• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Management of the Inland Rail Project by the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the Commonwealth Government November 2019 1 | Page 2 Senate Inquiry into the Inland Rail Project managed by the Australian Rail Track Corporation Introduction I am a member of the rural farming community at Illabo in the South West Slopes/Riverina Region of New South Wales. I have lived in this Community for the last 60 odd years and currently own a generational property into its 4th term. Our family farm is situated adjacent to the Main Southern Railway line and the Olympic Highway. This gives me an important insite into living adjacent to an active rail corridor and the problems that it poses to an active working farming property. I am also an active member within the community and community organisations within NSW. In my youth I was State President of the NSW Rural Youth Organisation I played sport for Junee in Soccer, Rugby League and Rugby Union I was awarded Life Membership for my involvement with my local P&C Association I was Treasurer, 21 years, and President, 4 years, of the Illabo Show Society I am a Group Captain for the Rural Fire Service I was a Councillor for Junee Shire in 1989-1993 At present I am currently serving as a Councillor for Junee I am Chairman of our local NSW Farmers Association Branch I have been active within my local church for the last 40 years I feel that this has helped get a feel on the issues that effect my community and more importantly their concerns with the Inland Rail Project as it effects those producers and the adjoining community in the Illabo to Stockinbingal (I2S) greenfield section of this project. In living adjacent to this line, my main access out of my property is via a private level crossing so I understand the difficulties that will be in place by having a railway line run through my property. My principal concern with this ‘Greenfield” section is that those effected producers get a fair deal and the wider community, with effective public road crossing, in any final selection and building process. At this stage I feel that none of this is achievable due to Inland Rails process of not listening to the community. Some of these issues are listed in the following information. I thank the Senate Committee for there time in reading this submission. 2 | Page 3 Senate Inquiry into the Inland Rail Project managed by the Australian Rail Track Corporation Why are we Concerned? Since the announcement of this greenfield project the effected producers have been concerned about how the line will impact on their business live hoods. Even before the first community meeting questions were being asked, with very few answers being given. At the first of a series of community meetings along this corridor these questions were again asked, and no answers were given. It has taken up to 2 years for even some answers to be given and now at the 70% design stage some of the original questions have still not been addressed. We feel that for a very important project like this, these simple questions should have answers. We doubt that they even know how to answer the questions because they haven’t even considered how to address some of these problems. Questions raised at the start What type of fencing will be constructed? Who will maintain this fence into the future? Will we still have internal access across the line How will our internal services, power water and phone, be managed What sort of compensation will be given? What, if any, compensation will be given/considered to those adjoining landholders effected by this development. What has ARTC done ARTC was asked to consult with our community on this project. Yes, they came and consulted handed out information sheets and took questions but that’s all they did. They never addressed issues that the community wanted answers for. Yes, they talked one on one with the effected producers but never really addressed their concerns about how this project will affect their businesses. They have employed private agronomists to understand how individual faring operations run but can they, or are they willing, to understand that each farming business runs to different designs and schedules. The only thing we heard was stories from other areas of no internal rail crossing, substantial fencing etc which have never been totally refuted. The Communities needs We have asked for possible changes to the route within and outside the preferred corridor but to no avail. The only change that they have seemed to have make is for environmental/wildlife habit and nothing at all for producer live hood issues. In all the correspondence/literature given to concerned landholders it was always stressed that the alignment would whenever possible follow property boundaries and road reserves. At this stage none of aliment goes anywhere near property boundaries and after attending our local Community Consultative Committee meeting for the I2S section of the line it appears that they have been 3 | Page 4 Senate Inquiry into the Inland Rail Project managed by the Australian Rail Track Corporation planning this greenfield section on totally environmental issues around preserving as many trees as possible with no consideration as to how farmers will be able to effectively run their business. Problems with the scoping report. In the Scoping report submitted to the NSW Government to justify the design and building of this project Inland Rail seems to have done some consulting within themselves and not the community on possible Route Selection Whilst the objective of Inland Rail is to reduce the distance, and time, between Melbourne and Brisbane and in trying to achieve this in the Melbourne to Parkes sector the planners only have 2 choices by using the old railway lines in the west of the state through Tocumwal, Narrandera then a new line to Forbes Or the Main Southern Railway to Cootamundra then onto Forbes The Planners, or Government, have chosen the 2nd Option however this option has a problem in getting pass the section between Bethungra and Stockinbingal with the Bethungra Spiral, Cootamundra Township and the Stockinbingal Hill being major obstacles. The alternative to this is a deviation from Illabo to Stockinbingal along the western side of the Bethungra Range through cropping/grazing country. Another alternative could have been from Junee following the Junee-Temora and Combaning Roads to the Cootamundra-Temora Railway Line at Springdale and then to Stockinbingal. This alternative would have followed the Road Reserve for 80% of the way with minimal impact on productive agricultural country. This particular route was mounted in the 1880’s as an alternative to travelling through Cootamundra and the Bethungra Range when the railway line from Sydney to Melbourne was originally planned. In deciding the 1st option the community was not even consulted as to a preferred choice but were TOLD. Someone has drawn a 2k easement line on a map and said make the line fit in that space. In Inland Rails Scoping Report (Inland Rail Illabo to Stockinbingal State Significant Infrastructure Scoping Report 01-2200-PD-P11-DE-003 June 2018) On page 17 2.8 Options Considered The Illabo to Stockinbingal proposal involves developing a direct route between Illabo and Stockinbingal in NSW. During early alignment identification, undertaken as part of the 2010 Inland Rail Alignment Study, ARTC developed a Base Case option, which heads in a north easterly direction from Illabo. The Base Case as presented in the 2010 Inland Rail Alignment Study was developed to avoid the Bethungra Spiral and its grade and structure clearance constraints between Bethungra and Cootamundra while also offering 4 | Page 5 Senate Inquiry into the Inland Rail Project managed by the Australian Rail Track Corporation significant travel time improvements. The Illabo to Stockinbingal route section is approximately 37 kilometers. It diverges from the Main South line between Illabo and Bethungra and continues north toward Stockinbingal. In 2015, ARTC undertook an alignment refinement assessment. The assessment reviewed four options between Illabo and Stockinbingal, including the Base Case. From this, assessment improvements were shown to be shifting away from the 2010 alignment. Further engineering and environmental investigation in early 2016 resulted in an additional alignment option (Option 5) to be developed which was selected as the preferred option using a multi‐criteria analysis (MCA) to evaluate each alignment in comparison to the 2010 base case. Option 5 provided better environmental outcomes and reduced property severance. In late 2016 further flooding, engineering, environmental investigations (including additional field surveys) and community consultation were undertaken on the preferred option. The information obtained during consultation activities, field surveys and desktop studies fed into further options analysis and refinement. The analysis considered environmental, engineering constraints and property impacts as well as community concerns raised during consultation. The additional options developed have been designed to: Minimise interaction with Ironbong Creek. Reduce property impacts. Improve road crossing locations. Improve earthworks balance. As a result, a proposal site has been selected which will further be refined in the design process to a preferred alignment to achieve optimal tie in locations to the existing rail line, reduce environmental and property impacts and address community concerns raised during consultation. The Community has never seen any of the Options or the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA). This option, Option 5, keeps referring to ‘Reduce Property Impacts’ however with design up to the Environmental Impact Statement stage none of the proposed alignment goes anywhere near a property boundary. What was the 2010 alignment ? Basically, what they are saying in this 2.8 has not been done.

Load more

  7

Copy Link