Inland Rail - Albury to Illabo

See attachment

The work outlined in the summary of the EIS is regarded as necessary to allow for a basic inland railway.
It is submitted that consideration should be given to further enhancements, including the easing of tight radius curves on the existing track. Some of these have a radius of 440 metres when a desirable minimum is 1200 metres. Such work should, at the very least, extend to the so called “reverse curves” which are two or more curves in close proximity where the train moves in one direction, and then in another. This would be an advantage when it comes to operating conventional freight and passenger trains and should be considered as essential for freight trains with double stacked containers.
Consideration should be given to the replacement of certain level crossings by grade separated crossings, particularly in the City of Wagga Wagga.
The environmental impact assessment process should also allow for future proofing for improved speed - weight performance of freight trains. This includes heavier axle loads and longer crossing loops.

The increasing frequency of longer trains will create extensive traffic delays at the level crossings in Wagga that potentially could endanger the lives and wellbeing of residents by affecting response times of emergency services and first responders. The EIS has misrepresented the time a 1.8km train will take to pass these level crossings.
The construction of a new bridge at Edmondson Street will create 12 months of traffic chaos and the EIS has not presented an adequate traffic management plan to address this.
The EIS and ARTC's comments only focus on the track upgrades required and fail to address the ongoing noise, vibration and disruptions this project will cause in Wagga once operational.
The EIS states that the noise, vibration, and emissions from the double stacked heavy freight trains will exceed acceptable standards but no mitigation is planned, proposed, or costed by ARTC or Inland Rail for any residential property, school or business that will be impacted by these increases. Instead real time monitoring is proposed once the project is operational with no assurances that any mitigation will be provided for loss of quiet enjoyment and amenity to residential properties affected directly by the increase in rail movements or the associated traffic congestion.
Wagga is the largest inland city in the state and is expected to almost double its population by 2040-when Inland rail will be fully operational. The negative impact on the livability of the city caused by the increase in rail movements bisecting the city and the increase in truck traffic on the city's roads supporting the intermodel hub and special activation precinct has not been considered. A rail/truck bypass around the city is the solution and the cost of doing this should not be the factor that dismisses it.

My comments are as a community advocate on behalf of my town, Henty. According to the planning papers, the residents of Henty will be impacted by this project through increased noise and vibration (the greatest impact between Albury and Illabo) and some residents have been identified as being particularly vulnerable. Despite data in the report suggesting otherwise for Greater Hume (median income, employment status), the houses most impacted by increased train numbers and noise and vibration are lived in by low income, elderly or unemployed people who may have low literacy and/or lack of access to internet services. These people, particularly those who live in houses identified as being severely impacted, have had little communication about this direct impact and have often been communicated with at the same level as the rest of the town. As a town we would like greater understanding of these impacts and the works which will be undertaken to mitigate these effects. There is little point saying "well if it's bad we will put up a sound barrier wall" - we need to know now what we are talking about, what sort of interventions will be offer and how these interventions will directly impact the residents along the railway line in particular. The best outcome in this "stakeholder engagement" phase would be to have ARTC staff meet directly with these homeowners - individually if needed - to explain the likely impacts. As some of these people are elderly or of low literacy these meetings would need to involve a community advocate. These houses are often the only asset these families will own and any depreciation of these assets will severely affect them. There has been a lot of work in these proposals on the impact to biodiversity and the environment but very little forecasting of the impact on human health and community wellbeing. As Henty is one of the towns most impacted by these changes or upgrades I think we need more personalised comunication - not just internet advertised information sessions.
We also want Henty to remain and grow as a vibrant country community - not a community which is challenging to live in because of industrial facilities.

Attached

While I see the inland rail project as a positive, future-building project, I am against the design for the Albury to Illabo section for these reasons:
-lack of empirical evidence in regard to noise and vibration impacts (relying for evidence on a South Australian study where the souls are potentially different is not a reliable reason to assume that noise /vibration will not be greater with double-stacked containers in the Albury-Illabo context);
-two Wagga schools are immediately adjacent to the current track, and the potential for disruption to education, sport and play is too great;
-it seems that there is no identified funding currently allocated to amelioration of resulting noise and other impacts on schools and residents. Who is going to pay?
- this line will have to last 100-200 years, so let’s get it right. Putting a major freight line through the middle of NSW largest inland city is ridiculous, which begs the question: why does this EIS not consider any alternative route?
-the worst thing about the current proposed route is the two level crossings in Wagga. The proposed wait times are unacceptable, and counts done by WWCC indicate that the inland figures for wait times are an underestimation;
- the level crossings, when closed, will separate Wagga’s health precinct from the ambulance service base. Ambulances will have to go the long way around, which could meant the difference between life and death;
All up, Inland Rail should bypass central Wagga. Put a different route through to Bomen so that the freight line will connect where it really needs to be, without creating disruption to the residents and businesses of Wagga.

Building an infrastructure project such as the inland rail consideration should be given to bypass all towns along the corridor. As an example The Hume And Princess Highways have been up graded and bypass all settlements along their routes. The Railway corridor proposed will be in place for many decades.
The same should apply to rail infrastructure. Removing heavy, noisy, polluting and vibrating
Freight trains from going through the middle of Wagga Wagga would be advantageous to both the amenity of the urban area and rail freight transport.

Although in general I support the concept of the Inland Rail, the EIS has shown that there are major issues that need to be resolved. My submission consider the impacts general to my area, then more specifically in relation to the Cassidy Bridge project.

GENERAL:
The EIS acknowledges (pp.15-26) the high impact of noise and vibration on neighbouring properties during and after construction.

Noise:
Statement s in the EIS are quite vague on how noise will be mitigated, and this will not be done until after gains are running. ‘Night disturbances’ are just brushed over. Comments such as “the medium age of 36” and “therefore likely to adapt to change “ is not a valid argument. Noise mitigation must be carried out before and during construction to minimise the impact on people living, working and schooling in the area. Many studies, both here and overseas, highlight the detrimental effects of excessive noise on the ability of people to live productive lives.

Vibration:
Again, little mention is made of what will be done to prevent damage to properties adjacent to the rail corridor.
The EIS mentions the creation of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan which will determine mitigation measures and acknowledges that additional studies will be needed to determine vibration sensitivity of some sites. As the WWCC response states - “studies must be undertaken to determine the sensitivity of relevant structures along the full length of the line”, and “monitoring of these structures must take place through the construction period and beyond “.

Air Quality:
Neighbouring properties of construction sites will have their air quality severely compromised during construction. Dust from concrete is a known health hazard. Yet no modelling has been done and generalised assumptions have been made in the EIS, eg “There is potential for air quality impacts from existing operations…within 50m of the rail track… . The magnitude of these impacts is not known”, and a comparison is made with the North Sydney Freight Corridor to suggest impacts may be ‘below relevant assessment criteria for receptors within 50m”. This is clearly unsatisfactory.

It is inefficient and difficult to incorporate results from submissions and reports that should be done before any detailed design commences. Costing would already have been estimated. Detailed design should take into account and respond fully to the agreed recommendations from submissions and reports, including residential acoustic impacts, dust, potential flooding, water quality, biodiversity impacts and so on.

CASSIDY BRIDGE:
*I am unable to make a fully informed submission because WWCC has yet to finalise plans to incorporate the bike path as proposed in the Active Transport Plan.
*The EIS states that the bridge design will be “sympathetic to the environment” but there is little indication as to how this will be achieved.

Issues:
1. The size of the proposed new bridge is of concern due to its impact on liveability -
* it impacts neighbouring properties by threatening their privacy and safety because of its height;
* resident’s safety is an issue if there is no space between the path and fence;
* microclimate - excessive heat will be generated because of the excessive use of concrete in construction. Hot weather is forecast to increase exponentially over the next decades with current greenhouse concentrations. It is impossible to imagine the extent of heating as carbon emissions are nor declining as fast as is needed.

2. Disturbance during construction -
* the EIS notes that disturbances during construction would include increased heavy vehicle traffic, lighting for night time construction and removal of vegetation.

Solution:
There is a problem with sustainability with use of sand and the energy required in transporting it to the site. The thermal mass could be mitigated with water sensitive design incorporating for example swales and rain gardens which would retain water for cooling and for wildlife, thus enhancing biodiversity.
One way to minimise impacts on the neighbourhood would be to change the site of the bridge, from Brookong Ave to Fox St. (See attachment). The western side of Fox St is made up of commercial properties, and the road currently reaches close to the railway corridor. No private properties would be affected. As well, construction could take place while keeping the current bridge in operation, thus eliminating one issue for the community. The current pathway between the Telstra block and 22 and 24 Brookong Ave could become a small wildlife corridor with the planting of native species, helping to mitigate the carbon footprint of the proposed construction.

CONCLUSION:
The best way forward is to divert the railway line across the floodplain to the Bomen Intermodal site. It is obvious that running double stacked freight trains through the centre of a city, and past hundreds of residences as well as schools and hospitals, is fraught with issues in both the short and long terms. Studies conducted by WWCC clear.y show that traffic impacts at level crossing sites have been underestimated in the EIS. The disruption to the daily lives of many people would be overcome with a new line. However, if for some reason this is not deemed feasible, the Inland Rail Corporation, and the ARTC, need to go back to the drawing board.

Submission to Inland Rail Environmental Impact Statement

My comments largely concur with the submission from Wagga Wagga City Council.
While I have ticked the "I object to the project" option I should clarify that it only relates to the passage through the city, not the project overall which I do support as a great benefit to the nation.

Realignment of rail corridor around the city centre
My preference would be for a realignment of the rail corridor for freight trains to bypass the city centre from the South and re-join the corridor near Bomen so the intermodal freight hub is connected.
The Bomen viaduct is not sustainable in the near term due to structural issues - as outlined in the Wagga Wagga City Council submission - and will need replacing. It does not provide for a duplication of the rail line which will undoubtedly be needed in the future. Nor does the corridor that currently runs through the city centre. It would be far more financially responsible in the longer term to address both these issues now rather than retrospectively. Part of this could be a transport way that provides an additional road crossing of the Murrumbidgee River and floodplains for road freight transport that will service distribution to and from the intermodal hub. This would be a holistic and economic solution and benefit to the future transport needs that are the prime reason for the proposal in the first instance. The initial cost would be high but be far less than the future cost of duplicated works associated with a major construction and escalated pricing, not to mention the economic benefit loss incurred over the years by a not suitable solution.
Wagga Wagga has been identified as a Targeted Growth Centre by the New South Wales Government. For this to be a success the amenity of the City cannot be compromised, which a central rail corridor as proposed would. Increased transit times and noise would quickly undermine the amenity of the city and the growth proposed as a major regional city would be compromised. The subsequent decline in the attraction of the city for people to live will be detrimental to the ability to provide a workforce for the Bomen Activation precinct, the funding for which has largely been committed by multiple levels of government.
The EIS in general does not address the issues of noise or traffic issues once the Inland Rail is operating. From my current address in Central Wagga I can hear train movement. When the IR is fully operational and more trains with far higher payloads are passing through the level of noise and frequency will increase dramatically. For residents, schools and businesses, particularly those along the corridor, there does not appear to have been any planning for noise abatement buffers or walls, which are common for many other infrastructure projects that cause an increase in noise levels.

Issues with the Current Proposal
In terms of the current proposal, my submission relates to the Bourke/Docker Streets level crossing, and the Edmondson/Best Street overpass, and subsequently the Lake Albert Road access to the City as it become overloaded with traffic escaping the delays at the other crossings.
Having lived in a suburb where my travel route to work was down Bourke Street, across the level crossing and continuing on along Docker Street, I believe the impact of this level crossing remaining are far more severe than the EIS proposes.
During works on the Wagga Wagga Rural Referral Hospital (also known as Wagga Wagga Base Hospital) it was not unusual for traffic to be banked up from that area back through the roundabout on Bourke/Urana Streets when traffic flow was interrupted for movements to and from the site. This was regular during normal work transit times - say 7:45 to 9:15 in the morning. In the afternoon travel times after 4pm till around 6pm traffic would be banked up along Docker Street back to the Forsyth Street intersection and further.
Also, during times when freight trains require the crossing to be closed the wait times for the current size trains are far greater than those indicated in the EIS. Traffic will be backed up through intersections, traffic lights and roundabouts on an ongoing basis. I have recently experienced being held up in a traffic line that stretched to the north of Edward Street while waiting for a freight train to traverse the crossing. This would be far better addressed in the initial construction phase rather than having another construction period and delays to traffic and trains when services are fully operational.
This level crossing needs to be eliminated either by an underpass or overhead bridge, whichever is more feasible after engineering and other studies. This obviously would have an impact on Chaston Street and part of Docker Street but that would be a lesser imposition on traffic flow in general. It would however, need consideration of the fact that this is the major medical referral precinct servicing the whole of the Riverina region.
It has the benefit of being near the Wagga Showgrounds, which I understand are Crown Lands. This could be used for alignment purposes and potential connection with Chaston Street and the medical precinct. The realignment of Bourke Street to the west of the current crossing with an underpass joining a redirected Chaston Street principally towards Docker Street could be a solution. At this point land to the South is Crown Land whereas to the north of the rail line there would be greater room for an underpass to come up to road level and allow a sweeping bend onto Chaston Street.
The crossing does have a not insignificant amount of foot traffic. What controls are in place to safeguard people taking a risk if arriving just before a train? Again, an underpass to the West would eliminate that concern.
At some point when the city grows a similar situation will arise at the Fernleigh Road level crossing. Again, pedestrian traffic is a direct crossing over the tracks. This would be a significant risk again to people taking the unsafe option of trying to beat the train.
The risks of pedestrian accidents at level crossings is highlighted in the Victorian Railway Crossing Safety Strategy 2018-2027 where accident numbers have been recorded and tabulated over a number of years. The risks of vehicular accidents are similarly outlined in the same Strategy.

Summary
In summary the main issues are what is the best future option for a rail corridor.
Too many factors have not been assessed or addressed in the EIS for the currently proposed route through the city.

Please see attached letter

Attached

I write in support of the publically announced view of the Wagga City Council, Rate Payers Association and Wagga business groups and their strong condemnation of the proposed inland rail route through the centre of Wagga Wagga. I believe ARTC are using incorrect data to support their case, for example claiming level crossing will only be closed for 4 minutes using train speeds of 80km/hr to support their case when actual train speed will be 40km/hr. The length of time roads will be blocked will cut Wagga in half for up to 8 minutes every hour, this will not only impede people going about their daily lives but also School Buses and emergency services ( this amount of time can be a matter of life and death ). ARTC and the Federal Government need to urgently reappraise the designated route through Wagga and look for a By- Pass that will satisfy ARTC and the Wagga Community - bad planning at this stage be a great detriment to Wagga for decades to come.

The route of the Inland Rail is inappropriate. It runs through major towns and cities and will disrupt the lives of the residents continuously day and night. The freight line does not add value to these communities and should run as far as possible away from settlements. The existing rail line is not suitable for massive bulk freight. The users of the new system are not located in these towns and cities.

We need to adapt for the future, not rely on 19th century planning, technology and transport needs.

My main concern is the effect of the freight trains on the city of Wagga Wagga. A city that is promoted as being a "liveable city". The city's liveability will be destroyed if this proposed route is not changed.

Much has been spent by our local council and the state government in promoting our regional centre as being a great place to live. The impact of this promotion will now be lost and people will see other cities as “better” places to decentralise to.

The direct costs involved in destroying bridges and lowering lines could be better spent on a route that would not to the detriment of the residents. The land no longer needed for the rail lines could be sold for development to help offset the cost of the Inland Rail construction.

By-passes of the towns and cities all along the route need to be put in place to ensure the future growth and vitality of these regional centres.

The problem is particularly bad in Wagga Wagga as the city is bisected by the railway lines. The impact on travelling around the city is immense - the problem already exists, and the additional freight movement will only exacerbate this. Wagga is expected to reach a population of 100,000 in the near future. Travel between the northern and southern suburbs and the city will be severely impacted.

Traffic disruptions at the level crossings are significant. Extensive delays roughly every hour will have a great impact on peoples’ lives. Access to the hospital for emergency vehicles will be impacted.

The impact on vehicular traffic will be a nightmare, but for pedestrians it will be much worse. How about standing at a level crossing waiting 5 or 6 minutes for a train to pass in 40+ degree heat. Many people need to walk along Docker and Bourke St.

The ARTC Summary of Findings (Albury to Illabo) Environmental Impact Study, states clearly (page 22) “…Increased frequency of level crossing closures due to the increased frequency of trains” but in the “What we will do panel” they plan to do nothing. "Tough luck" is how I interpret this.

Impacts on individuals include noise and vibration from the trains running at all hours and causing disrupted sleep; this is a well-known cause of mental and physical health issues. Noise and vibration is disruptive to businesses located close to the rail lines and disruptive to the students and staff at the two schools on the rail line in central Wagga.

Bypassing Wagga from say, Uranquinty or Kapooka and then linking the line back up at Bomen where the intermodal transport hub is located is not impossible. The gains to the city of Wagga Wagga would be immeasurable. We need people with vision to make this happen.

Although I support the concept of an Inland Rail Freight route and the benefits it will bring to Australia, the current route appears to be hastily cobbled together with no consideration given to the negative impacts on our lives. Picking the cheapest/easiest route was lazy planning and needs to be reconsidered. I suggest the previous government had no real vision and basically thought that the project would never happen.

Now is the time to take this and make it a reality – BUT it needs to benefit people’s lives, not destroy them and their city. The route needs to be changed.

My major concern is the access to the hospitals. I am concerned that long freight trains running through the city could hold up ambulances. I think that by-pass should be planned.

Attached

Attached

Object to inland rail line running through the centre of Wagga Wagga.
The line should bypass Wagga & connect to the rail hub at Bomen.
WWCC have voiced their objection to this proposal of behalf of the Wagga citizens.

Upon reading the details of the proposed project, I am concerned at the lack of thought and consultation undertaken.
In addition to the ongoing disruption to local traffic due to the increased train activity at the Bourke Street level crossing, nothing has been mentioned in the studies about the increase in train horn noise experienced by residents living near this crossing.
At present, every train is required to sound its' horn when approaching the level crossing. This currently happens less than 10 times a day on average with most during the day time. The proposed increase in train traffic will see this dramatically increase and continue throughout the night at over 100 decibels a time (the equivelant to the noise of a jet aircraft flying at 100 feet). I strongly object to the proposed plan and would support nothing less than a full bypass of centrall Wagga Wagga.

I object ot the rail coming throught the centre of the city, It should be re-routed from Kapooka to Bomen.
The disruption and damage it will cause coming through the centre of Wagga will be enormous and dangerous.

This proposal must be reconsidered for the future liveability of Wagga. What is done now will be irreversible. Investment in an alternative route around Wagga will achieve the goals of all the stakeholders long after the cost fades into history.