Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study

Transcription

1 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government October 2009

2 Commonwealth of Australia 2009 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only in whole or in part (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at DISCLAIMER GHD Pty Ltd was commissioned to produce this report for the Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Material and opinions contained within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the position of the Australian Government. The report cannot be relied upon by third parties unless GHD Pty Limited provides prior written permission. While due care has been taken in preparing this report, information and views contained herein have been provided by third parties, the Commonwealth and GHD Pty Ltd give no warranty to the accuracy, reliability, fitness for purpose, or otherwise of the information. This information should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent professional or legal advice.

3 Contents 1. Introduction About this discussion paper Background The study purpose and process Key Findings 2 2. The current situation Operating performance Community amenity 5 3. Current and future corridor demand Freight volumes currently carried by the rail line Likely future demand 7 4. Options for further analysis Improvement options considered How each option serves the freight task Assessment of the options Call for submissions Making submissions Use of submissions 21 Table Index Table 1: Description of the options reviewed by this study 12 Table 2: Adelaide rail freight study alignments 15 Table 3: Consideration in selecting the options 17 Figure Index Figure 1: Melbourne Adelaide rail route through the Adelaide Hills 1 Figure 2: Study Terms of Reference 3 Figure 3: Freight flows by type and by origin-destination 6 Figure 4: Forecast growth in rail freight into, out of and through Adelaide, Figure 5: Forecast growth in rail freight into, out of and around Adelaide, Figure 6: Significance of Adelaide as a rail destination and origin point 10 Figure 7: South and Western Australia GDP growth forecasts base case assumptions 11 Figure 8: The existing rail route and possible bypass routes 14 Figure 9: Freight flows under various options 16

4 1. Introduction 1.1 About this discussion paper The paper provides an overview of the initial findings of the Adelaide Rail Freight Movement Study, and identifies a short list of options that could be carried forward for further analysis. The purpose of this discussion paper is to give the community, industry, and government stakeholders the opportunity to understand and provide views on the preliminary findings of the study. Information about how to make a submission is found in section 5 of this discussion paper. 1.2 Background The Adelaide Hills rail alignment is part of the interstate freight rail corridor that connects Sydney and Melbourne (and to a lesser degree Brisbane) with Adelaide, Perth and Darwin. The interstate track runs parallel to the urban passenger rail network from Belair to Adelaide. Although a well-used route, the current configuration of the Adelaide Hills section of the corridor, between Murray Bridge and Islington (see Figure 1), is impeding the efficient movement of freight between these key centres. Steep grades and tight curves force trains to travel more slowly, and to use 50% more locomotive power per tonne, than on other interstate rail freight corridors. They also restrict trains to a maximum of 3,500 tonnes. The terrain of the Adelaide Hills causes greater locomotive wear and tear and higher maintenance costs than would be incurred in a straighter, flatter alignment1. Figure 1: Melbourne Adelaide rail route through the Adelaide Hills 1 Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) 2005, Melbourne to Adelaide Corridor, Adelaide page 6 1

5 As with other Australian capital cities the Adelaide Hills freight rail line passes through residential areas. In September 2008, the Australian Government announced the commencement of the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study. In early 2009, GHD was appointed to carry out the Study. 1.3 The study purpose and process The key purpose of the Study is to examine the feasibility of improving the capacity and efficiency of the interstate freight rail line between Murray Bridge and Adelaide to meet current and future demand needs. The Study looks at the forecast freight volumes and task, the ability of the existing rail line to meet future demand, having regard to economic, environmental and social factors. In particular, the Study is required to specifically consider the feasibility of a new alignment proposed by the Mitcham Council RFTF that would run to the north of Adelaide. The Study is also required to consider other options that may involve any of capital investment, further maintenance or improved flow management. The Terms of Reference of the Study are shown below in Figure Key Findings The Study is intended to assess the feasibility of proposals. Capital and operating costs are different for each alternative. Capital costs for the alternatives are substantial, ranging between $700 million to $2,400 million and these costs will be balanced with operational and amenity benefits in the next phase of the Study. This discussion paper provides an opportunity to seek broad comment on the options. 2

6 Figure 2: Study Terms of Reference The Australian Government has committed funds to undertake a comprehensive study into the feasibility of improving the capacity and efficiency of the main interstate freight rail line between Murray Bridge and Adelaide. The Study will look specifically at the feasibility of a new alignment that would run to the north of Adelaide. It will also identify other options that may involve any of capital investment, further maintenance or improved flow management. Study objectives The study objectives are to: Provide an analysis of both current freight rail movements and the forecast growth in freight movements to and through Adelaide (this includes freight moving east and west); Provide an analysis of capacity of the line to meet this demand both now and in the future; Provide an analysis of the impact of the current alignment of the main interstate freight rail line on community amenity (economic, social and environmental impacts); and Identify options to ensure the forecast growth in demand can be met along with an assessment of their feasibility in terms of costs and benefits (in this context, costs will take account of the likely impact on community amenity). Study area The Study is to include consideration of the current alignment of the Melbourne Adelaide interstate freight rail line and the proposed northern access alignment. This will include two key points where the interstate track crosses over urban passenger rail lines at Goodwood Junction and Torrens Junction. Other studies This Study should consider other transport infrastructure studies including but not limited to: Transport Sustainability Study in South Australia; Northern Connectors Study; South Australian Rail Freight a bypass to save the heart of Adelaide; Melbourne-Adelaide Corridor Strategy; Adelaide Urban Corridors Strategy; and Adelaide-Perth Corridor Strategy. 3

7 2. The current situation The existing rail alignment was opened in January 1887 and was built to accommodate the steam engines of the time. The line was constructed at a time when the Adelaide Hills was only sparsely developed, but over more than a century urban development has increasingly surrounded the corridor. Although train technology has been substantially improved over the years (resulting in increased train speed and load carrying ability), improvements to the rail track have not kept pace with these changes. As a result, potential operating improvements have not been fully realised. 2.1 Operating performance One of the reasons the alignment has not kept up with contemporary standards is the difficult terrain through which the alignment travels. Only 38% of the alignment is straight. For a distance of 104 kilometres between Islington 2 and Murray Bridge the track has many tight curves, with 34% of them having a radius of 400 metres or less, and some of them closely spaced 3. Much of the track is steep, with vertical grades of approximately 2%; this is double the desirable grade of less than 1%. Along the alignment between Islington and Murray Bridge, six tunnels and ten bridges over the railway provide for a vertical clearance of less than 7.1 metres; this is too low to allow trains to carry full height containers double-stacked 4. The combined effects of these characteristics of the alignment are that: The track can only carry trains to a maximum of 3,500 tonnes (total train weight) and a maximum length of around 1500 metres Freight trains must travel more slowly through the Adelaide Hills, averaging only 35 kilometres per hour because of the tight curves and steep terrain. This performance compares with a target average speed for the Melbourne and Adelaide corridor of 60 kilometres per hour 3. On the Sydney to Melbourne corridor, once improvements now under way are completed, the average speed will be approximately 80 kilometres per hour, and on the Adelaide to Perth corridor, approximately 70 kilometres per hour As a consequence of the low average speed through the Adelaide Hills, the average transit times between Melbourne and Adelaide and Melbourne and Perth are at least one hour longer than would otherwise be the case on a flatter and straighter alignment, and therefore result in higher operating costs On the Adelaide Hills section, freight trains need to use three locomotives rather than two and thus incur higher operating costs Higher locomotive and train wear and tear and therefore higher operating costs are incurred by rail operators, and Greater wear and tear on the track and therefore higher maintenance costs. Furthermore much of the alignment is hemmed in either by towns and residential properties or by the Belair National Park, restricting options to reduce the number of tight curves through deviation. Similarly, 2 Islington is the freight rail terminal in Adelaide. 3 ARTC Network Configuration and Description at ARTC s Network Interface and Coordination Plan, Appendix III ( and Appendix XIII ( 4 ARTC Track and Civil Code of Practice SA/WA & VIC, Section 7: Clearances at 4

8 the hilly topography of the area would make it difficult to reduce gradients without substantially increasing overall travel distance, and therefore travel time. At the moment, and at least for the next 10 to 15 or more years, capacity is not likely to be a constraining factor. The current alignment can handle 10.7 million tonnes per year, which is more than double the 4.8 million tonnes per year that are currently carried on the rail line. According to freight demand forecasts (discussed in section 3 below), capacity would not be reached before 2020 or even However, the alignment is already a source of inefficiency for rail freight transport, and particularly for freight moving between Melbourne and Adelaide. This is reflected by the relatively low freight arrival reliability target of 55 percent for the corridor Community amenity The track passes through six local government jurisdictions (Rural City of Murray Bridge, District Council of Mount Barker, Adelaide Hills Council, City of Mitcham, City of Unley, and Adelaide City). While land use between Murray Bridge and the Adelaide Hills is predominantly agricultural, the Adelaide Hills and Adelaide Plains regions are primarily residential. For a distance of about 50 kilometres between Adelaide and Nairne the rail line runs through the centre of, or backs onto, towns and residential properties. The main safety consideration along the alignment is the rail line interaction with road traffic at level crossings. According to assessments carried out by The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI), which assesses all level crossings across South Australia, there are sixteen crossings that would benefit from some form of improvement. Over the last few years, DTEI has been upgrading higher risk level crossings through measures such as adding boom gates, line-marking, upgrading signage and improving the line of sight 6. There are 41 level crossings along the rail line between Murray Bridge and Adelaide which handle a total of about 135,000 vehicles per day. Typically it takes between 1.5 and 2 minutes for a train to clear a level crossing, but it may take longer: at Cross Road for example, which carries 32,000 vehicles per day, freight trains take about 3 to 5 minutes to clear. In the metropolitan area, three level crossings at Main Road in Glenalta, Main Road in Belair and Cross Road that traverse the rail line are heavily trafficked and long delays are experienced by road traffic at these locations. Together these three sites account for 63,500 vehicles per day or 47% of total traffic crossing the railway at level crossings between Murray Bridge and Adelaide. The Review team would appreciate feedback on: other features of the alignment that are important for the Study to take into account. 5 ARTC, Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail infrastructure Strategy Overview, 30 June 2008, page The Level Crossing Unit within DTEI s Traffic & Access Standards Section uses the ALCAM model to assess the compliance of all the level crossings in South Australia. A recent Commonwealth Program has made funds available for level crossing improvements across Australia. 5

9 3. Current and future corridor demand Understanding the volume of freight that is currently carried on the rail line, and how this is likely to change in the future is critical in determining whether and, if so, when significant capital investment in an improved rail line would be justified. 3.1 Freight volumes currently carried by the rail line The existing rail line has a maximum capacity of 10.7 million tonnes per year. This estimate is based on existing train configurations and available track space and makes allowance for the fact that for commercial reasons not all scheduled opportunities are taken up. Based on the latest available data obtained 7, less than half of this capacity, approximately 4.8 million tonnes of freight was carried over the existing Adelaide Hills section in the financial year. About 82% of this freight was containerised goods including household whitegoods, clothing, processed food stuffs, beverages (wine), motor vehicle components, building materials and general consumables. The remaining 18% was bulk goods, including break-bulk steel and bulk commodities like pulp, hay, grain and mineral sands. These freight volumes are shown below Figure 3. Figure 3: Freight flows by type and by origin-destination Million tonnes Containers Bulk Total million tonnes Mel-Ade Mel-Per Mel-Dar Regional SA Source: FROG and ARTC, origin-destination data This freight is moving between four sets of origin and destination locations: Melbourne and Adelaide Melbourne and Perth Melbourne and Darwin, and Regional South Australia and the Port of Adelaide. Figure 3 displays the volumes moving to and from these destinations and origins. The first two sets of these origin and destination markets account for the overwhelming majority (96%) of the total rail volume, with 2.5 million tonnes travelling between Melbourne and Adelaide and a further 2.1 million tonnes moving between Melbourne and Perth in This task is serviced using both dedicated single origin-destination trains as well as Adelaide stop-off trains. 7 Based on data provided from Freight Rail Operators Group (FROG) and Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) 6

10 The freight that moves between Melbourne and Adelaide is mainly international exports and imports that are railed to and from the Port of Melbourne. For example, wine from the Barossa Valley is transported to a rail terminal at Port Adelaide then railed to the Port of Melbourne. From there it is shipped to customers in United States and North Asian markets. Similarly, imports including consumables and vehicle components for the Mitsubishi and General Motors plants in Adelaide are unloaded from containerships at the Port of Melbourne and then railed from the Port of Melbourne to Adelaide. They are then trucked to destination premises across the Adelaide metropolitan area. Most of the remaining 4% of rail volume is bulk grain and mineral sands that travels from the east and south-east regions of South Australia over the Adelaide Hills line to Port Adelaide for export. 3.2 Likely future demand Because of the inherent uncertainties in forecasting, a scenario-based approach was used to generate a range of forecasts of the rail freight task. Three distinct scenarios a low, base and high case scenario were specified to capture a range of probable outcomes and assumptions for the key future growth drivers of the rail freight task. These drivers include: underlying economic growth (annual growth on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Northern Territory) changes in rail mode share along the east west corridor (resulting from factors such as impact of carbon reduction pollution scheme on transport mode competition between road and rail, possible introduction of B-triple trucks on the Melbourne Adelaide road corridor, truck driver fatigue legislation, ARTC capacity improvements to Melbourne Adelaide rail corridor, and government policies aimed at stimulating growth in coastal shipping between Melbourne and Perth) changes in the relationship between freight and GDP growth. This reflects changing supply chain practices like the rationalisation of manufacturing away from decentralised production towards more concentrated production, creating longer supply chains. Forecasts for all three scenarios are shown in Figure 4. 7

11 Figure 4: Forecast growth in rail freight into, out of and through Adelaide, yr forecast Million net tonnes yr forecast 10-yr forecast 20-yr forecast Base case Low case High case Source: GHD The base case forecasts 8 reflect the rail freight task that would arise under economic growth assumptions that reflect current State Treasury forecasts 9 and a relatively stable rail mode share over the forecast period. In this scenario, the total volume of rail freight carried on the Adelaide Hills section is forecast to rise from its current level of 4.8 million tonnes to approximately 14.3 million tonnes by 2039 (Figure 4). This represents an annual average growth of around 3.6% over the 30-year period. The low case set of forecasts represents a conservative view of the size of the future rail freight task one in which economic, market and policy drivers tend to move against rail (for instance, subdued state GDP growth, road and sea policy measures that result in transport mode shift away from rail). Figure 4 shows that under these circumstances, the total rail freight task is projected to grow modestly over the 30 year period from 4.8 million tonnes in 2008 to 8.9 million tonnes by This represents an annual average growth of 2.0% over the 30-year period. On the other hand, the high case set of forecasts reflect a future in which economic, market and policy drivers tend to work in rail s favour (such as strong state GDP growth, improvements in the competitiveness of rail by comparison with road and sea transportation resulting in transport mode gains for rail). Figure 4 shows that under these circumstances, the total rail freight task is projected to grow over the 30 year period from 4.8 million tonnes in 2008 to 22.2 million tonnes by This represents an annual average growth of 5.0% over the 30-year period. 8 The base case forecasts prepared by GHD are based on the latest available data obtained from the FROG and ARTC to forecasts are taken from South Australian Government Budget Paper 1 (pg 22) and Victorian Government Budget Strategy and Outlook (pg 23) onwards are GHD forecasts based on long run historical average GDP growth rates. Historical average growth rates calculated using state GDP data from Australian Bureau of Statistics publication Australian National Accounts: State Accounts (Catalogue Number )

12 Another way of appreciating the projected change in the rail freight task is displayed at Figure 5. The base case forecast implies a threefold increase in the rail freight task between now and This compares with a less-than-twofold increase in the low growth case, and about a four-and-a-half times increase in the high growth case. Figure 5: Forecast growth in rail freight into, out of and around Adelaide, times higher 20.0 million net tonnes times as high 1.8 times as high basecase low case high case Source: GHD One key reason for forecasting the rail freight task was to understand the future importance of Adelaide as distinct from Perth (and to a much lesser extent Darwin) as a destination and origin market for railed freight. This is important because options may need to provide rail operators with the opportunity to bypass Adelaide when hauling Melbourne-Perth and Melbourne-Darwin freight. Since this freight would not need to be delivered to or picked up from Adelaide, rail operators could obtain train transit time and operating cost benefits by using an appropriate rail route. Figure 6 shows Adelaide is expected to experience a gradual decline in its relative importance as a rail destination and origin point over the next 30 years. Cargo bound for or originating in Adelaide currently accounts for around 55% of the total rail traffic moving via the existing Adelaide Hills route. Over the next 30 years, the Adelaide share of the total rail volume is expected to fall by ten percentage points to 45% as Perth s role as a rail freight origin and destination point is expected to grow at a faster rate than that of Adelaide due to the relative rates of GDP growth as discussed below. At 45%, Adelaide will remain an important rail origin and destination point, but Melbourne Perth (and Melbourne Darwin) freight will account for the remaining 55% of the freight that will move on this east-west corridor. 9

13 Figure 6: Significance of Adelaide as a rail destination and origin point yr forecast million tonnes yr forecast 10-yr forecast 20-yr forecast To and through Adelaide Perth/Darwin freight The change in the relative importance of these two rail markets reflects underlying assumptions made about the relative rates of GDP growth in Western Australia and South Australia. Figure 7 shows that Western Australia is projected to experience consistently stronger GDP growth than South Australia over the 30-year forecast period. As shown in Figure 7, from 2013 through to 2039, GDP growth in South Australia is forecast to be just over 2% per year while during the same period the annual GDP growth rate is forecast to be nearly 4.5% in Western Australia. Since GDP growth is an underlying driver of rail volume growth this implies Perth s role as a rail freight origin and destination point will grow at a faster rate than that of Adelaide. 10

14 Figure 7: South and Western Australia GDP growth forecasts base case assumptions 7.0% Annual real GDP growth 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 5-yr forecast 10-yr forecast 20-yr forecast 30-yr forecast 1.0% 0.0% SA WA Source: to forecasts from South Australian Government Budget Paper 1 (pg 22) and Western Australian Government Budget Economic and Fiscal, Budget Paper 3 (pg 9) onwards are GHD forecasts based on long run historical average growth rates. Historical average growth rates calculated using state GDP data from Australian Bureau of Statistics publication Australian National Accounts: State Accounts (Catalogue Number ) The Review Team would appreciate feedback on: the economic growth assumptions underlying the freight forecasts the base case forecast for the traffic carried on the Adelaide Hills route the relative shares of freight traffic on the Melbourne Perth and Melbourne Adelaide corridors the extent to which a more efficient rail alignment would improve freight services and lead to a greater use of rail instead of road. 11

15 4. Options for further analysis Preliminary evaluation has been undertaken to identify options that justify further examination in greater depth for improving the efficiency and reducing the social impact of rail freight operations in the Melbourne-Adelaide corridor. 4.1 Improvement options considered Table 1 below provides a description of the Base Case and the five options. Table 1: Description of the options reviewed by this study Options Existing Adelaide Hills Alignment (orange route in Figure 8 below) 1 Upgrade Adelaide Hills route (orange route in Figure 8 below) 2 Northern Bypass north of Truro to Two Wells (red route in Figure 8 below) Description The existing alignment between Murray Bridge and Islington is the status quo scenario. Apart from the existing work planned 17 such as some passing loops being lengthened and new ones being built by ARTC, the existing alignment remains unchanged. This option would upgrade the existing alignment between Murray Bridge and Islington rather than building a new alignment. The upgrades could include: grade separation at level crossings, additional passing loops, and improvements to tunnels and bridges over the rail line, and to the tunnel and bridge at Murray Bridge, to permit double-stacking. In Option 1, all of the existing freight operations would continue to use the Adelaide Hills section. However, the operational characteristics of the track would be improved, and a number of initiatives would be undertaken to reduce the social impact of freight operations on the surrounding communities. This new route would bypass the existing Adelaide Hills section between Murray Bridge and Two Wells by travelling north of Truro. The route would begin just to the west of Murray Bridge and re-join the existing alignment near Two Wells. This route is mostly at ground level and on flat plains area, and would be built to contemporary design standards. 12

16 Options 3 Northern Bypass south of Truro to Two Wells (blue route in Figure 8 below) 4 New Southern Bypass (purple route in Figure 8 below) Description This new route would bypass the existing Adelaide Hills section between Murray Bridge and Two Wells by travelling generally in the same alignment as 2 above but south of Truro. This route is mostly at ground level and on flat plains area with the same design characteristics as Option 2. The route begins its ascent of the ranges further to the south than Option 2 and passes to the south of Truro rather than north. Compared to Option 2, Option 3 is 18 km shorter with steep sections occurring less often. Option 2 and Option 3 both include the cessation of freight operations on the Adelaide Hills Section, and the construction of a new rail bypass to the north of Adelaide. These two options differ only in that the Option 2 would involve a route to the north of Truro, while Option 3 would involve a route to the south of Truro. This route would be to the south of the existing rail alignment to avoid the built-up residential areas in the Hills. From Callington it would head west passing Flaxley and Wistow to the south of Mt Bold Reservoir; then it would head north near Kangarilla and Clarendon to the east of Happy Valley Reservoir and would connect with the current freight alignment just south of Cross Road. It would have the same design characteristics as the other new routes. About 22 km of this alignment is in tunnel (the longest section is 15 km), starting shortly after the Cross Roads level crossing. The tunnelling takes the line to the south away from residential areas, and then comes to the surface near Kangarilla to meet up with the existing alignment near Callington 10. This tunnel would be the longest freight tunnel in Australia and further feasibility work would be required to prove this concept. Option 4 also involves the cessation of freight operations on the Adelaide Hills section, and the construction of a new bypass route. However, in this case the bypass is located to the south of Adelaide 5 Upgrade Adelaide Hills (orange route in Figure 8 below) and build Northern Bypass via Truro (south) to Two Wells (blue route in Figure 8 below) The Adelaide Hills upgrade would be as for Option 1, while the characteristics of the northern bypass would be as for Option 3. Option 5 is a combination of Option 1 and Option 3. Like Option 1, it includes improvements to the existing route to increase operating efficiency and reduce social impact. But like option 3 it includes a new northern bypass on the route to the south of Truro. 10 While rail tunnels much longer than this operate elsewhere throughout the world, a rail tunnel of this length has not been built in Australia before. 13

17 Figure 8: The existing rail route and possible bypass routes In Table 2, the principal performance characteristics of each option are summarised and compared with the characteristics of the base case the Adelaide Hill section as it now stands. 14

18 Table 2: Adelaide rail freight study alignments Base Case Options Existing Route Distance (from Murray Bridge) Islington Capacity Attributes Doublestack Transit time (from Melbourne) Preliminary estimate of Capital Cost 11 (kms) (mtpa 12 ) yes/no (hrs) ($b) Two Wells ADE PER no Upgraded Existing Route 2 Northern Bypass via Truro (north) to Two Wells 3 Northern Bypass via Truro (south) to Two Wells 4 Southern Bypass 5 Upgraded existing route plus Northern Bypass south of Truro yes yes yes yes yes How each option serves the freight task There are two major elements of the freight task currently served by the Adelaide Hills section: Freight which has its origin or destination in Adelaide, by far the largest component of which is the Melbourne Adelaide task. Freight which does not have its origin or destination in Adelaide, by far the largest component of which is the Melbourne-Perth task. The paths followed by the major freight flows under each option are shown schematically in Figure All costs are benchmarked against a variety of major freight rail projects in 2009 Australian dollars, and excluding owner s costs, signalling, power supplies, overhead wiring, land acquisition, location factors, modifications to existing line, native title, indigenous heritage, Authority fees, security, planning conditions, relocation of existing services, possession costs, financing, legal, escalation, compensation and GST costs. The level of accuracy of the capital estimates is therefore +/- 50%. 12 Millions of tonnes per annum 15

19 Figure 9: Freight flows under various options OPTIONS 1 and 4 OPTIONS 2 and 3 OPTION 5 To / From Perth To / From Perth To / From Perth Two Wells Two Wells Two Wells Adelaide Murray Bridge Adelaide Murray Bridge Adelaide Murray Bridge To / From Melbourne To / From Melbourne To / From Melbourne Melbourne - Perth Freight Path Melbourne - Adelaide Freight Path Perth - Adelaide Freight Path The first panel of the diagram illustrates the freight paths under Option 1 (improvements to the existing route) and Option 4 (the southern bypass). Under these options, Melbourne Adelaide freight would terminate at Islington (or other intermodal terminals in Adelaide). Melbourne Perth freight would continue through Adelaide on its way to Two Wells, as it does now, using the existing line that runs between Islington and Two Wells. Traffic between Adelaide and Perth would also use this line 13. The second panel of the diagram illustrates the freight paths if the only route in operation were to be a northern bypass (Option 2 and 3). Under these options, Melbourne Perth freight would avoid Adelaide altogether, using the (new) northern bypass from Murray Bridge to Two Wells. Melbourne Adelaide traffic would follow a less direct route than it does at present. Freight bound from Melbourne to Adelaide would use the northern bypass join the existing north south line at Two Wells, and then travel south to Adelaide. The third panel illustrates the freight paths for transporting freight between Melbourne and Adelaide and Melbourne and Perth under Option The Islington Two Wells section of the existing east west rail line has not been the subject of any technical assessments in this study. However, preliminary analysis through a Strategic Merit Test process has taken into account the contribution that Melbourne Perth or Melbourne Adelaide freight travelling on this section of track under each option would make to fuel consumption; to air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and to above and below rail operating and track maintenance costs. 16

20 4.3 Assessment of the options Assessment criteria The criteria against which each option was assessed are divided into three major categories: economic, environmental and social. Details of the criteria in each category are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Consideration in selecting the options Economic Social Environmental Freight capacity Safety Risk to flora and fauna Transit time Noise levels Air pollution in the study area Above rail operating costs Level crossing delays Greenhouse gas emissions Track maintenance costs Heritage impact Land pollution Project investment Community amenity Risk to watercourses The Study at this stage has assessed the relative merits of the identified options against the project objectives 14. It does not provide a basis for a firm view on which is the best option, or whether any of the improvement options are economically justified. In particular, it is possible that options that appear attractive on this preliminary strategic assessment phase may fare poorly under a benefit cost analysis due to the high cost of implementing them. The purpose of the analysis at this stage is to guide the development of a shortlist of options for more detailed, quantitative analysis, using a structured appraisal of the key characteristics of each option. The base case and the five options are each considered under the following headings Retain the existing route without major upgrading (Base Case) With improvements currently planned by ARTC 15, the existing route would have sufficient capacity to meet projected demand until at least There has been gradual improvement to train length, a focus on level crossing protection, noise monitoring and mitigation, which has improved the efficiency of the railway. No other improvements are planned in this scenario. The physical characteristics of the route do however; affect the efficiency and reliability of rail operations. They limit the ability of operators to take advantage of economies of scale in train operations. At present it is not possible to operate double-stack trains on the route, and train length is limited to 1500 metres with a maximum total train weight of 3500 tonnes. Tight curves and steep curves further increase train operating costs and track maintenance costs. There are many level crossings on the route, resulting in delays to road traffic and giving rise to safety concerns. Community amenity is also affected by the noise arising from the operation of freight trains through what are now densely populated residential areas. 14 This process is known as a Strategic Merit Test which was endorsed by all State and Territory Transport Ministers at the Australian Transport Council (ATC) in As part of the Australian Government, Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, ARTC will extend seven short crossing loops to 1800 metres, which will allow projected growth to be accommodated while maintaining current transit times, and increase maximum train length in the Melbourne Adelaide corridor to 1800 metres; page 2. These projects are committed. 17

21 4.3.3 Upgraded existing route (Option 1) The main attraction of Option 1 (improving the existing route without constructing a new bypass) is that the capital cost of approximately $0.7 billion is significantly lower than the estimated cost of other improvement options. This level of expenditure would allow the redevelopment of the route to make the operation of 1800m, double-stacked trains possible; this would significantly improve track capacity and the efficiency of rail operations. The investment would also encompass a range of measures to reduce the social impact of freight operations on the route. This option could be implemented incrementally through a range of discrete projects. However, while the option would reduce road traffic delays as well as residential noise levels, it would not eliminate the issues associated with the operations on the Adelaide Hills route completely. There would continue to be amenity issues and potential safety risks for the communities that live in close proximity to the route. Trains would also continue to face the steep grades and tight curves of the existing route Northern bypass options (Options 2 and 3) The assessment showed Option 3 (a northern bypass that passes to the south of Truro) to be superior to Option 2 (a northern bypass that passes to the north of Truro) on economic, social and environmental grounds. Therefore Option 2 will not be carried forward for further analysis. Option 3 involves making the ascent of the Mt Lofty Ranges around Truro, requiring extensive bridge and cutting work. In addition, improvements would be required to the short tunnel and the bridge at Murray Bridge. In total, project investment costs associated with this option would be approximately $1.4 billion. This budget allows for the bypass to be developed to a standard capable of handling 1800-metre long double-stacked containers trains. The option would provide enough capacity to meet the rail freight demand through to Track operating costs for this option are relatively low, and it would reduce transit time and cost for rail freight between Melbourne and Perth. However, it is a less effective option for freight to and from Adelaide. Although the option allows the use of more efficient trains than can currently be accommodated, the route taken by these trains operating to and from Adelaide would be indirect (see Figure 9). Under this option, freight traffic on the existing route would cease. This would provide a full resolution of the community amenity issues associated with operations currently on the Adelaide Hills route as the northern by pass would travel through currently sparsely populated country and poses relatively few new social issues. Preliminary assessments suggest that there are two heritage sites within 100 metres of the alignment that could be affected. However, it is possible that more detailed investigations will reveal refinements to this alignment that would allow these sites to be avoided The southern bypass (Option 4) This option is the most expensive of the options to construct. It would cost approximately $2.4 billion largely because of significant costs associated with extensive tunnelling, and the costs of providing grade separation at Goodwood, Cross Road and Torrens Junctions. A major attraction of this option is that it would result in low operating costs, both above rail and below rail. It also has the potential to reduce transit times to a greater extent than any of the other options. The relatively low fuel consumption in this option also means that emission of pollutants is relatively low, and, for most of the route, takes place at some distance from concentrations of population. (The exception is emissions from trains bound for Perth, which would need to travel through Adelaide as they do now). 18

22 This option also performs very well against social criteria. Under this option, as under Option 3, commercial freight traffic on the existing route would cease, and this would provide a full resolution of the community amenity issues associated with operations currently on the Adelaide Hills route. As the bypass route for this option is relatively short and much of it would be underground, the road traffic delays associated with this option would be low. There are also few heritage issues associated with this alignment: only one heritage site an indigenous site was identified within 100 metres of the alignment. However, it is possible that more detailed investigations will reveal refinements to the alignment that would allow this site to be avoided A northern bypass and improvements to the existing route (Option 5) Under this option, the problems associated with the existing alignment are reduced by both the diversion of Melbourne Perth traffic to the northern bypass and by the proposed improvements to the current Adelaide Hills route; but they are not completely eliminated, as they would be under Options 2, 3 and 4. However, the option would require a high level of initial investment (approximately $2 billion) and, as the existing route would also remain in service, would have high track operating and maintenance costs. Option 5 provides a very good result on above-rail operating costs. It provides efficient routings for both Melbourne Adelaide and Melbourne Perth trains, and allows the use of double-stacked 1800-metre trains in both cases. In the preliminary analysis, the alternative of combining a northern bypass with maintaining freight operations on the unimproved existing route was also considered. While this would reduce the traffic load on the existing route, it would not, despite a very considerable capital investment, do anything fundamental to address the operating inefficiencies and social issues associated with the Adelaide Hills route. The reduction in freight traffic levels would bring only very limited improvement, and as volumes grow over time even this limited improvement would be eroded. For this reason, no further analysis of this alternative is therefore proposed. The Review Team would appreciate feedback on: the options identified, and whether there are any alternative rail alignments that should be considered the assumed freight paths, and whether these reflect the choices that above rail operators are likely to make. 19

23 5. Call for submissions The Study is seeking the views of interested parties on the matters covered by this. To assist in the preparation of submissions, questions have been posed at the end of each of the main chapters of the Paper. For ease of reference the questions have been consolidated below. The Review team would appreciate feedback on: other features of the route that are important for the Study to take into account. The Review Team would appreciate feedback on: the economic growth assumptions underlying the freight forecasts the base case forecast for the traffic carried on the Adelaide Hills route the relative shares of freight traffic on the Melbourne Perth and Melbourne Adelaide corridors the extent to which a more efficient rail alignment would improve freight services and lead to a greater use of rail instead of road. The Review Team would appreciate feedback on: the options identified, and whether there are any alternative rail alignments that should be considered the assumed freight paths, and whether these reflect the choices that above rail operators are likely to make. In addition to the questions above, are there any other issues which the Review Team needs to consider? 5.1 Making submissions Submissions should address the key issues and questions identified in this paper and should be supported where possible with relevant facts and data. Submissions can be addressed to: sarailfreight@infrastructure.gov.au Tel: Fax: Post: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government GPO Box 594 CANBERRA ACT 2601 The closing date for submissions is 20 November

24 5.2 Use of submissions Submissions and comments provided to the in response to this call may be published on the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government website. If you believe that the information you provide in response to this invitation: is, or should be, confidential; or disclosure of this information would unreasonably affect your personal privacy; or disclosure of this information would unreasonably affect your business affairs; notice is to be given at the time of delivery of your submissions or comments by clearly marking such information 'confidential' or 'commercial-in-confidence'. Insofar as its obligations under the law permit, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will give effect to your stated wish, and requests for such information will be determined under the Freedom of Information Act