Terminate at Toowoomba or Gladstone: The increasingly popular solution to stop Inland Rail cutting through southeast Queensland

The Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project has sparked fierce controversy in the areas impacted by the Gowrie (Toowoomba) to Acacia Ridge (Brisbane) section, but an alternative proposal to link the line to Gladstone could stop the need for this section of rail. FULL DETAILS.

Dissected properties, coal dust through urban communities, vibration, excessive noise, flood concerns and all for a project that many Southeast Queensland residents and leaders believe won’t add any value to their communities.

The Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project has sparked fierce controversy in the areas impacted by the Gowrie (Toowoomba) to Acacia Ridge (Brisbane) section, but alternative proposals that could stop the need for this section of rail have gained traction over time - including one involving Gladstone.

The results of a Senate Inquiry into the project are expected to be handed down on Wednesday, August 11.

Inland Rail aims to increase efficiency and reduce transport costs for freight heading between Melbourne and Brisbane, completing a ‘missing link’ in Australia’s transport network.

According to the project’s website, run by the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the aim of Inland Rail is to deliver more freight more reliably to the population as well as export markets.

But there are doubts as to whether this will be achieved between Toowoomba and Brisbane.

Lockyer Valley mayor Tanya Milligan previously labelled the project as “devastating for many in the region” and said they won’t see any “meaningful benefits” to the Lockyer Valley community.

Ipswich City Councillors have also expressed concerns, particularly with level crossings and flood considerations near Grandchester.

Forestdale residents Stan and Suz Corbett are a retired engineer and shipping superintendant respectively and their deep concerns about the impact on Logan City’s communities and the feasibility of bringing the line to Acacia Ridge sparked them to head an Inland Rail Action Group.

“Nobody when they bought land in the area thought that something like this would come through,” Mrs Corbett said.

She said people feared their homes would be destroyed and the coal trains roaring past local schools would be a danger to children’s safety and health.

Mrs Corbett described those affected as the ‘forgotten 50,000 people’ given the federal government and ARTC haven’t handed down an EIS and she says they have never supported them.

“We feel like we’ve all been let down by our politicians here, they’re not looking after us,” she said.

They’ve started up a petition to prevent the line going to Brisbane and instead extend it from Toowoomba to Gladstone.

Stan and Suz Corbett have been campaigning against the Inland Rail for many years. Thursday, March 19, 2020. Stan and Suz pose for a photograph next to the Hillcrest/Forestdale corridor. (AAP Image/Renae Droop)

The Gladstone proposal

A two-faceted solution could save southeast communities from having the Inland Rail cut through.

Firstly, end the current proposal at Toowoomba and transport domestic and Port of Brisbane freight via truck along the Warrego Highway with the new Toowoomba Bypass.

Secondly, build a link between Toowoomba and Gladstone for coal and potentially container freight if the port is upgraded.

This has been touted as a less invasive and cheaper solution, given the cost of building infrastructure down the Toowoomba Range and the route from Toowoomba to Gladstone already exists via the western line, Wandoan line and previously mapped out Surat Basin rail corridor.

The Gladstone route has been supported by politicians across the political spectrum including Ken O’Dowd, Anthony Chisholm, Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce, as well as all Central Queensland councils.

A report released by AEC in February this year concludes the Gladstone route would be $4.8 billion cheaper to build if Inland Rail doesn’t go to Brisbane.

The projected cost of the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail was originally $4.4 billion in 2010 according to the Grattan Institute, increasing to $10 billion when the full business case was released in 2015, and now the federal government’s figure is $14.5 billion.

Gladstone councillor Glenn Churchill attended an Inland Rail conference in May and came back speculating the cost had now ballooned to $18 million.

This report also concludes the Gladstone line would have a Benefit Cost Ratio of 1.58 ($1.58 return per $1 spent) whereas the Brisbane option would only have a BCR of a very slim 1.01.

An earlier report released by AECOM in 2017 concluded the Gladstone route would not be feasible at the time of report, but the new report points out it has some shortfalls.

The earlier report didn’t take into account the current coal development trends, freight constraints at the Port of Brisbane, or the potential for growth in Gladstone, according to the newer AEC report.

Further, the AECOM study identified two sources of demand which may improve economic prospects for a Gladstone connection including increased demand for intermodal freight and higher coal prices.

Gladstone mayor and Labor candidate for Flynn Matt Burnett has been a staunch advocate for Inland Rail recently, promoting the idea in council meetings, press conferences, stakeholder meetings and the Senate Inquiry.

“At the moment we have trucks driving straight past the Port of Gladstone to unload at the Port of Brisbane, to then steam back past Gladstone on their way to Asia,” Mr Burnett said at the Senate hearing.

“Save yourselves some time and some money and connect to the Port of Gladstone, open up those other markets while they fight amongst themselves in southeast Queensland.”

Mr Burnett has described the Gladstone port as ‘infinitely expandable’.

Incumbent Flynn MP Ken O’Dowd has also supported Inland Rail going to Gladstone, at least as an extension of the current plans.

“I will not stop lobbying the department of infrastructure, transport and regional development for them to consider Gladstone as an option,” Mr O’Dowd has previously said.

“The Inland Rail will also drive significant investment in regional communities, create local jobs and contribute millions to local and national economies.”

Banana Shire mayor Nev Ferrier believes there will be huge benefits from extending Inland Rail to Gladstone, especially since Biloela’s crop farmers could reap the benefits of an expanded container port.

“It’s a bit ridiculous when we’re 100km away from a port in Gladstone and it’s costing $50-$60 per tonne each for the growers [to truck to Brisbane], so there’s a big saving there already,” he said.

Mr Ferrier denied there would be any impact to people on the missing link from Wandoan to Moura, especially given the long-term benefits Central Queensland could reap.

Mr and Mrs Corbett said their action group did support the Inland Rail project, but not going to Brisbane.

“[Barnaby Joyce]’s referred to us as NIMBYs but we wear that with pride,” she said.

“I don’t see the sense in why it’ll need to go to both because they’ll need another $5 billion to bring it down to Brisbane, so let’s just send the damn thing to Gladstone.”

Mr Joyce recently threatened to redirect the route to Gladstone if ‘NIMBYs’ hold up the project, however has previously stated he believes the line should go to both Brisbane and Gladstone ports.

But Mr Corbett said there was no need to send the line to Brisbane if freight trucks could get to the city and the port from Toowoomba - coal trains can go to Gladstone.

Port of Brisbane CEO Roy Cummins. Photos of the Port of Brisbane. Pic Peter Wallis

Concerns about Gladstone proposal

Port of Brisbane CEO Roy Cummins has previously said Queensland jobs could be lost to New South Wales if a rail connection to the port was not built.

“The Port Connection has already been identified as the best option in many forums, including state and federal government infrastructure priority lists, and there is a business case already underway to determine the best route and how it would be funded,” Mr Cummins said.

“I understand there is discussion at the moment about linking Inland Rail to Gladstone instead of Brisbane. I fear this is more about politics than it is about the best possible outcomes for Queensland and Australia.

“There is no doubt in my mind that having no connection to the Port of Brisbane, or connecting to Port of Gladstone, will result in worse outcomes for local communities over the long-run, not better. That means more trucks, more traffic, more noise, more pollution and less safety.”

But Mr Corbett said most of the Inland Rail freight would be domestic and the Brisbane port doesn’t have as much space to expand compared to Gladstone.

“The last thing that the Port of Brisbane wants is the Inland Rail trains because all they’re carrying is domestic freight,” he said.

“The road and truck access into Brisbane port is very tight, it’s already congested.”

(From left) Senator Anthony Chisholm, Banana Shire mayor Nev Ferrier, Gladstone mayor Matt Burnett

What needs to be done

The most popularly touted route for the Inland Rail between Toowoomba and Gladstone would be to construct the dual-gauge line west to Miles, rebuild the Miles to Wandoan line, construct the missing link from Wandoan to Banana, then finish the route toward Gladstone.

Other routes that have been floated include sending the line from the border directly to Dalby or Miles, effectively bypassing Toowoomba, although these latter options haven’t received as much public discourse.

Mr Corbett said he supports sending the coal trains to Gladstone via a new Inland Rail line, but had doubts whether it was feasible to send container freight there.

“There’s quite a common misunderstanding of what is actually on those trains coming from Melbourne,” he said.

“In fact the containers on those double stack freight trains... those containers are almost 100 per cent domestic southeast Queensland freight, so they’re not containing export containers at all, which logically doesn’t make sense because they all come off ships near Melbourne Port.”

Despite Mr Corbett’s scepticism on container freight, Central Queensland stakeholders are hopeful the necessary developments will take place to allow container freight to come out of Gladstone.

According to the AEC study, the Gladstone proposal hinges on the Port of Gladstone being upgraded to ship more container freight, however the study says it could be cheaper sending the containers from Melbourne to Gladstone via Inland Rail than making that leg via ship.

However, the Gladstone Regional Council and local politicians have been eagerly discussing a future where the port will become a major container exporter with a competitive edge over the Port of Brisbane.

A Gladstone Ports Corporation spokeswoman said the port had significant scope for growth and the Auckland Point terminal had potential to enable ‘significant’ volumes of container freight to be shipped.

“The Auckland Point Terminal is able to handle 3,500TEU container vessels following the completion of an additional mooring facilities via an upgrade in 2020 and development of a container staging pavement area immediately adjacent to the wharf,” the spokeswoman said.

“This positions the Port as a very viable container and general freight hub for potential investment in stevedoring facilities to grow import and export through the Port of Gladstone.

GPC recognises it is on the verge of an unprecedented opportunity with globalisation, new energy and new technology and GPC is readying Queensland to take full advantage of the future.”

Where to now?

A Senate Inquiry into the ARTC’s management of the Inland Rail project is expected to be handed down on August 11.

Its last hearing was held in Gladstone on June 8.

Senators Anthony Chisholm, Susan McDonald, Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts heard from stakeholders including the AEC report’s commissioner John Abbott, Gladstone mayor and Labor Flynn candidate Matt Burnett, Banana Shire Mayor Nev Ferrier, among other stakeholders.

With a number of hearings and submissions from stakeholders like Mr and Mrs Corbett, the Gladstone Regional Council, CQROC and others, the Gladstone proposal has been submitted to the committee many times.

But if and how the Gladstone proposal will be worked into the report will be revealed when it’s handed down.

As it stands, the official route as of August 9 is still from Gowrie to Acacia Ridge with no official design from Gowrie to Gladstone having been released at this stage.

The Gowrie to Helidon environmental impact statement was released in early August and is currently being reviewed by Toowoomba and Lockyer Valley stakeholders.

ARTC’s website states the primary focus of Inland Rail is to get domestic freight between Brisbane and Melbourne and the decision of whether to go to Gladstone is up to the state and federal governments.

Ultimately, whether or not the Toowoomba to Brisbane section of Inland Rail still goes ahead, the proposal to send at least the coal trains to Gladstone while trucking freight along the Warrego Highway is gaining traction.

And containers could very well travel to Gladstone if governments follow through on building the missing link and updating the Port of Gladstone to accommodate more container exports.

“As much as we’ve tried to push and try and attend their [Community Consultative Committee] meetings, and try and push the fact that if it goes to Gladstone, all your troubles are over - you don’t have to worry about all your farms being dissected and trains coming through the middle of towns, it’ll be fixed,” Mr Corbett said.

“But for some reason, we haven’t achieved that.

“We’re hopeful, but for some reason it isn’t happening at the moment.”