5.1
Inland Rail’s route planning and selection process, as demonstrated in Chapter 1, has evolved since its conception in the early 20th Century. After the far western corridor was established following the North-South Corridor Study (NSCS) of 2006, more detailed assessments commenced with the Inland Alignment Rail Study (IRAS) of 2010 and the Inland Rail Implementation Group (IRIG) 2015. Accordingly, the Australasian Railway Association (ARA) commented that Inland Rail is ‘arguably one of the most heavily studied projects in recent Australian history’.
5.2
These studies, along with detailed Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCAs) and public consultations, resulted in a general understanding of where Inland Rail’s alignment would be placed, with further refinements taking place for greenfield sites. Bilateral agreements with state governments set in motion the progressive construction of the Inland Rail project, starting with the Parkes to Narromine (P2N) project in 2019.
5.3
Whist momentum for the route planning, selection process and construction continues to build, criticism has been directed towards the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) throughout the project. The denunciations of the ARTC’s route planning process, as demonstrated by issues raised in chapters 2, 3 and 4, bring to light the concerns of farmers and local communities — including inadequate community consultation, the appropriateness of proposed routes, concerns about flood and hydrology modelling, the impact of erosion, and on water resources. These concerns are in addition to other environmental and cultural impacts (such as sound, vibration, sites of significance for local Indigenous communities, and deforestation) on landholders and communities in the vicinity of the Inland Rail corridor.
5.4
The concerns across the entire Inland Rail project vary, depending on the nature of each project, whether it is a greenfield or brownfield alignment, and the topographical and environmental factors of each landscape. The committee recognises that these concerns will continue to evolve, based on the continual progression of the project, and that not all concerns have been captured within this report. This chapter considers key issues raised with the committee for the Queensland section of Inland Rail, excluding Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton, which was considered in chapters 2 and 3. The committee recommends chapters 5 and 6 being read in conjunction with the ARTC’s Inland Rail Route History 2006–2020. Table 5.1 provides an overview of the project status for Queensland’s Inland Rail projects as of February 2021.
Table 5.1: Project status, February 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Border to Gowrie
|
216km
|
Greenfield (145kn) & brownfield (71km)
|
New track and track enhancements
|
Reference design
|
|
Gowrie to Helidon
|
28km
|
Greenfield
|
New track (including 6.2km tunnel)
|
Reference design; draft EIS under review
|
|
Helidon to Calvert
|
47km
|
Greenfield
|
New track (including 850m tunnel)
|
Reference design; draft EIS under review
|
|
Calvert to Kagaru
|
53km
|
Greenfield
|
New track (including 1.1km tunnel)
|
Reference design; draft EIS under review
|
|
Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton
|
49km
|
Brownfield
|
Track enhancement
|
Reference design
|
NSW/Queensland Border to Gowrie project
5.5
The Border to Gowrie (B2G) project commences at the existing track at the NSW/Queensland Border near Yelarbon and continues to Gowrie Junction, north west of Toowoomba, Queensland. The project includes the upgrade of 71km of existing track and an additional 145km of new gauge track. New track construction commences west of Whetstone and tracks north, past Inglewood, Milwood and Millmerran. The track joins with existing track at Yandilla, which merges with a new track halfway between Brookstead and Pittsworth, continuing past Athol, Wellcamp (including Wellcamp airport) and ceases at Gowrie Junction.
5.6
The preferred route was one of four options considered following the release of the 2015 IRIG report. A key component of the route option assessment was the proposed alignments’ crossing of the Condamine floodplain. According to the Inland Rail route history report, each of the four potential rail corridors was assessed based on the ‘length of each route that traversed land that would be flooded in [one per cent] Annual Exceedance Probability
(AEP) events and flooded in 10 [per cent] AEP events’. The four routes considered in 2016–17 that traverse the Condamine floodplain are found in Figure 5.2 and are as follows
The Base Case Modified (Corridor 1);
Wellcamp-Charlton (Corridor 2)
Karara-Leyburn (Corridor 3)
5.7
A 2016–17 AECOM route option assessment found Corridors 2 and 3 to be more favourable than the Base Case Modified route (Corridor 1) and Corridor 4. The AECOM flood immunity/hydrology key metrics and scoring against key criteria of the proposed corridors is found in Figure 5.3 that shows the Wellcamp-Charlton (Corridor 2) and the Karara-Leyburn (Corridor 3) with +5 ratings against the Base Case Modified (Corridor 1) option.
5.8
As part of the AECOM assessment, the MCA on all four corridors resulted in Corridor 2 (Wellcamp-Charlton) being recommended, and ultimately chosen, as the preferred route (reference design route). This corridor compared favourably on four of the ten criteria against the Base Case Modified corridor. The comparison between each corridor, compiled by the ARTC, is found at Figure 5.4.
5.9
In 2018, the Australian Government determined that the ARTC develop a flood model and a preliminary design solution for the alignment’s crossing of the Condamine floodplain. This determination led to appointment of technical advisors to work in consultation with landholders and other stakeholders. In addition, a number of community groups appointed technical and hydrological experts to review the flood modelling and design, with the support of the ARTC.
5.10
In September 2019, the ARTC released its reference design for the B2G alignment that included a detailed proposed crossing design of the Condamine floodplain. This proposal included a total of six bridges (at four different locations) of 6.1km in length, in addition to 500 culverts ranging from 900mm to 2.1m in diameter. The cost for Inland Rail’s crossing of the Condamine floodplain had increased by $56 million since 2017. The ARTC said that the increase was largely due to ‘consultations with landowners and to accommodate current farming practices including no-till land management’. The ARTC confirmed it was exploring whether individual mitigation measures were required for individual properties, to ensure Inland Rail does not increase the flood level at those homes by more than 10mm. According to the ARTC, its work on this matter will be finalised as part of its detailed design activities, and it was confident it had ‘already minimised such potential impacts as much as possible through…the current reference design’.
5.11
In June 2020, the Australian and Queensland governments announced the formation of an independent international panel of expert hydrologist and engineers (independent panel) to review the 21 flood models previously developed for Inland Rail’s crossing of Queensland’s floodplains. The independent panel is expected to complete its review by the end of 2021, with draft reports for three projects under review released between March and May 2021.
5.12
In addition to the independent panel, the Department released an August 2020 draft information paper that compared the proposed routes for the B2G alignment with a like-for-like methodological approach. The information paper found the reference design route as the preferred route, performing better across all major attributes including transit time, reliability, availability and cost. For the floodplain crossing, the information paper reported that the total length of floodplain crossed for the reference design route was 14.2km, whereas the Wellcamp route was 36.7km and the Kingsthorpe route was 38.6km. Shorter bridges and embankments were also recorded for the reference design’s alignment.
5.13
As of February 2021, the ARTC had submitted its EIS with Queensland’s Coordinator-General (CG), which requested for additional information from the ARTC. The draft EIS public consultation period commenced on 23 January 2021 and concluded on 4 May 2021.
5.14
On 7 April 2021, the Toowoomba Region Council announced that it had endorsed its submission to the CG. It reported that it would recommend a 75 per cent local supplier target for Inland Rail’s construction in the region. The Council also identified a number of issues with the draft EIS, such as the construction of water sources, identification and protection of culturally significant areas, safety concerns, environmental and flood mitigations measures (including consideration of the independent panel’s review of flood modelling), and regional job opportunities. Prior to its endorsement of the EIS, the Council had previously advised the committee that it recognised the ARTC’s efforts to ensure accurate flood modelling, and called for continued engagement with local communities to ensure historical flood levels and local knowledge is considered.
Route selection and flood modelling
5.15
The primary concern shared by various submitters and witnesses was the B2G route selection process and the accuracy of the ARTC’s flood modelling. For the residents of Millmerran and surrounds, the Inland Rail project, if inappropriately designed will have ‘the potential to cause significant and catastrophic impacts within the Condamine floodplain area’.
5.16
The committee heard from various stakeholders who submitted that the ARTC’s route selection process lacked integrity and accountability. The Millmerran Rail Group detailed many of the ARTC’s shortcomings with this process, such as the lack of acknowledgement of the community’s concerns when raised through the Project Reference Group (PRG). The PRG was established as a conduit between the local community and Inland Rail to provide input into the review of B2G alignment options; however, according to the Millmerran Rail Group, the ‘assessment experience to date has been tokenistic, with disregard and contempt shown by ARTC toward the intent and charter of the PRG’.
5.17
The committee heard of various issues regarding the flood modelling that underpinned the design of Inland Rail’s infrastructure, design and route selection process. This concern was demonstrated to the committee during a site visit to a residence at Pampas. The committee was shown the level of a 2010 flood and heard the concerns of local residents who argued the ARTC’s modelling found that the 100-year flood level at the property was ’39 centimetres lower, almost 0.4 of a metre lower, than the surveyed December 2010 flood level’. As emphasised by DA Hall, this level of ‘discrepancy will destroy people’s homes and will destroy people’s businesses and livelihoods’.
5.18
In order to address the community’s concerns about the ARTC’s flood modelling, DA Hall and Millmerran Rail Group independently contracted Dr Sharmil Markar, a hydrology, hydrologic modelling and flood plain management expert. Dr Markar detailed his review of the flood modelling used to inform the Inland Rail’s crossing of the Condamine floodplain, and informed the committee that he had ‘found a number of technical flaws’. He advised the ARTC of these flaws, which were accordingly recalibrated by the ARTC in their models. Despite this correction, Dr Markar remained convinced that the ARTC ‘still haven't fixed the problems. There are still some significant problems’.
5.19
To illustrate his ongoing concern, Dr Markar argued the ARTC’s 2010 flood levels were biased too low and the 15- to 20-kilometre-wide flood plain had ‘a lot of flood storage missing’. Specific concern was raised with the ARTC’s modelling of a 100-year flood level compared to the recorded 2010 flood level:
…they estimated the 2010 event as something between a 50-year event and a 100-year event, which is definitely smaller than a 100-year event. One would expect, if you look at a 100-year flood event, that those predicted flood levels would be higher than the 2010 levels. But that is not the case. In fact, the 100-year flood levels are approximately 0.2 metres to 0.4 metres lower than the recorded 2010 surveyed levels. That means that there is a fundamental problem with some of the modelling that has been undertaken. You would expect 100-year flood levels to be higher than 2010, but it is not so.
5.20
According to Dr Markar, a significant hindrance to his consideration of the flood modelling was the limited access to the ARTC’s information about the modelling. He explained that the ARTC provided brief sections of modelling reports with very little information on how it was being used, or he was provided with just the models, data files and results for him to interpret ‘rather than given some of the processing [and] the interpretation of results’. As of January 2020, Dr Markar had not been provided with information about the design of the rail line or the number of culvert bridges. DA Hall contended that it was:
…clear that the consultation that ARTC are trying to have with our organisation is one which uses up an extreme amount of time and resources…to make us give up at some point on the fight to get this information correct.
5.21
When asked whether it was premature of the ARTC to make decisions on engineering, route alignment and expenditure without the base hydrological models being completed, Dr Markar responded with:
Yes, I believe so. I think that, before we look at the design and the impacts of that design on flooding, you have to get the base case—the existing conditions modelling—right. That is, you have to get the model calibration right and the design discharges under pre-rail conditions right. I don't believe they have got it right yet. So I don't think they should really be designing the rail until they get the base case modelling correct…If a detailed costing analysis of different options is to be undertaken, you can’t do it until you know what the detailed design is.
5.22
The committee asked about any review processes in place to consider the hydrological modelling used by the ARTC. Reference was made to an internal review conducted by the ARTC, which was then followed by a study undertaken by Dr John Macintosh. According to Dr Markar, the Macintosh review was fairly narrow and did not include a ‘review of the actual modelling or its accuracy’.
5.23
The absence of trust in the floodplain modelling has led to questions being asked of route planning processes. The Millmerran Rail Group highlighted that the MCA process was conducted on the basis of those models, which subsequently informed the business case and rail infrastructure. The Group asserted that the MCA was not conducted on a ‘like for like’ basis due to the design not being fully costed or understood, and was critical of the financial planning and cost benefit analysis relating to the route selection.
5.24
The committee asked the ARTC to respond to community concerns about the flood modelling during its January 2020 hearing in Brisbane. The ARTC made clear that the proposed design of Inland Rail was required to minimise any additional flooding impact and to make sure any structures used to cross floodplains allowed ‘enough flow-through of the water so that [the] structures don’t make the situation worse’. To achieve this goal, the ARTC developed baseline flood modelling, which is re-calibrated over time. Mr Richard Wankmuller of the ARTC explained that the baseline model is:
We do flood modelling. What you do is develop what's called a baseline model, which is an estimate of what it might look like in that area, and then you go and calibrate it—we call it calibration locally. You talk to local residents. You get local flood markers. You get photographs. You start to take that information and adjust your model so that the model predicts exactly what happened in the past. Once you have that model, you say: 'Okay. The model is accurately predicting what we've seen before.' You then can use that model to design what structures are going to go there and make sure that those structures don't impact the floodwaters that will eventually occur.
5.25
When asked about the concerns of those residents in the Condamine floodplain, the ARTC reiterated the expertise of its modellers, AECOM and Aurecon, and that it was open to further updates based on comments provided by the community, including those provided by Dr Sharmil Markar. The ARTC also objected to the assumption that Dr Macintosh’s review was narrow, clarifying that the ARTC provided him with open access to its data. Mr Wankmuller added that the ARTC would meet with Dr Markar to discuss some of his high-level concerns. When asked whether Dr Markar could be included on the independent expert panel, Mr Wankmuller stated that the panel would be focused on the detail of the structural design to ensure its safety, which was not Mr Markar’s area of expertise.
5.26
The committee also sought clarification on whether the ARTC would await the independent review’s findings before lodging its draft EIS with the Queensland Government. The ARTC responded with a clarifying statement about the EIS process with the Queensland Government:
When we lodge the EIS, that begins a process of open consultation. Not only does the state look at it, but they put it back out to the public for comment. We would take on board those comments. We would give all those comments to the expert panel when they convene, so that they would be aware of what the concerns are and would able to address them. But, again, that speaks to the terms of reference between Queensland and the Commonwealth, and they'll finalise all of that over the next few months.
5.27
On 19 November 2020, the committee heard that the ARTC was reviewing individual cases regarding the infrastructure required to protect properties from flooding on the Condamine floodplain. Mr Wankmuller explained that the ARTC sat with each affected landholders ‘to see what we need to do on their property to mitigate any impacts beyond 25 millilitres’, adding that this process was ongoing and for that reason a total cost of the work would not be finalised until the public exhibition of the EIS. Regarding the acquisition of properties, as of November 2020, the ARTC had purchased seven properties in Queensland, with a further dozen being negotiated.
Independent review of ARTC flood and hydrology modelling
5.28
As previously noted, communities and landholders in the vicinity of the Condamine floodplain have called for an independent review of the flood modelling. An independent panel was subsequently implemented by the Australian and Queensland governments in June 2020. The ARTC informed the committee that the independent panel was tasked with looking ‘at the detailed [route] design and making sure that they have brought global expertise to every possible angle to make sure that it is safe’. This information would then be used to inform the detailed design of the alignment.
5.29
The ARA supported the decision for an independent review, noting that it and its members were concerned about Inland Rail’s crossing of the Condamine floodplain. It added that the review should be an ‘evidence based process…free from emotion and should ultimately provide the community and future investors with confidence that the flood modelling and engineering studies are world class and that any potential impacts can be managed’. When asked to expand on this statement, the ARA emphasised the importance of incorporating stakeholders’ feedback:
…the decision needs to be based on the science and the engineering and it needs to incorporate all of the stakeholder feedback…When we say a decision needs to be made and there needs to be certainty around that, we're talking about the community as well as industry. It's in everyone's interest to reach a solution on this and incorporate everyone's feedback.
5.30
Support for the independent flood panel was also conveyed by the ARTC and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (Department of Infrastructure). The ARTC informed the committee that it had provided over two terabytes of data to the panel and was confident that the review of the B2G project would validate the ARTC’s modelling for the Condamine floodplain crossing. The Department of Infrastructure made clear that the panel would not provide advice on whether a more appropriate route existed; rather, it would ‘look at the 21 flood models that have been developed by the ARTC for Inland Rail’. The Department added that the panel would provide advice and respond to community comment provided through the EIS process and conduct community consultation. Overall, the panel would:
…examine the development and the application of these models—the hydrology model, which is where the water is in the landscape, but also the hydraulic model, which is how that water interacts with the reference design structures. But it is also interested in hearing where there are concerns and what those concerns are so they can be addressed.
5.31
The independent panel released its draft report for the B2G project on 17 March 2021. The draft report identified issues with the project’s flood modelling; however, made clear that the identification of these issues was a normal part of the iterative process and that the issues identified by the panel would be progressively addressed. The panel stressed that ‘[a]ll the identified issues are capable of resolution, either by adjustments to the models developed to date, or by modification to the design’.
5.32
The independent panel identified a number of issues relating to:
the lack of detail in the technical report for the panel to meet its terms of reference;
a lack of verification between previous alignment design stage reports and the flood modelling undertaken for the draft EIS;
a lack of justification for flood level increases in order for the panel and the CG to ‘assess whether the increase is acceptable given the nature of the increases and for the [CG] to impose conditions’;
a concern about the use of local and regional flood modelling, and that the ‘impact determined in a local catchment was not presented in the draft EIS chapter/appendix on hydrology and flooding and that therefore the potential exists for an impacted landholder to not be aware that the Inland Rail will result in a flood impact on their land’;
a concern that there will be resistance to the adoption of amended models and larger waterway crossings based on the panel’s comments and that the ‘adoption of larger structures could be difficult depending on the arrangement for the delivery of the project’, with a preference for ‘additional flood modelling be completed as part of the draft EIS approval process in order that a clear direction and a viable reference design is provided for the detailed design phase’;
the model flows were deemed too low for a number of catchments (Nicol Creek, Back Creek, Pariagara Creek and Cattle Creek) ‘resulting in the underestimation of impacts and the potential under sizing of waterway openings or underestimation of impacts’, with potential concern for a flow bias between the North Condamine and Condamine Rivers ‘potentially affecting the sizing of waterway openings’; and
minor issues with the flood model setup for each regional flood model.
5.33
In response to the report’s findings, the ARTC reported that the panel had found its:
…work to be consistent with both national guidelines and current industry best practice, whilst recognising, as the ARTC fully expected and anticipated, that there are opportunities to improve on these practices as the project progresses into detailed design. All the opportunities for improvement identified will be carefully considered by ARTC.
5.34
The ARTC added that the independent panel had indicated that it will prepare a supplementary Macintyre River floodplain report and that the ARTC would continue to provide data to assist the panel’s work.
5.35
The independent panel’s review did not delay the ARTC’s progress with the EIS process. The ARTC had already submitted its draft EIS for the B2G project with the CG in late 2019 (before the panel was established), with the EIS released for public comment from 23 January to 4 May 2021. The committee was advised that the independent panel’s report and the ARTC’s responses will be considered formally by the CG as part of the EIS process and project approval.
Concerns of the Pampas, Brookstead and Pittsworth communities
5.36
Inland Rail will pass through the town of Pampas along the existing track starting at Yandilla and ending between Brookstead and Pittsworth. Many of the concerns expressed by the Pampas Progress Association relate to the environmental impacts of Inland Rail on the Pampas community: noise and vibrations caused by the trains moving through the town; disruption to the town’s existing infrastructure (its community hall, road transportation routes, school bus and firefighting services); flooding and erosion; and social impacts caused by the undue stress of the Inland Rail project and the lack of consultation with the community.
5.37
One of the major issues highlighted with the committee was the impact of Inland Rail on the flooding events within the town and the region. The Pampas community was severely impacted by the 2010—11 flooding events, with smaller flooding events happening once every ten years. With this understanding, the community is concerned that the level of the train tracks will exacerbate the severity of floods, along with fencing and other rail infrastructure catching debris and causing erosion.
5.38
The Pampas Progress Association called for the alignment to be moved to the edge of a forested area outside of the town, rather than the existing rail corridor through the town; however, the committee was advised that the ARTC had rejected this proposal. The Association also called for independent investigations into the potential noise and vibrational issues based by the trains, into flooding and erosion and a Social Impact Assessment.
5.39
As for Brookstead and Pittsworth, the committee was advised that these communities would be severely impacted by noise, lighting and vibrations of the Inland Rail trains. The Toowoomba Regional Council called for improved transparency regarding route selection for these communities, and to consider shifting the route location 1 km to the north to ‘significantly reduce these community impacts’. Further issues raised by the Pittsworth District Landcare Association related to the impact of Inland Rail on the regions koala population and the inadequacy of the ARTC’s data used to map local koala populations.
Erosion
5.40
An additional concern for residents of the Condamine floodplain is the impact of rail infrastructure on erosion, due to the fragility of the soil in the region, known as smectite clay. This smectite clay from across the floodplain has a high capacity to retain water and nutrients, as well as swell and contract based on moisture levels. For this reason, the area is prone to high rates of erosion. According to Dr Robert Loch, the high smectite clay content of the region makes it very unique by global standards and standard engineering guidelines are not suitable for the area. Dr Loch subsequently recommended that ‘any modelling or design really has to consider local parameters and local knowledge’. Dr Loch questioned the ARTC’s proficiency at predicting soil erodibility, believing that it has been underestimated.
5.41
The Darling Downs Soil Conservation Group (DDSCG) spoke of the failure of culverts on cracking clay flood plains that lead to ‘the development of massive channels downstream, sedimentation upstream, and…the destruction of the infrastructures that they are trying to protect’. In addition, erosion has adverse impacts on prime agricultural land found in the floodplain. The reason for this damage is due to culverts concentrating and speeding up water flows. To address this issue, the DDSCG recommended flexibility in design structures that would enable movement as the soil shrinks and swells, and that the infrastructure should seek to spread the flows rather than concentrate them through culverts.
Wellcamp airport and the Cecil Plains corridor
5.42
Another possible factor that led to the decision of Inland Rail’s route alignment was to direct the route towards Wellcamp airport, which according to the Inner Downs Inland Rail Action Group and others was a product of lobbying by the owners of the airport. The committee heard that the base case route had looped around the township of Pittsworth and did not intersect with the airport; however, the three alternative routes proposed were designed to capitalise on the strategic potential of the Wellcamp-Charlton area.
5.43
An alternative route advocated by various stakeholders is via Cecil Plains. Dr Loch informed the committee that the ideal option for crossing the Condamine floodplain would be the corridor that travels west and north of Millmerran and up to the township of Cecil Plains that passes through ‘cypress pine and goanna country on sandstone and shallow, sandy soils’. This corridor would then cross a ‘somewhat narrower flood plain’ and connect with existing railway lines. Another option involved continuing from Inglewood south, ‘heading towards Warwick and then crossing the Condamine flood plain much further up…at a much narrower area’.
5.44
With regard to the Warwick route, the ARTC advised the committee that it would be expensive because the existing line would need to be replaced. It added that a further issue with the Warwick route is its impact on the 24-hour turnaround, as explained below:
…staying on the Warwick route was quite expensive, because while there is an existing line you basically have to tear it up and start over. It's nowhere near the asset standard that we're building to today. If I remember rightly, there was quite a bit of additional time, and that really is the major problem for us—time. We have to get from Melbourne to Brisbane to meet the customer demand in 24 hours or less, and we're flat up against it now, so adding that additional time is another huge disbenefit, as you could well appreciate.
5.45
In response to ongoing community concern about the B2G alignment, the Australian Government announced an independent assessment into the proposed Cecil Plains route against the proposed alignment ‘to assess its ability to meet the business case requirements, such as transit time, reliability, cost competitiveness and availability’. The Department of Infrastructure stated that the purpose of the independent review was to ‘reassure the community that all potential routes have been duly and thoroughly considered and the Australian government’s significant investment in this nation-building infrastructure is well placed’. The ARTC added that it would work closely with local residents as part of the review. Mr Wankmuller commented that the ARTC was:
… working very directly with the locals. I, personally, have been out to Millmerran—even through the situation we're in with COVID-19—and sat down in Pampas hall there with the Millmerran action group to go through some of their concerns as we progress this route analysis that the Deputy Prime Minister has asked us to look at. We've also talked to some members up in the Cecil Plains area, who are obviously also equally interested in the findings that could come out of that. We've talked with both the Millmerran action group as well as some of the individual members of that group, like DA Hall and the industry that they have there. They're a very large local employer, so we've been heavily engaged with them.
5.46
The review was completed in September 2020 and found the reference design route to be superior to the two alternatives considered (via Cecil Plains and Wellcamp, and via Cecil Plains and Kingsthorpe). Table 5.2 below details the differences in the service offering of Inland Rail for each proposal.
Table 5.2: Border to Gowrie route assessment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transit time
|
2:49:37
|
+00:19:12
|
+00:17:12
|
|
Reliability
|
98%
|
97%
|
97%
|
|
Additional cost
|
NA
|
+$472.5m
|
+505.7m
|
|
Impacted residents
|
104
|
134
|
234
|
|
Impacted commercial premises
|
58
|
62
|
65
|
|
Impacted irrigated land
|
44.9ha
|
73.2ha
|
67ha
|
5.47
With regard to concerns shared by stakeholders about the route selection process, the ARTC was of the view that thorough and transparent processes are in place. An important document that details the route selection process is the ARTC’s Inland Rail Route History 2006–2020 report that outlines the entire story of Inland Rail from 2006 through to the current alignment. The ARTC described the contents of this report and the long and well-documented history of developing Inland Rail’s alignment:
It is worth studying it in detail because it has been an expansive, extensive process to come up with a route that's going to work for the industry, that maximises the amount of brownfields that we use and minimises greenfields where we can but that, at the end of the day, can deliver that [24-hour] service offering. That is what governed the report in 2010. In 2015, there was the establishment of the Inland Rail Implementation Group chaired by John Anderson, which we were a member of along with the states of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. That group did a review of that alignment and reaffirmed that alignment, with some minor changes, from 2010. And that report to government then recommended that alignment which is, effectively, in the 2015 economic business case. So confirming the alignment has been a process over a decade.
…
That's the story that has been around for a long time, and I think there are well-documented reasons why decisions were taken. Whether people like those decisions is another thing, but it's a well-documented process to confirm that alignment, and we're now going through the final phase, which is to try and zero that down into a precise alignment—
5.48
The ARTC categorically denied that the alignment was influenced by political pressure, other than the order for Inland Rail to use the gazetted route defined by the Queensland Government.
5.49
In August 2020, the committee asked when construction of Inland Rail will commence in Queensland, and how the Australia Government’s decision to fast-track the Inland Rail project would influence the project. In response, the ARTC made clear that without acceleration of the project, significant construction would not commence until 2022–23. The Department of Infrastructure added that it was currently:
…looking at ways of making sure that we can align with government. We need three streams of activities to come together at one point. That's related to property acquisition, approvals and procurement of contractors and making sure that we have teams on board to deliver. We have set up mechanisms so that we can make the most of situations where we can have approval but still deal with community expectations. As soon as we have all our ducks in a row, so to speak, we can hit the ground.
Committee comment and recommendations
5.50
The B2G project highlights the disconnect between the ARTC and local communities. Whilst supportive of Inland Rail, these communities’ experience of the major flooding events of 2010–11 has highlighted concerns that Inland Rail may exacerbate future flooding events. The committee’s hearings, site visits and ongoing consultation with local stakeholders have highlighted the lived negative experience of communities in their engagement with the ARTC, and numerous concerns with the modelling used by the ARTC for the Inland Rail crossing of the Condamine floodplain.
5.51
The committee commends the work of those local community groups who have engaged a private consultant, at personal expense, to independently review the ARTC’s modelling and substantiate the concerns of local residents, landholders and businesses. Had this project been managed differently, then the Australian Government would have integrated an independent panel from the outset to ensure the accuracy of flood modelling and floodplain reference design features.
5.52
The concern about the ARTC’s flood and hydrology modelling has been validated and further fuelled by the independent panel’s draft report that has identified a number of issues, many of which are highly significant. Whilst the independent panel stressed in its report that the identification of these issues was a ‘normal part of the iterative process’, it also questioned whether the ARTC would integrate the necessary changes into the flood modelling and reference design features. The committee’s concern is validated by the independent panel also expressing concern for potential ARTC resistance to the adoption of amended models and larger waterway crossings based on the panel’s findings. In addition, the committee is troubled by the independent panel’s comment that some landholders may not be aware of their increased flood risk due to erroneous flood modelling.
5.53
A further concern held by the committee is whether the findings of the independent panel will be adequately integrated into the EIS processes and the final design of Inland Rail. The committee notes that the EIS process has continued in accordance with its own timeline, despite the establishment of an independent panel. The ARTC and Australian Government have sought to reassure the committee and local communities that the independent panel’s findings will be integrated into the Inland Rail flood modelling and design. However, the committee questions the adequacy of this integration process given the independent panel’s final reports are not due until the end of 2021. It is vital that flood modelling and the design of Inland Rail’s crossing of floodplains accurately reflects the possibility of flood events and does not amplify the pre-existing risk factors already faced by communities, landholders and local businesses. To do this effectively, it is imperative that the ARTC integrates all recommendations made by the independent panel’s findings into its floodplain modelling and projects’ draft EIS, and to apply the panel’s findings to all floodplain modelling undertaken across the Inland Rail project.
5.54
The committee recommends that the Australian Rail Track Corporation addresses all issues identified by the Queensland independent flood panel’s findings and ensures all modelling and design issues identified are rectified as a matter of priority.
5.55
The committee recommends any lessons learnt from the Queensland independent flood panel’s findings are used to inform all floodplain modelling across the entire Inland Rail project.
5.56
An additional concern is the inadequacy of the independent review into alternative route options via Cecil Plains. Whilst the committee acknowledges that Inland Rail’s alignment has been thoroughly investigated over the years, the Australian Government’s decision to conduct a further review appears to be largely guided by the underlying parameters of Inland Rail (particularly the 24-hour turnaround threshold), rather than addressing the primary concerns, which are to consider alternative and potentially more appropriate crossings of the Condamine floodplain to the benefit of all stakeholders.
5.57
As demonstrated in Chapter 2, the key parameters established by the Australian Government have severely limited the ARTC’s capacity to investigate alternative Inland Rail alignments, which has rendered community consultation and the independent review into the B2G project largely meaningless.
5.58
The committee is of the view that the ARTC has not adequately considered the concerns of local residents regarding the chosen alignment and their proposed solutions. For this reason, the committee calls for the revised business case to direct the ARTC to take into account the concerns of local residents along the B2G project, including consideration of alternative routes to the west of Millmerran.
5.59
Finally, whilst the ARTC sought to reassure the committee that the proposed alignment for Inland Rail has been thoroughly studied and understood for over a decade, this position only reinforces the committee’s primary concern about that fact that it remains unclear where Inland Rail will terminate in Brisbane.
Gowrie to Kagaru projects (Gowrie to Helidon, Helidon to Calvert and Calvert to Kagaru)
5.60
The three sections of Inland Rail, from Gowrie to Helidon (G2H), Helidon to Calvert (H2C) and Calvert to Kagaru (C2K) are some of the most technically challenging projects of Inland Rail, in part due to a 6.2km tunnel through the Toowoomba Range (the G2H project). These three projects follow two rail corridors gazetted by the Queensland Government, including the Gowrie to Grandchester rail corridor that was gazetted by Queensland Transport in 2003 as part of a study into a proposed high speed passenger rail. The Gowrie to Grandchester corridor connects with Queensland’s Southern Freight Rail Corridor from Calvert to Kagaru.
5.61
These three projects are to be delivered through a single Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) arrangement, which was announced in May 2017 by the Australian Government after a market testing process led by the Department of Finance in 2016–17 to determine the suitable delivery of the Inland Rail project. On 10 November 2020, the ARTC announced its invitation to Capstone, G2K Connect and Regionerate Rail to enter a Request for Proposal (RFP) phase. The outcome of the RFP will determine which consortium will be awarded with the contract for the construction of 128km of Inland Rail between Gowrie and Kagaru. The ARTC announced that the RFP would allow the ARTC to ‘leverage the considerable global engineering expertise required to deliver innovative design solutions and efficient construction methods for [the] technically challenging terrain’. The ARTC intends to award the contract in 2022.
5.62
The committee sought clarification on the potential cost of the tunnel for the G2H project, reportedly estimated to cost $3 billion. The ARTC stated that the actual cost would not be determined until the RFP is complete, but recognised that the cost would be substantial because of the tunnel presenting a ‘significant engineering challenge’. Specific figures on the cost of these projects were not provided due to commercial sensitivities.
5.63
These projects have had the draft EIS submitted with the Queensland Coordinator-General for public comment and approval. The first was the C2K project that was open for public comment until 8 March 2021. The draft EIS identified key features for the alignment, consisting of 53km single-track dual-gauge freight rail line, a one kilometre tunnel through the Teviot Range, 27 bridges, four crossing loops and connection with the existing West Moreton and Interstate Railway lines. The H2C project’s draft EIS was made available for public comment between 31 March to 23 June 2021. The draft EIS for G2H was released for public comment and submission on 2 August 2021, and is open until 25 October 2021. All projects have been declared ‘coordinated projects’, a decision supported by some local governments.
Key matters
5.64
During the January 2020 public hearing in Brisbane, the committee heard about a range of matters from local government and business groups along the Gowrie to Kagaru alignment. These groups raised key concerns with the committee, ranging from Inland Rail’s impact on a potential passenger rail network between Toowoomba and Brisbane, environmental issues (including flooding and the loss of agricultural land), the impact of the PPP and questions regarding the benefits of Inland Rail for communities directly impacted by Inland Rail.
Passenger rail network between Toowoomba and Brisbane
5.65
A key matter for the local councils adjacent to the Gowrie to Kagaru projects is ensuring the Inland Rail development takes into consideration the regions need to ‘futureproof’ its infrastructure by ensuring the Inland Rail corridor is designed to accommodate a passenger rail network. The Council of Mayors South East Queensland summarised its position to the committee concerning the future-proofing issue:
There's no point putting tunnels through and finding out in 10 years’ time that we should have done them a bit bigger or allowed ventilation to allow passenger trains through. Our region—and we acknowledge this in our work on the city deal—by 2041 will be what the Sydney region is today. There we already see the passenger transport out to the Blue Mountains. Similarly, as to Toowoomba, it would be foolish of all of us to think of this region and not consider that, because the Blue Mountains is now a part of Sydney and has strong transport links—though I dare say they have come at great expense to the state government there, to put through existing corridors. We have an opportunity here to future-proof our region, because we know those numbers are pretty accurate. Again, we're looking at what Sydney is today and knowing that we're going to be that. We should put those provisions in now.
5.66
As previously noted, the proposed alignment for Inland Rail through the region is along a gazetted Queensland Government alignment originally envisioned for a passenger rail network. The Lockyer Valley Regional Council, which encompasses the G2H and H2C projects, emphasised the importance of a future passenger network connecting the region to Brisbane. The Council’s representative expressed concern that the ARTC was developing the Gowrie to Grandchester alignment as a freight only railway corridor, despite the Queensland Government requiring the ARTC to make a provision for a future passenger rail network. The concern was later rebuked by the ARTC, which suggested the alignment had future-proofed for both freight and any future passenger services:
What we have done is future-proof the asset. Even though we're designing it and intending to use it for freight, we future-proofed it. The major difference is the size of tunnels to allow egress and access in case of accident, and there's ventilation in tunnels so that human beings can get in and out of tunnels if they need to. We've designed our tunnels to meet those standards in case there's future usage for passenger rail beyond the freight originally intended.
5.67
The Department of Infrastructure reconfirmed this commitment, stating that the Australian and Queensland governments had jointly undertaken a passenger rail business case between Toowoomba and Brisbane, with the Australian Government committing $15 million to the business case development.
Benefits to local communities and compensation
5.68
More broadly, various local councils impacted by Inland Rail questioned whether their communities would benefit from Inland Rail, and if no net benefit was to be gained, whether some form of compensation would be provided. For the Lockyer Valley Shire Council, there were clearly held views about the negative consequences of Inland Rail, but the benefits had ‘been difficult to identify’. The Council called for a fund to compensate ‘those communities that will be so heavily impacted by the project’.
5.69
Individual businesses and property owners also spoke of compensation. The Ivory’s Rock Foundation is seeking $50 million to relocate buildings located near the alignment, and a further $5 million for sound mitigation measures. Local residents indicated that people not being compensated unless the track impacted on the property, and that those residents’ located just metres away from the line would receive no compensation. For those residents with impacted properties, the committee heard that the ARTC had not disclosed the number of houses which could potentially be ‘ruined or made uninhabitable’ by Inland Rail.
5.70
The committee heard of the importance of ensuring local suppliers were considered for tenders along the Gowrie to Kagaru alignment, and that local communities were in a position to leverage opportunities presented by Inland Rail. This point was highlighted by the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce, which emphasised the importance of small businesses having access to these substantial infrastructure projects. Witnesses and submitters also spoke about the value in accessing funds under the Inland Rail Interface Improvement Program, as a means to identifying business and employment opportunities for the local community, as well as utilising industrial lands for Inland Rail’s operations.
5.71
On 9 March 2021, the ARTC reported on its ongoing work to ensure local businesses are engaged with the development of the Gowrie to Kagaru projects. It stated that Queensland would be the ‘largest beneficiary of Inland Rail with 11,800 jobs created from construction and a $7.8 billion boost in Queensland Gross State Product’. The ARTC added that the successful contractor under the PPP would be required to support local businesses, which extended beyond its construction of Inland Rail, with:
… opportunities with Inland Rail in administration, technical jobs and support services such as transportation drivers, electricians, traffic control, steel fixing, environmental and rehabilitation work, signage, security and hospitality and accommodation providers too.
5.72
To support local businesses with understanding opportunities to supply Inland Rail, the ARTC established the Business Capability Development Program. This program is designed to provide local and Indigenous small to medium enterprises and social enterprises adjacent to Inland Rail with ‘access to workshops, presentations and mentoring support aimed at improving their understanding of how to supply to Inland Rail’.
Environmental issues and flooding
5.73
It was submitted to the committee that Inland Rail would cause a number of adverse environmental impacts for the communities adjacent to the proposed alignment. Possible environmental impacts included noise, vibrations, dust, and visual issues caused by the passing of trains through the region, along with the loss of agricultural land, adverse impacts on urban infrastructure and the potential for increased risk of flooding.
5.74
A key point made by the Lockyer Valley Regional Council was the interconnection between the upgrades facilitated by Inland Rail, such as the replacement of a rail bridge and how this upgrade then impacts on adjacent road infrastructure. The Council was of the view that as a result of discussions about this issue, the ARTC was not taking any responsibility for subsequent infrastructure upgrades needed as a consequence of Inland Rail. The Council argued that it ‘would be fair and reasonable if we could at least access some sort of funding to assist…with the infrastructure costs’.
5.75
The Toowoomba Regional Council expressed concern for Inland Rail’s impact on the Gowrie Junction, a major growth area of the city, and asserted there was inadequate consideration of planned infrastructure works in the area beyond the next decade. The committee heard that the Inland Rail’s design horizon ‘is only 10 years on impacted infrastructure’ meaning the project only needs to consider the next 10 years of development in region. The Council also made reference to Inland Rail severing a key north/south roadway connecting the communities north of Toowoomba (Gowrie, Meringandan and Highfields).
5.76
In addition, flooding remains a significant concern for the region, with the existing rail line said to have exacerbated the 2011 and 2013 flooding in some areas. The Council advised the committee that the ARTC assured the community that further detailed flood modelling would be conducted in addition to the modelling done as part of the reference design phase. However, there was a concern that the detailed modelling would be conducted under the PPP arrangement and subsequently limit the input and transparency of future flood modelling work.
5.77
The independent panel released its draft review of the ARTC’s flood modelling for the C2K and H2C projects in February and May 2021 respectively. Similar to the independent panel’s B2G report, these reviews found issues with the project’s flood modelling; however, again made clear that the identification of these issues was a normal part of the iterative process and that the issues identified by the panel would be progressively addressed. In both reports, the panel ‘stressed that all the identified issues are capable of resolution, either by adjustments to the models developed to date, or by modification to the design’. Issues identified in the reports were similar to those identified in B2G report.
5.78
In addition to flooding, the committee heard of potential adverse environmental impacts caused by Inland Rail, such as sound. The Ivory’s Rock Foundation informed the committee that the proposed alignment will expose the festival and conference site to increased noise, but the ARTC had not included them in any ‘discussion on design changes that could help to mitigate noise’. The lack of meaningful support had resulted in a general feeling of resignation that local communities were collateral damage to the project. Ivory’s Rock representatives suggested that:
The impacts are clearly available in the maps provided to you, including the latest data from ARTC themselves on the noise levels at different locations on the site. There is no potential for compensation, and there have been no visits from senior ARTC staff. There has been nothing offered to date to alleviate the impacts. We realise that the EIS is still to come out, so we don't know what is in that.
There has been, until the Senate hearing was announced, a sense of resignation that there was nothing very much we could do or that the community could do about the impacts of this rail. It appears to me that, and this is personal, the national benefits of the Inland Rail—which I have no issue with; it's a national project and good for the nation—seem to come at the cost of the local communities. We seem to be unavoidable collateral damage, and that's what's happened to the conference centre.
5.79
When asked how the ARTC manages its sound mitigation processes, the committee was advised that issues regarding sound are managed through the EIS preparation process to determine ‘the likely noise impacts on those approximate to the line’. Regarding Ivory’s Rock, the ARTC explained that it was one of those landholders relatively close to the line and being considered under this process. The ARTC added that the current phase of the project hindered its ability to provide a detailed assessment of the sound mitigation strategies and acknowledged this limitation had caused frustration for landholders. Ms Rebecca Pickering of the ARTC informed the committee that:
As we continue to evolve the design and get into the detailed design phase, we will start to get a clearer view of exact noise levels because it's a function of not only proximity but the design of the track and many other factors. Once we have refined, we'll do the noise assessments and determine where we need to put mitigations in—as John described, noise walls—and other factors. Then we can collaborate as appropriate with the community about the types of mitigations that may be appropriate. But at the moment we acknowledge that there is some frustration. We're not quite at the stage where we have enough data to make definitive answers to some of the questions.
5.80
However, in a clarifying statement provided by Ivory’s Rock, the committee was told that Ivory’s Rock had been told that its property did not meet the minimum threshold set by the ARTC to be eligible for noise walls. In response, the ARTC referenced Queensland’s regulatory requirements as the reason it was not obliged to provide additional mitigation:
…we have state regulation criteria that we have to meet. There is a certain level it will require, to make sure that it gets down to that level…we have determined that we are down to that level, the state requirement, and therefore we aren't obligated under state regulations to provide additional mitigation. Whether we do or not is something that we can talk about, but under the state regulations we have met the state requirements.
5.81
In August 2020, a further update provided by the ARTC confirmed that it had met with Ivory’s Rock representatives and that it had commenced a series of noise studies in its preparation for the EIS. Once the project has moved into the detailed design phase, the ARTC would ‘then determine the level of any mitigation that would be required to bring noise levels at the venue within the standards’.
Transparency and the PPP
5.82
The Lockyer Valley Regional Council put forward strong reservations regarding the delivery of Inland Rail through a PPP. In addition to its concern about the transparency of future flood modelling, the Council is concerned that PPP bidders will seek to deliver inferior infrastructure in order to minimise their costs and deliver ‘value for money’. In its submission, the Council remarked that while this approach could lead to innovative design, it could also:
… potentially lead to significant community impact. One concern is the trade off between cost and quality that may arise with a private sector entity that only intends to operate the infrastructure for a limited time while the infrastructure may be expected to provide service for 100 years. This also translates potentially into the delivery of substandard road transport infrastructure to be managed and maintained by local governments long into the future.
5.83
The Council argued that without appropriate local government oversight of the projects there was significant risk of ‘substantial negative impacts on the community and direct cost to local governments’. Although the Council recognised the ARTC’s work to minimise the impacts of Inland Rail through the concept design phase, it remained concerned that the unknown impacts of Inland Rail would not be revealed until the ‘detailed design phase undertaken by the successful consortium’, and by that stage the Council will have limited influence of design outcomes.
5.84
This concern is in addition to those detailed in Chapter 2, relating to the PPP model used by the Australian Government and the lack of transparency associated with the actual cost of the projects subject to the PPP.
Committee comment and recommendations
Passenger rail network
5.85
An unavoidable consequence of major infrastructure projects like Inland Rail is its impact on some communities and landholders. For this reason, it is imperative that those impacted are adequately consulted and their concerns mitigated where possible, and with payment of appropriate compensation to ensure there is a collective benefit gained by the project. For this collective benefit to be realised for the communities along the Gowrie to Kagaru projects, Inland Rail must facilitate the necessary infrastructure to support a passenger rail network. This infrastructure will provide a substantial social and economic advantage for local communities and garner the necessary social licence of the Inland Rail project.
5.86
The committee is cognisant that any passenger network must operate alongside Inland Rail. As demonstrated by the Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton project, the movement of freight by rail is severely hindered when sharing a rail corridor with a passenger network. Any future rail pathway between Toowoomba and Brisbane must be designed to ensure that seamless movement of freight without delay is maintained.
5.87
The committee is supportive of the Australian and Queensland governments developing a business case for a passenger rail network alongside Inland Rail. The committee will remain engaged with the development of this business case and ensure the intention to future-proof this alignment is maintained. To foster ongoing transparency and community understanding of the status of the passenger network and how the network will operate alongside Inland Rail’s freight network, the committee calls for the release of the business case upon its completion.
5.88
The committee recommends the Australian and Queensland governments publicly release, upon its completion, the business case study into a future passenger rail pathway between Toowoomba and the Brisbane rail network.
Local economy and compensation
5.89
The benefit of Inland Rail will be further understood with the commencement of its construction and the subsequent growth in jobs and business opportunities for local communities. Inland Rail’s contribution to the local economies along the alignment will generate broader economic growth for Queensland.
5.90
The committee is supportive of the ARTC’s efforts to engage local businesses and its commitment to job creation in Queensland. A key to this success is ensuring the local community, businesses and governments are well informed of future opportunities. The committee understands the ARTC’s Business Capability Development Program fulfils this function, and calls for ongoing engagement through this program. The committee is supportive of measures to ensure the PPP is negotiated with a requirement for local suppliers to be utilised throughout Inland Rail’s construction.
5.91
The committee recommends the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications ensures a requirement is applied to the Public-Private-Partnership agreement that local suppliers, when practicable, are utilised throughout Inland Rail’s construction.
Local infrastructure
5.92
Similar to the issues faced by residents in Acacia Ridge, those communities along the Gowrie to Kagaru section of the Inland Rail alignment have a shared concern about the impact of Inland Rail on local infrastructure. The committee reiterates recommendation 9, that calls for the Australian and Queensland governments to conduct an audit of existing road infrastructure at Acacia Ridge and other intermodal terminal locations in south east Queensland to determine the region’s capacity to support additional truck movements generated by the completion of Inland Rail.
Environmental and flooding concerns
5.93
An additional concern is the adequacy of the ARTC’s environmental mitigation efforts for some landholders. Whilst the ARTC advised that it is not obliged to address environmental issues (such as noise) that do not exceed Queensland regulations, it is imperative that the ARTC ensures mitigation efforts are to a high standard and meet community expectations. The committee is sympathetic to stakeholders’ concerns that a PPP arrangement will reduce transparency and the quality of mitigation measures, and for this reason, encourages the ARTC to ensure public engagement efforts are maintained and improved under any PPP. The committee reiterates that accountability and transparency will be further enhanced by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee’s ongoing oversight of the Inland Rail project.
5.94
Similar to the B2G project, the committee holds serious concerns about the findings of the independent panel’s draft report into the C2K project. The findings of this report are similar to those found in the B2G project, and for this reason, the committee reiterates the importance and expectation that the ARTC will integrate these findings into its flood modelling and the projects’ draft EIS.