benefit: Total Alignment Shorter

If Options 1, 2 and 3 cannot be differentiated on the basis of cost estimates due to similarity (p67) they cannot be differentiated on the basis of ‘distance and time’ measures since these too are similar (only maximum 8 km difference). Option 4 through Warwick is significantly more expensive (p67) and longer, with increased travel time (p38). As such the Warwick option is out of step with the project’s core objectives and is not considered further. Due to relative proximity, however, the Warwick option still influences SMEC’s choice of Karara as its preferred alignment.

Second Claimed Benefit: Good access to grain markets at Millmerran and Pittsworth

If the preferred route is Karara, the SMEC authors cannot claim the benefit of ‘good’ access to storage facilities at Millmerran and Brookstead when the access to these places would be much better if the alignment went directly from Inglewood to Millmerran. Brookstead currently serves as a major collection point for grain.

Third Claimed Benefit: Less exposure to flooding

Neither is the ‘less exposure to flooding’ benefit claimed for Karara convincing because it only refers to the Condamine floodplain. The statement on page 53 of the SMEC report makes it clear that options 1 and 3 are similarly affected by waterways. It concludes:

“In summary, the GIS data and structure length assumptions used as a basis for the strategic comparative cost estimate suggests that Option 3 has roughly twice the number of waterway crossings compared to Option 1 and one and a half times the total structure length for the alignment however, the hydrological assessment suggests that Options 1 and 3 are similarly exposed to floodplains”

Furthermore, the widest expanse of the Condamine floodplain is already traversed by an existing Queensland Rail easement running from Millmerran to Brookstead and Pittsworth. Thus Option 1 could follow an alignment the same or similar to one that already exists.

Fourth Claimed Benefit: Access to Charlton Wellcamp

Because all options end up in the Charlton Wellcamp area, all can claim this benefit; it is not a distinguishing benefit for the (Karara) route preferred by SMEC. In our view, there is a compelling case for locating the Toowoomba terminal at Charlton as originally planned. In the first place, the Toowoomba synergies between rail and air freighting are not strong enough to justify diverting the rail terminal to Wellcamp. Relatively speaking, the inland rail freight will tend to be high volume, low value while the air freight out of Wellcamp is more likely to be low volume, high value; any exceptions could be easily accommodated by road linkages. Secondly, Charlton has been the recognised destination for some years (since the ARTC 2010 report) and substantial investment decisions have already been made on the back of associated expectations.

Further points relevant to route selection

·  Karara route would incur large social and economic costs: Option 3 is a green-field route, which would result in negotiations with a large number of landholders (given the relatively dense settlement pattern along this route) and the additional expense of land acquisitions (something not considered in the SMEC report). The Karara route would also cause significant negative economic and social impacts as it passes through a large swath of Priority Agricultural Area at Felton (see Figure 3).

·  Felton coal reserves not accessible: The SMEC report makes special mention of access to the coal reserves at Felton afforded by Option 3. While access to new coal may be an economic benefit for the MBIR project, such a benefit will only be realised where the coal can be accessed. In reality, the coal reserves at Felton lie under Priority Agricultural Land, meaning that it will not be subjected to open-cut mining. This ‘reality’ effectively removes coal from the economic case for putting the inland rail corridor through the Felton Valley. In any event, the mere presence of coal is not a feature that favours options 1 or 3 as it applies equally to both.

·  Karara route would threaten significant amenity values: Over recent years the Felton Food Festival has been named as an Iconic Queensland Event with tangible acknowledgement in the form of grants from Tourism Events Queensland, Toowoomba Regional Council and the University of Southern Queensland. Twelve thousand visitors attended the festival in 2016, a significant boost to the local economy. The geography of the Felton Valley dictates that the rail line would pass very close to the food festival site, which is uniquely suited for the event. There can be no doubt that putting the Inland Rail through the middle of the Felton Valley would decimate the amenity values that have become dear to so many Queenslanders, making this option more socially destructive than putting it through Millmerran.

·  Inglewood a superior freight terminal: The location of terminals will be driven by commercial considerations. However, assuming that Moree secures the northern NSW terminal, Inglewood would be the best Queensland prospect south of Toowoomba. It could accumulate bulk freight from all directions as follows: East (via road and rail links with Warwick); West (via the existing rail to Thallon and roads west and north of Goondiwindi): South (via the road that crosses the NSW border at Texas) and North (via road and rail linkages offered by Option 1 that takes the track through Millmerran and Brookstead). Based on topographical, economic and logistical considerations, Inglewood would make a much better terminal than Karara. Moreover, Inglewood has superior infrastructure and workforce to either Karara or Yelarbon for such a terminal.

·  Condamine floodplain not a barrier: After linking Inglewood to Millmerran, option 1 could follow an existing rail corridor (the South Western System) to Brookstead and across the Condamine floodplain. Concerns about disruption to floodwater could be addressed by suspending the track above the land surface, as has been done with fast trains around the world.

·  Option 3 has high ecologically values: There are significant (negative) environmental impacts associated with Option 3 (Karara to Umbiram). This option traverses patches of 'Of Concern’/Endangered REs (Regional Ecosystems) as well as a regionally significant ecological corridor in the vicinity of Leyburn, which the proposed route follows to the north.

Conclusions

While conceding the need for ‘further targeted assessments’, the SMEC analyses and findings appear overly motivated by concerns with avoiding the downstream Condamine floodplain and getting closer to Warwick. In the face of these concerns, SMEC invents a middle-route (north from Karara) and bestows on it comparative advantages that do not stand-up to scrutiny. Importantly, there is already a rail corridor running from Millmerran to Brookstead, thus making this an obvious route, even if it has to be upgraded. New (green field) track would be needed to join Inglewood and Millmerran but the loss of agricultural and ecological values, together with the associated dislocation, severances and compensation etc would apply equally to any route from Karara north. Furthermore, Inglewood is far better resourced for the purposes of establishing a freight terminal than Karara. Freight from Warwick could be taken to Inglewood for little extra cost relative to Karara and it should be recognised that the Woolworths Depot at Warwick might prefer to stay with road transport as it services only 40 stores. The Inglewood community would also benefit significantly in terms of jobs and economic activity.

Friends of Felton is strongly of the opinion that Option 1 from Inglewood through Millmerran to Charlton remains optimal from a national perspective and should be declared the ‘final position’. This will remove further angst and uncertainty surrounding options. With the route settled, emerging freighting businesses can re-locate or adapt accordingly, rather than lobbying to get the route to come to them.

For more information contact Rob McCreath on 0409 014 219 or Ian Whan on 0412 473 202

Figure.1 ARTC Inland Rail Alignment (2016)

Figure.2 MBIR Options – Preferred Combination of Options (SMEC Report)

Figure.3: Darling Downs Regional Plan 2014 - Priority Agricultural Areas

1

[1] See Figure 1 showing ARTC proposed route