Inland Rail - Albury to Illabo

I object to the project in its current form. While this is a very worthwhile project aspects of the project need to be reinvestigated. The route of the rail line needs to be taken out of the city of Wagga Wagga and run on the western side of the city. Running the lines through the city will create problems for emergency vehicles wishing to access the Base Hospital and the Calvary Private Hospital. Trains of up to two kilometers will mean lengthy delays at the level crossings and in the event of an emergency this could result in the death of a patient being transferred to hospital by ambulance.

Running large trains through a major urban community defies common sense. It would be far better to reroute the line now and save on the expense of building bridges that will allow the train to pass under. Residents currently living in close proximity to the line and the schools also nearby to current line will also be affected detrimentally by additional noise and dust.

When investigating the best route around the city for the rail line, this would also be the ideal time to consider the road by-pass that is also a needed. This would remove the large trains and the heavy vehicles from the city enhancing the city as a place to live.
Wagga Wagga will then be a more attractive destination for tree changers and tourists. The government has declared Wagga Wagga a development hub and needs to ensure it is an attractive setting for business and the general population. Rerouting the inland rail line will help to achieve this.

This concerns the city of Wagga Wagga. The inland rail needs to bypass the city. I can see no cost comparisons that takes into account the cost of dividing the city at the frequency proposed. The disruption, noise, time taken to alter road heights cannot be costed but there will be a community cost. If the project comes to fruition, it will not need the bottleneck of reduced speeds running through Wagga with no stop until Bomen. Do it once and do it properly.

Submission re Inland Rail Project

While the Inland Rail Project might enhance the movement of freight between Brisbane and Melbourne, it should not go ahead if it destroys the social cohesion of the great inland city of Wagga Wagga and adversely affects the lives, health, and wellbeing of its residents.
Of all the objections to the project featured in letters to the press, I wish to highlight two that I consider of greatest concern: the dangerous health impacts and the damage to the social fabric of the city.
• Health: One objector to the project detailed the toxic cocktail of emissions that would pour from the diesel engines of the huge number of trains as they ploughed through our city 24 hours a day. While these emissions are potentially carcinogenic, diesel particulates are immediately damaging as they are just the right size to block lung tissue – especially in young children’s lungs. There would be no way that residents could avoid these emissions unless they were suitably masked when they left their homes. Even if schools close to the railway line were retrofitted to trap the emissions, children would be exposed to the danger as they played outside, especially as exertion increases deep breathing. Wagga Wagga’s famed fogs would make the pollution even worse as the trapped emissions would spread far beyond the engines of the trains. I predict that the rate of asthma and other serious lung diseases would soar in the decades following implementation of the project.
Recent research has shown conclusively that noise pollution also harms physical – and mental – wellbeing. With 20 trains initially every 24 hours, rising to 40, it would be impossible for residents, schools and businesses within a wide area along the train corridor to escape the noise. Fitting double-glazed windows to existing homes along the corridor would not solve the problem as most are older homes unsuited to such heavy installation; the windows would have to be permanently closed; and the cost would be astronomical.
• Social cohesion: Currently this city is united with residents able to readily access all the amenities and areas – the CBD, hospital, ambulances, fire fighters, doctors, schools, university, churches, pool, parks, the gardens, sports fields, and library, and the homes of family, and friends – with brief delays at rail crossings. With this project, the delays would be so horrendous that everyone would have to plan every appointment and activity requiring cross-city travel with train movements in mind. Rail-crossing delays, currently a minor irritation, would now be a nightmare with banked-up traffic stretching endlessly, blocking other traffic and delaying taxis, deliveries, tradespeople, workers and other residents going about their daily lives. Junee residents know from bitter experience just how long it takes for those incredibly long freight trains to pass through the crossing. Now that Newcastle is no longer bisected by a train line, I know of no other city in Australia that is cut in two as ruthlessly as our city would be by this project.
Of great concern is what the situation would be in case of fire, medical emergencies or road and farm accidents when an almost-two-kilometre-long train is blocking access to help. With the ambulance and fire stations on the southern side of the line and the hospital on the northern side, I predict that people on both sides would die waiting for help and that fires on the northern side would be more devastating if fire fighters were delayed.
Wagga Wagga is a beautiful, historic city, known for its glorious gardens, and home to sporting greats. With a university, fine schools, a regional hospital and excellent sporting facilities it is the hub of the Riverina and a tourist destination. The Inland Rail Project would turn this gem into an ugly, noisy, polluted shell, divided by a moving wall of double-decker freight trains as intrusive and unacceptable as a physical wall.
The planners of the route of the Inland Rail must create a by-pass. There are alternatives. Wagga Wagga must not be sacrificed. The project is not just about today or next year. It is about all the years to come. I want this lovely city to be just that – a lovely city – for my children, grandchildren and all those generations to come and, as a taxpayer, I object most strongly to my taxes being used to help finance a project which would bring such devastation to such a very special city.

Please see attachment

Although I support the inland rail project, I strongly believe a by pass of Wagga should be considered. A large number of emergency service vehicles cross the rail lines at Bourke street and I am concerned how the closure of Edmond Street during construction, and the eventual longer and more frequent trains will disrupt traffic flow and impact emergency services.
I am also very concerned with the impacts the project will have on our home and my family's livelihood. We will experience increased road and foot traffic past our house during the construction phase which will mean our front yard will no longer be a safe place for my children to play.
I don't believe the affect of increased noise caused by the heavier trains on our living environment has been properly considered. In addition, I don't think the impact of vibrations on buildings near the rail lines both during and after construction have been explored thoroughly enough and I fear we will incur ongoing damages to our home.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.

This project will be a great disruption to our town and will continually cut us in half . The hold up of traffic will be unbearable.
There are to many crossing involved for this to be viable. Noise and the vibration will also be a concern.
I strongly object to the project.

At the outset I want to clearly state my support for the Inland Rail as a nationally significant infrastructure project that will have many far-reaching benefits. I am however, very concerned by the Environmental Impact Statement, the lack of meaningful data, the lack of investigation into other options and the limited scope of the report. This is disappointing because there are great possibilities for this project to be a huge success, but the current scope, research, designs and assessment of impacts fall well short of being acceptable.
The key areas of the EIS which I am concerned by relate to the scoping and analysis of potential impacts. These include:
Lack of alternate options:
The project does not appear to have considered any alternate routes. A discussion around alternate options, including commentary on positives and negatives of each scenario are usually a requirement for Environmental Impact Statements.
Consideration at a high level was provided but no options at a local level were discussed for any section of the A2I project. This is potentially a lost opportunity to deliver something of much greater benefit along an alternate route. It also makes it difficult to assess whether the current proposal is the best solution when there is nothing to compare it with.
Limited consideration of impacts:
A critical concern with the EIS is that it only addresses impacts in the immediate vicinity of works to the rail corridor. This means there is no review, research or analysis of the cumulative impacts of the development associated with the Inland Rail.
Limiting the assessment of impact to within a 2km radius of areas where works are proposed to occur is unrealistic and misleading.
This silo approach to considering environmental impacts along the A2I route mean that the overall impacts and risks have not been identified and therefore mitigation measures haven’t been considered.
An example of this is at level crossings where portions of the city will be cut off from the health precinct and access roads around the railway crossings will be clogged with backed up cars preventing emergency services vehicles getting to the hospital or the other way around. In an emergency every minute counts and the delays caused by the Inland Rail could be a matter of life and death. This is just one example of a potential impact that hasn’t been considered due to the limited scope of the EIS to individual areas along the rail corridor and not the cumulative impact.
Short-sighted approach to major development:
Wagga, as many regional towns and cities are experiencing a period of growth and need to think strategically about how and where the city grows. The current proposed route has the real potential to completely split the city of Wagga into two where services will need to be provided to both sides of the city. This is not an acceptable outcome and no consideration has been given to this in the EIS.

The EIS doesn’t adequately assess the potential impacts to the city of Wagga Wagga or surrounding towns and villages, which is why I cannot support the project in its current form. There are real and significant risks that the EIS doesn’t consider that have the potential to detrimentally impact the lives of people in Wagga and surrounds for many years into the future.

To Whom It May Concern
Please find attached my submission regarding the Albury to Illabo section EIS and I object to the Inland Rail travelling through the centre of Wagga Wagga. My preferred option is for the Inland Rail to bypass the centre of Wagga Wagga.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
1. The long-term impacts of the Inland Rail going straight through the centre of Wagga Wagga will be detrimental. These negative impacts range from ongoing noise issues to property values. No long-term impacts to our city or neighbourhoods have been considered in this document.
2. The Inland Rail should not go straight through the centre of a vibrant regional city, cutting the city in half. Another route that bypasses the centre of Wagga should be investigated.
3. Longer and more frequent wait times at level crossings as a result of the increased use of the railway corridor will have significant safety implications particularly around Bourke/ Docker Street crossing. The impacts of increased waiting at crossings will permeate to impacts further afield as cars back up along residential roads causing congestion and blocking access across the city.
4. Longer, louder and more frequent trains along this railway line will detrimentally alter the character of Central Wagga and surrounding suburbs which are currently beautiful, historic, peaceful places to live.

Whilst I support the concept of an inland rail corridor, I do not support its passing through the centre of Wagga.
It is disappointing that no consideration has been given to redirecting the line to the west of the city, thus bypassing the centre.
It is a short-sighted approach to use the current track through the city. This was appropriate when the rail came to Wagga in the nineteenth century but not for now nor in the future.
It will have a significant impact on traffic flow through existing rail crossings on Docker St and Fernleigh Rd. This must only increase with the predicted increase both in Wagga’s population and the number of daily freight trains.
It will impact on the Wagga community in terms of additional air pollution for those living and attending schools in the vicinity of the rail line.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I have reviewed the EIS documents and whilst generally in favour of the proposed Inland Rail and the economic benefits that it will deliver there are several matters which I believe require further comment and/or consideration:-

1) Chapter 2 notes in several places the strategic context and need to avoid the Sydney Metropolitan area given the prioritisation of passenger services, freight transit curfews etc. It should be noted that regional and rural communities do not have access to the benefits of transport infrastructure that their metropolitan counterparts have, yet they are being asked to bear the impost of state significant infrastructure for the benefit of those metropolitan communities (in part due to poor historic planning practices in those areas.) Further consideration should be given to the equity of such arrangements.

2) At several points throughout the documents (eg Chapters 7, 28) the authors note the possible future use of the railway between Albury and Illabo by freight trains up to 3,600m long, and that this proposal would form part of a separate assessment. Given that the current EIS proposes primarily to modify railway assets within the existing railway corridor, it is reasonable to assume the proposed alignment will not be reconsidered at a later date, particularly given the costs associated with the modification to suit double-stacked trains. On that basis, if longer freight trains may be considered for the route in the future, consideration should be given to the potential traffic impacts of 3,600m trains now, particularly in heavily populated areas where there will be increased number of trains and longer delays at rail crossings. Of particular concern are the existing rail crossings at Fernleigh Road and Bourke/Docker Streets, Wagga Wagga. It is not appropriate to suggest that these will be dealt with by way of future assessment if the relevant infrastructure is being constructed by this project - the outcome of that future assessment is in part predetermined by the infrastructure to be constructed under the current proposal.

3) The proposed increase in height of Edmondson Street Bridge (2.8m) is significant. Given the proximity of Edward Street to the north and Erin Street to the south, there is limited scope to manage the gradient of the road around the bridge, which could lead to increased risk of motor vehicle collisions. The detailed reference designs will hopefully address these issues in more detail.

4) Chapter 13 provides significant details around the social impacts of the project, including in particular the issues around accommodating the required workforce. Table 13-6 refers to key regional events in the regional study area. Whilst presumably not intended to be exhaustive, there are a number of regional events that have not been included in that table (ie Wagga Wagga Gold Cup Carnival, NSW State Touch Carnival, NRL Game) which will heavily impact on the availability of short term accommodation. It is also noted that according to Technical Paper 4, temporary accommodation forecasts were based upon, amongst other things, the NSW Tourist Accommodation Snapshot for the December Quarter 2020 (Destination NSW, 2020). Given that this reflects a period heavily impacted by COVID-19, and noting the additional significant events which do not appear to have been considered, the availability of temporary accommodation appears to have been overstated.

5) Chapter 13 also includes suggestions on how to mitigate these impacts. In particular Paragraph 13.6.2 sets out potential mitigation strategies, including at SI6 a proposed workforce accommodation plan, which proposes to prioritise the use of temporary accommodation. Whilst a number of other significant construction projects are nominated as potential cumulative impacts in Chapter 26, there are additional significant projects that may impact the availability of temporary accommodation during that period (ie the Commonwealth Government’s Riverina Redevelopment Program which will include works commencing 2024 in Wagga Wagga and Albury-Wodonga).

Regards,

The inland rail project should not go through Wagga Wagga and should be redirected around the city.
It will cause major disruptions to traffic flow through the city.
As a hospitality business owner in Wagga it will affect tourism as visitors are subject to these traffic disruptions.
It will also have significant affect on our home delivery service, with staff held up for long periods of time as trains pass road crossings.
Wagga is a city of 60,000 people with projections of growth to 80,000 by 2036.
A city of this size cannot be subject to this interruptions if it is to continue to grow and provide services to southwest NSW.
The alternate routes around the city need to be fully investigated before final approval is grants

It is my firm belief that this project is misguided, narrow-sighted, and ill-thought through. It is my opinion that there will be few benefits with this particular project as it currently stands, and that there exists the potential for significant and problematic long-term outcomes for Wagga Wagga and its residents.

Inland Rail - Albury to Illabo
I am writing to you to ask that you do the right thing and consult meaningfully and genuinely with the community of Wagga Wagga and reconsider the proposed route of the Inland Rail Project through the heart of Wagga Wagga. There is a huge groundswell of dissatisfaction in Wagga Wagga about the proposed route of the new rail line passing directly through the city. Here are some points for you to consider:

1) The new rail load will increase greatly in size and in frequency. I hope that you have some education or training on urban planning and on the effect of heavy transport through suburban areas. If you have, then you would not seriously be considering your plan in its present design. While people almost universally agree that the inland rail project is a great idea for Australia into the future, these 'once-in-a-generation' projects need to be done properly the first time or else we, and future generations, are left to deal with the shortcomings of the project in its genesis. I cannot understand why the planners have not created a bypass through the Bomen area so that the city of Wagga is not adversely affected by the rail line. I will assume it is because of cost (and hopefully not because of pig-headed stubbornness). I hope that cost is the only reason. If it is the reason, then the reality is that money spent now on getting the project right will save money exponentially into the future.

2) By having the rail line pass through the centre of Wagga Wagga, the city will be cut in half at its level crossings for up to ten minutes every hour because of the extra frequency of trains and because of their length and height.

3)Emergency vehicles will struggle to access accidents and return to the Base Hospital which is located within five hundred metres of the rail line.

4) The quality of life for the residents of Wagga Wagga is at stake with the current plan for the rail link. It will significantly decrease the liveability of the city. Extra traffic, longer trains, more noise all cutting directly through the middle of the city. I am led to believe that there have been bypasses approved for Parkes and for Albury. Why not Wagga?

5) This issue reminds me of how maybe twenty years ago, the Hume Highway, which used to pass through Yass, was changed so that the town of Yass would not have to endure constant heavy traffic. The same has happened with the Hume Highway bypass at Albury. These were common sense decisions which greatly benefitted those urban areas. Rerouting the rail link through Bomen is a common sense design decision which will greatly benefit Wagga Wagga and avoid the destructive presence of heavy train traffic in urban and suburban areas.

6) This issue reminds me of the school halls funding program activated by the federal Labor government after the 2009 global financial crash. While the investment in school halls was a great idea, it was implemented by bureaucrats in major cities who rather than consulting with schools and principals, made executive decisions about the size, design and location of these halls on school properties. This resulted in many dysfunctional buildings which did not meet the individual needs of each school. This inland rail project is a wonderful opportunity for Wagga but if done poorly, it will permanently damage the social fabric of our wonderful city of Wagga Wagga.

Yours sincerely

Michael Mack

Overall, I believe the inland rail project to be a good one.
However it runs through the centre of Wagga using the current track and in so doing upgrades a number of bridges and overpasses but it makes no improvements to the most dangerous level crossing in the Wagga region, which is farcical.
I have worked within a block of this level crossing for 10 of my almost 30 years in Wagga and during that time I have resuscitated crash victims in cars, removed trapped victims from cars and witnessed numerous other crashes and near misses at this level crossing. The level crossing was possibly safe in the 1950's but has not been for my entire time in Wagga. Not upgrading this level crossing and doubling the train movements will put lives at risk.
Lives will also be put at risk by the at least doubling of the traffic down time at this level crossing. Bourke St is now the major road access from the southern regions of the city and is the principal access for ambulances to the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital and other facilities in the medical precinct. Delaying/restricting ambulance movement resulting in a poor medical outcome could leave this project liable to medicolegal action.
For simple road safety, this level crossing is overdue for conversion to an underpass/overpass arrangement. It happened on the northern aspects of the city following accidents and derailments. To not do it in the centre of the city, on possibly the busiest suburban road in the city, at the time of doubling train movements, borders on negligence.

The project is worthwhile, just not through the center of Wagga.

I strongly object to the current proposal by ARTC for the Albury to Illabo portion of the Inland Rail project on a number of grounds. Primarily these include:


1. Failure to provide a substantiated multi-stakeholder approach to infrastructure changes that allows for the planned growth of the City of Wagga Wagga to 100,000 (https://committee4wagga.com.au/wagga100000/2019/11/13/regional-nsw-plan-identifies-wagga-as-area-of-significant-growth-set-for-100000-residents-under-a-20-year-goal). The local consultative group have met only six times since establishment in February 2021 and ARTC have refused to engage in a public meeting in spite of requests to do so. Communities are ill-informed of the immediate and more importantly, the long-term consequences of the project on the City.

The City of Wagga Wagga growth will see an increase in vehicular traffic across the Edmondson St overpass and the existing level crossings at Docker St and on Fernleigh Road. The IR Business Case states that “The growth and livability of regional towns will also increasingly require separation and management of growing freight traffic”. This is not being addressed at all for Wagga Wagga. It is noted that rail and road traffic is separated on the Main Southern Line through Albury, but there is no evidence that this has or would be considered for Wagga Wagga

2. Failure to work as ARTC’s IR Business case proposes “An efficient rail network” competitive rail services that will reduce the nation’s reliance on road transport, and as a consequence, reduce road congestion, lower carbon emissions, reduce noise, reduce deaths and injuries from road accidents, improve amenity in urban and regional centres.”

3. There appears to have been no consideration of an alternate route around Wagga Wagga, NSW largest regional inland city. This needs to be considered, costed and compared with not just current planning but also looking past the fifty-year project lifetime. On their website ARTC says of the Inland Rail project, (https://www.inlandrail.gov.au/understanding-inland-rail/building-and-planning) that “ The Inland Rail study corridor was informed by years of research and analysis including into the environmental, safety and community effects of the route.” The ARTC Inland Rail project website also states that “ In 2010 – Melbourne-Brisbane Inland Rail Alignment Study examined the optimum alignment, economic benefits and commerciality of a Melbourne to Brisbane railway.” But according to their advice to the Wagga Wagga community, a bypass of Wagga Wagga has not, nor will be considered as part of the “multi-criteria analysis to compare corridor options, examining environmental impacts, community and property impacts, technical viability, safety assessment, operational approach, constructability”. (https://www.inlandrail.gov.au/understanding-inland-rail/building-and-planning)

4. Use of a Business Case to justify current project which is now at least seven years old. (https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/inland-rail-program-business-case-2015). Current advice is “that in partnership with the private sector. The Government is investing up to $14.5 billion in equity to deliver this project” but that is not born out by a publicly available revised Business Case. Communities have not been able to access the breakdown of the costs to that community consultation is informed. There has been no response by ARTC to a request for an updated and re-costed Business Plan

5. Failure to eliminate the safety issues that exist at any level crossing by bypassing the city, or less desirably, replacing those level crossings within the city limits with over or underpasses. Will it take another multiple fatality like the one at the Gerogery level crossing in 2001 which resulted in the erection of the Five Mates Bridge on the Olympic Highway, to separate road and rail traffic in Wagga Wagga. There is a much higher volume of traffic through both the Docker St and Fernleigh Rd Level Crossings than there ever was through the Gerogery level crossing. The ARTC’s own Business Plan recognises that “The growth and livability of regional towns will also increasingly require separation and management of growing freight traffic”. It is noted that rail and road traffic is separated on the Main Southern Line through Albury.

The proposal does not support the NSW Government’s Level Crossing Strategy Council Strategic Plan 2021-2030 initiative to eliminate level crossings. ARTC is one of members of this Council. One of the measures of success for this Council is the number of level crossings closed. (https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/2017/level-crossing-closures-policy.pdf)

Beyond 2040, ARTC estimates that the trains may be up to 3.6kms long and the number of trains will also increase to over 20 trains a day (A2I EIS – Chapter 1 Introduction (nsw.gov.au). Currently the trains travelling through Wagga are up to 1.7kms long and up to 12 trains per day. This position is reinforced in the Minutes of the Albury to Illabo Consultative committee meeting Wagga Wagga Sub-committee of 27 July this year.
6. The current proposal fails to address the NSW Government’s long-term priority to provide greater separation of passenger and freight movement on the rail network, which would increase freight capacity and improve safety.

7. The Return on Investment (ROI) is documented as 42 years from construction! Project life is described as 50 years.

The Scots School Albury maintains direct frontage to proposed inlands rail works at the Riverina Hwy overpass on Borella road, Albury.
We believe that the EIS has not adequately considered the unique nature of this property, and hence the impacts of the proposed construction works and future increased usage have not be properly assessed.
Please find attached further details of our submission

I would like the project to bypass Wagga main township due to the issue of footbridges, overpasses and underpasses being disrupted and possible and due to the noise and vibrations from freight trains going right through the town.

Please see comments and questions in attached document.