Increasing interest in Gladstone’s Inland Rail case

A councillor who recently travelled to a national Inland Rail conference has come back to discuss its contents with the council.

Key Inland Rail stakeholders and politicians are becoming increasingly convinced of the merits of bringing the line to Gladstone, according to the recollection of Gladstone Regional Council members who attended the national conference in Albury in May.

Councillor Glenn Churchill, who attended the conference, said about 400 people attended and most discussions about the Gladstone connection were quite positive, albeit without being ‘directly supportive.’

“It was absolutely imperative that we do not relent on our business case advocacy,” Cr Churchill said.

“We all need to be staunch advocates because there is a shifting at this particular stage.”

He said many people opposed the corridor to Gladstone in the past, but there has been a shift and political thinking and will shown by reports and comments in the media.

Cr Churchill also said that ideas that were discussed at the Albury conference were submitted to the senate inquiry into the Management of the Inland Rail project by the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the Commonwealth Government.

“As part of our advocacy and our attending of this Inland Rail conference, we now contribute with a persuasive and strong submission to align that with our Inland Rail summit for whenever that may appropriately be organised, co-ordinated and delivered,” he said.

The projected cost of the Inland Rail project has ballooned over its lifespan, with the project initially to cost $4.4 billion in 2010, according to the Grattan Institute.

After the full business case released about 2015, the cost was about $10 billion and has since ballooned to $14.5 billion.

Cr Churchill said it’s now floated to cost $18 billion.

According to the AEC report, it would be up to $4.8 billion cheaper to build the Gladstone to Toowoomba link instead of sending it to Brisbane.

The report also says the cost of the final tenth of the route from Toowoomba down the range to Brisbane would make up half of the cost.

“Each time we talk to someone from a budget perspective, it seems to be escalating more and more,” Cr Churchill said.

“I think we need to not only talk about the efficiency of the rail line coming to Gladstone, I think we also need to consider the cost effectiveness or the cost benefits that can come in relation to building this nation building infrastructure.”

Boom gates at Brisbane and Ipswich level could go down every 15-20 minutes with about 80 movements per day.

“Getting to the Queensland border is already a done deal, it’s where it goes after that,” he said.

“It’s interesting because they’re not openly supporting or endorsing our proposed extension project, but they’re all wanting to know that there’s some happenings with that.”

Economic development specialist Gary Scanlon said they had some fairly forthright discussions with embedded stakeholders at Albury.

“The heartening thing for me was, nobody attacked our business case,” Mr Scanlon said.

“It was almost like it was accepted, if you like.”

He said it was interesting how major Queensland stakeholders didn’t discuss connecting to the Port of Brisbane, only the satellite intermodals.

Mr Scanlon also floated the idea of hosting a mobile forum in Gladstone for the Inland Rail.

Mayor Matt Burnett said an earlier study that discredited the Gladstone link was done before the Toowoomba Bypass was built.

“Our AEC business case, I’m glad to hear, no one’s pulling it to pieces because we could easily pull the previous one to pieces because it was completely flaws and based on ridiculous assumptions,” he said.

“Theirs is absolutely ridiculous and ours is not, it’s based on facts and theirs on assumptions that were completely outrageous.

“If you want to get to a port, you have to come to Gladstone”

“It’d be good to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister (Barnaby Joyce) and everybody in Canberra to say ‘you know what, this makes more sense’.”

Mr Joyce has recently said the Inland Rail should go to both the Ports of Brisbane and Gladstone.

Deputy mayor Kahn Goodluck said Brisbane was landlocked, but Gladstone has the opportunity to expand.

“It really is the only option that we have if we really want to make the best decision for the taxpayers, for this nation and for the growth that our country is going to go through in the future,” he said.

Some Concerns

Councillor Chris Trevor told the council meeting there could be social consequences of the Gladstone link, as well as dust and noise impacts.

“Personally, I think the project will happen for all sorts of reasons including but not limited to the political sphere which we currently engage, in which both parties have committed, or at least suggested, that the Inland Rail should proceed to the Port of Gladstone,” Cr Trevor said.

“I just hope in the madness and mayhem and chaos that is associated with such a major infrastructure project, that we not forget the social consequences that this project will bring not only to the Gladstone Region, but also to our southern counterparts including the North Burnett and also the lower Surat Basin,” he said in regard to resources.

“I would hate to see the city I grew up in face those consequences ever again. That will haunt me until the day I die.”

The Port of Brisbane CEO Roy Cummins has recently voiced his opposition to the Gladstone link, particularly due to increased truck movements.

Originally published as Increasing interest in Gladstone’s Inland Rail case