Posting of SMH AFR failures
Tom Rabe published an erroneous and misleading piece in the SMH on the prospects of the Port of Newcastle, on 24 Feb ’20. As with previous poor efforts there and in the Financial Review, I asked for “balance” and gave a reasonable deadline for a response. As previously, the Nine/Fairfax editorial team were AWOL.
This situation has got to a critical phase in the destruction of the NSW port and logistics “pipeline”. The State does not and will not have sufficient port and rail support capacity to met its mercantile needs within the “pipeline” period of proper infrastructure planning.
Instead, the capricious and incompetent manoeuvres of populist politicians dominate a supine logistics industry sector that bears heavily on Australia’s carbon futures.
The SMH and AFR, Ports Australia, iA, iNSW, GSC, the ARTC, NSW Transport and NSW Ports, as well of course Sydney Ports, are enforcing a corrupt monopoly direction which sees
Specifics follow, including communications to ARTC, the Port of Newcastle and Governments.
Greg Carmody, CEO of PON, has maintained the LIE that he has a queue of investors lined up for a container terminal at Mayfield. Pig’s bum he has, he says the impediment is a removable levy, no, it’s a lack of transport infrastructure connections, and he, with Roy Green, Warren Truss, Michael McCormack, John Barilaro, and the local RDA, Business Chamber and Labor MP, are retailers of that LIE. Their partner in that deceit is Nine/Fairfax. Baird was duplicitous but so are they.
That is reflected in Tom Rabe’s “State deal blocking world's largest coal port from fossil fuel exit” in the SMH on 24 Feb ’20. That need not be quoted here as it is crap from go to whoa, and will be demolished in the general commentary.
Case for Removal of Roy Green © RG 26 08 18
based on the incompetent basis of PON’s approaches and maltreatment of IP
Newcastle is looking for an integrated solution for its port and ancillary assets; and the Port is looking for a successful diversification strategy that is centred on containers but has other elements.
It appears that the Port company lacks the evidentiary, analytical and policy skills it needs to achieve its own objectives and might be repeating Kembla’s over-investment direction; while the community lacks leadership and won’t find it in PON any more than in the City Council, RDA or Chamber.
PON cannot bring forward the approval of a terminal to next year; I think I can. It had no infrastructure plan and is stealing mine. I am justified in protecting my Intellectual Property and deserve to be paid properly – so lifting performance, quality and urgency.
Towards the end of his first year, Green’s is a record of failure as recounted below; and he has shown neither remorse nor adaptation. He has no answers and he will not be allowed to steal mine.
As I have no prospect of fair and professional treatment from him, and as the Board’s and region’s hopes are receding, I see no choice but for the Board to protect its shareholders’ interests and require Green to depart.
At the beginning of May, I circulated a position statement to Ministers and others, from which this quote was drawn, the “critical issues” being missed by PON:
While Port Botany grows even without commensurate road and railing capacity, the regional cities will get their terminals when Hell freezes over if they keep going with tired ideas under the same tutelage as Port Botany.
Neither satellite realises they are being cannibalised by their Sydney and Western Sydney siblings which are aligned with Federal and State Coalition Governments. Neither have been willing to consider the independent expert. They will not combine approaches.
Details - general
The immediate situation is seriously awry from being a steady path fromconfusion and deceit towards robust regional improvement. The problems are known but are being exacerbated, not fixed. The challenges include:
This may surprise you but  I don’t disagree at all about the importance of inland rail. Nor does PON which is working closely with  ARTC and  others on the connections that would make sense in the context of a container terminal.
The problem you have is that no one is engaging with you because  you insist on being paidfor your opinion on how this might be done. And maybe you have some other ideas as well. Can I respectfully suggest you would have far more impact if you were prepared to share your ideas  openlylike most other people contributing to our cause. No one has a monopoly of wisdom in this area. I for one would be only too delighted to publicly acknowledge your authorship of any ideas that are taken up if that’s your concern.
It just seems a shame to me that you sit there down south  taking potshots at everyone when you have  so much expertise and experience to offer. I’ve got a thick skin so don’t mind the potshots but I’d much rather have you  wielding the sword or pen on our behalf.
We’ll be making a  very positive announcement shortly on the container terminal strategy and it would be wonderful if you could  join the discussion in similar vein at that point and beyond.
What do you think? Are you ready for a  more collaborative role?
PON posted artist’s impressions of container ships entering and in a Newcastle Terminal where PON has no infrastructure plan, no planning approval, no economic case capable of meeting Ports NSW’s formal requirements, and no idea of scale economics in the supply chain context. This is the assertion of “spin” in a context dominated by deceit – as I said on Radio, this time “Newcastle is dudding itself”. I also pointed to Kembla’s situation and the ban on trucking, in response to media concern in the previous week.
This circus has been going since 2012, with the industry agreeing with my reports but asking that I publish free, for their usage. Green knew that and my attitude, which is – bastards …. The consequences include continuing disarray and mistakes in industry work; and the increasing domination of populist politics in undermining solid logistics and “pipeline” economics. The next morning I replied:
No: I get paid for the value of my change quality work, finis. It is far superior to PON’s.
You pay your staff, Deloittes, sponsees et al.
$100 m for a wee business case seems to now be the yardstick, I resent anyone saying I should be treated unfairly.
My insights are not to be used by PON in any way at all.
Either come back with a real offer or do something useful with your life. I’ve been treated by you as a mushroom too long.
Detailed responses to Green’s email [to the points numbered within square brackets]:
1. Rail Bypass etc: No one was talking Inland Rail until I added that insight as part of my strategic report; and Green started after I told him I’d copyrighted Prof Lee’s and my route concept. His change to Inland Rail from his long-term disagreement/rejection of me (being the first person to raise the idea and copyrighted it), is unacceptable. He is bound to his stupid by-pass as was ARTC (Chamber submission dated 12 April ’18). Green’s submission actually said the bypass could be part of Inland Rail! ABC Radio host Paul Bevan said that both Green and Carmody had pushed the bypass on-air at the time of Carmody’s appointment (which was at the end of May ’18). (The same copyright applies to Calfas, socio-economic arguments at Botany, high-voltage A/C, work with Kembla, and scale economics etc – all points missed by PON, the Chamber, RDA, NCC et al.)
Green wrote on 11 April ’18: “would be useful if you can integrate Newcastle container planning including Newcastle-PK dedicated freight rail corridor via Eastern Creek **. Otherwise PB role may depend heavily on trucks on WestConnex with $60-80 tolls”:
** In my Freight Plan from 2012 – again, no one has attributed or paid for that so I’m roaring
2. ARTC: Secret discussions, to what end – more mistakes? Green gives the impression of trying to be cute after being smacked for incompetence, unacceptable and they have been so informed
3. Others: presumably Greg Cameron and/or additional consultants which I will resent and vigorously critique. Enough obvious blunders have been perpetrated through amateur daydreaming. If Carmody’s ex-employer, Maersk, they will be informed of the problems as DP World had been – DPW had the chance of advancing their own commercial prospects but refused to.
PON is hunting for cruise liners but the Australian’s recent special feature on regional liner destinations did not even mention Newcastle. PON is proposing a variety of new facilities but I question whether they understand market economics, having got the container catchment so wrong (see website). This happened at Kembla where the development plan for higher throughput meant higher charges, meaning even the port’s owners sent their coal to Newcastle via an incredibly inefficient route, meaning less throughput!
4. Does Green live in a bubble? Plumbers, consultants, politicians and others get paid, even he gets paid regardless of judgements of little or no added value. I gave the industry the option of paying for my work as Globestar did in 2003 on behalf of Shipping Australia, or experiencing the “opportunity costs” which Green is now. His attitude is primordial and out of touch with the real world. It shows he made a mistake at the beginning, has been smacked and is now cheating his way out (as if). As for other ideas – this is idiotic, inconsistent with 
5. “No one has a monopoly” – how would he know? Again, PON has been found out and is leeching the community as though that will evade my copyrights
6. Potshots: he also enjoys them? Political and moral suasion is the only mode of persuasion Green has left me, so this is a consequence of his own behaviour and attitudes
7. So much expertise and experience: refused to find out via Deed of Confidentiality so is fishing? Obviously greater than PON’s, the industry sectors’, TfNSW, iA, PON, the Chamber, ARTC’s etc, therefore more valuable. Green didn’t even know about the econometric study of the Botany line
8. On our behalf: rubbish, he refuses to pay for his company’s interests, he is illogical
9. A very positive announcement: of successful theft of IP? His own resignation? Maersk? NSW Government faux-promises? Better artist’s impressions?
10. Join the discussion: more of the above, rubbish, the normal sequence is to table quality work beforeconsultation which also would show competence and leadership
11. More collaborative: he’s begging after pissing me about for 4 months - see especially my email of 24 May – “I’m a lot annoyed I’m doing a much better job than anyone else and no one will pay me. This is the third and last time – I’m going to start to bite”.
In conclusion, PON is tied to the bypass and unsuccessful political approach as based on the decrepit Deloittes report. It shows the same deficient attitudes as do Ports Australia, Shipping Australia, the Australian Logistics Council and the NSW Business Chamber. [NB schedule of disparities in submissions to TfNSW & Calfas being held back but ready to go on website.]
His emails illustrate Green’s mistakes and now his evasions of fair and sensible practice. The new CEO of PON is a PR manager, not an operative or analyst, judging by what is known of his history. (He has not replied to polite questions.) Newcastle has had too much cant and deceit, and now needs a positive, professional can-do logistical and political person to lead its further development.
That is a judgement which Mr Carmody can address so long as he keeps to realities. He and others should focus on successful outcomes instead of narcissistic game-playing – that is my submission.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As reported elsewhere, Barilaro has been up and down and out on PON, with the impression at the end he is confused, incompetent and uncaring.
On Jan 15, ’20, Carmody announced this – reinforcing the backroom corruption:
Newcastle local and former NSW Nationals State Director Ross Cadell has joined Port of Newcastle at a critical time for the diversification of the Hunter economy and its international trade gateway.
Mr Cadell begins as Special Projects Director on 3 February, leading the political and regional stakeholder engagement efforts as the Port works alongside all levels of government to advance key infrastructure projects that will future-proof the local, state and national economies.
Port of Newcastle CEO Craig Carmody welcomed Mr Cadell’s unique blend of experience in business and politics, coupled with local knowledge, as the Port prepares to push ahead with projects such as the $1.8 billion privately-funded Multi- purpose Deepwater Terminal (MDT) with government support.
“Ross recently finished as the Nationals Campaign Director for both the 2019 NSW and Federal elections, having previously acted as regional co-ordinator for the Nationals,” Mr Carmody said.
I have written to ARTC (truss and Graham), the Newcastle RDA, ROC and Chamber etc, Gallacher and other execs in the port and logistics industries, the Business Council of Australia, the RBA and Sir Rod Eddington, and others including Lindsay Fox, but no, all stuum.
Treasurer Frydenberg is my special target for various reasons, not least being his kicking me. Taking this just one step further, on 18 Feb ’18 I wrote to all Coalition Parliamentarians, as previously, with the following admonitions:
Four issues: deceiving the community, waste, incompetence & thievery
You’ve had advices before of a growing crisis in credibility, my inability to get PMs and Premiers to face well-analysed problems and broken promises, and serial theft (and deprivation of rights and abilities*) of my copyrighted IP. (This crisis shows up nonsense in the Boat People debate as there is plenty of housing capacity but massive waste in infrastructure spending, with immigration changes having minimal quantitative impacts. There is no professional, considered “plan” to manage population changes.)
I have answers but why can’t I get a straightforward negotiation instead of recusal, rejection and further thefts by the NSW Government? NSW is in a materially worse situation because of “The Club’s” rejection of my work – in terms of congestion, affordability, local government and planning legislation, Budgets, regional performance, community cynicism and employment prospects, among other things. Premier Berejiklian is facing electoral pressure over stupid densification targets, and why? The real motive is hidden, relating to HK corporate intentions being subsidised by $20 billion!
The crisis comprises the confluence of breakdowns in Sydney’s and regional planning as reflected in these websites:
J’accuse. I’m one of the State’s most highly qualified and experienced reformers yet am rejected by the “Club” whose members – nominated on the websites - have no education, experience or ability in State and city planning. They are 100%, gold-plated, unashamed and narcissistic blunderers.
I offered the new PM a settlement package on 10 September last, with subsequent follow-ups; and the Treasurer the same through the December MYEFO. The resounding silence continues except that the Treasurer blocked my main email address – and what does that achieve, I wonder?
The MYEFO context is critical because the 2018 Budget included two provisions which reflect the corruption of process and purpose, which are being deliberately continued instead of fixed, namely
1. $400 million to the duplication of the Port Botany Freight Line, PM Turnbull heralding the reduction in truck movements but
a. a 2015-16 econometric study, the only one of its kind in Australia at that point, found that duplication would not put a single extra train on the line, meaning no reduction in trucking – DIRD gave every impression they knew naught of such published work, which is not surprising
b. the Botany approach is the outcome of a Baird-led distortion of competition principles which ACCC is investigating, the effects being a long-term intensification of truck congestion in the PM’s own electorate. Berejiklian and the Nats Ministers have broken promises and lied – with the PM staying stumm (cf https://www.theleader.com.au/story/5660061/morrisons-backyard-problems/?cs=4012)
c. my proposal was publication of a Green Paper based on my Eastern Seabord Long Term Rail Development Plan (2012 to now, ignored by Albanese, Truss, McCormack and Gay/Pavey et al). That could be funded within the $400 million
2. A $100 million lucky door prize to favoured consultants for an insignificant and implausible “business case”, being a gift from PM Turnbull and Premier Berejiklian to the biggest blunder in Australian planning history - with the decision on who-gets-what resting with Mrs Lucy Turnbull who has significant inter-involvements across many fields, despite
a. the project being completely illegitimate, with no adequate pre-studies, no “business case” BEFORE decision (which was clearly made in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney, and is wrongly immutable), and no system integration, Minister Constance lying that Badgerys SSA will have transit support when it opens
b. the concept permanently damaging the Inland Rail national priority, commuting effectiveness and congestion in the Illawarra and South West, Parramatta CBD (that City was excluded by GSC, Dr Kennedy and Minister Taylor, as were Wollongong and Blacktown), and Sydney/Parramatta faster rail
c. the real motive being Premier Berejiklian’s embarrassment at the revelation of sodden assumptions under the NW and Bankstown “Hong Kong MTR Model” – in fact, the repudiation of the Baird Model, for reasons that were stated by this analyst as the beginning of the chaotic “planning stench” (BOF’s term)
d. my solution being, reducing the largesse and potential corruption from $100 million to $0.5 million, with the balance going to what is most needed namely a proper planning process based around a Green Paper (my Eddington Bedrock: from Christie to Greiner to Gibbons).
I have normal regard for polling but mine is not a political stance as I am attacking Labor as well as the Coalition over their shared obsessions with dumb ideas. Conversely, I gave PM Morrison the opportunity to use my work to the Government’s benefit in the run-up to the NSW then Federal elections. Messrs Morrison and Frydenberg have all but blown that chance.
I’m justifiably sick and tired of the underlying psychoses and pettiness that see the best ideas excluded and barbaric unfairness regarded as a norm – in betrayal of Menzies. One of my Facebook postings has this quote (which is being ignored by the Menzies RC, the Sydney Institute and the Centre for Independent Studies – why?).
I’m going to pursue my claim every day of the next four months – until I get a sensible, professional response from PM Morrison. I ask you to consider the situation and articulate your perspective, as the negative impacts will be very collective.
* My legitimate recompense will cover a major donation to Save the Children (and the Smith Family’s campaign to save Australian children), 10 demonstration fire- and storm-proof homes that are cheaper to build than conventional styles, a national institute for prosperous regions (honouring past heroes from every State and Territory), commencement of the world’s first pure solar train, and a community Crystal Theatre that will be on Grand Designs. Regional prosperity is my theme and there are many elements. The costs of recusal and delay sit on the heads of the bastards who have mistreated me.
I ask your Board to review the above subject with the view of preventing further conflicts of interest and perception if not reality of plagiarism.
The facts are as follows but I note that Mr Vandervoort [ARTC Exec, Hunter Chamber] faces the following facts:
1. He is responsible for making representations to governments on land connections to the Port of Newcastle, as chair of the Business Chamber which formally supports the long rail by-pass of Sydney, which I regard as a political sham, economic anomaly and practical impossibility to achieve
2. He is responsible for
a. Advising Governments on the matters under (1), and
b. Accepting Budget allocations, negotiating third-party agreements, and giving effect to matters under (1)
3. He has consistently failed to return my calls, messages and emails over several months, leading to a loss of credibility in the planning of land transport and other aspects of the Port’s development planning.
I ask you to look at my correspondence, which should be on file, and at my public website, www.thinkinglogicallogistics.info, which Mr Vandervoort should have informed you of as it affects ARTC’s probity and professional public repute.
Please note that I am also forwarding similar letters to the Minister and to ANAO.
Continues as in commentary of Green
The official hierarchy of ports is Botany first and until full, Kembla second, and Newcastle third. There is no proper strategy that supports this product of capricious Ministerial statements:
It is a classic case of State Government sleight-of-hand. The situation also requires the State Business Chamber (which uniquely covers four affected regions) to do what its website said:
NSW Business Chamber has learnt to stay the course, remain resolute and never give up.... It’s about fearless advocacy ... but also recognising that results come through partnership with other advocacy groups and governments on constructive solutions.
That it does not do so is tragic for NSW industry and regions. The fact is, its Western Sydney subsidiary undermined my freight and port and Blue Mountains work and the City Deal-cum-St Marys Metro. It cannibalised its Newcastle and Wollongong siblings without any of them having a clue about economics, logic and unintended consequences. Its Newcastle chair is conflicted-out with his government role and should never have been admitted let alone elected as chair, in my opinion.
ALC injected a degree of economic realism – and possibly lack of faith in the Calfas team:
Two NSW “projects” in the 2018 Budget immediately failed economic blunder-checking tests, tripping up the PM badly, beingho’s occupying the corner offices. Write a nice bio about each executive that includes what they do, how long they’ve been at it,
1. $400 million for the duplication of the Botany Freight Line where economic analyses, reported in The Conversation (below), showed that not one more train would be delivered through duplication. Compare that with the PM’s rave:
2. The $50 million (plus the State’s $50 million!*) for the “business case” for the Metro line from St Marys to Badgerys Airport is a deliberate deceit with multiple “unintended consequences” including
a. Badgerys airport will not have high-quality transit services and very real options were deliberately sterilised without election legitimacy or process probity
b. Parramatta CBD is again disadvantaged as St Marys has no logic, the Airport line should be full rail to Parramatta and up the Epping link to the Metro there
c. There will be further degradation of the commuting, freight and special events capabilities of the Bradfield rail system
d. The undermining of the economic interests of the logistics chain from Wollongong via the SW and Western Sydney to Parkes, and the associated movement of jobs west
e. The Inland Rail’s logistics basis is reduced through cutting-off Port Kembla and forcing grain, coal and minerals trains through the metropolitan network
f. The numbers of car carriers and coal trucks on Mount Ousley and Picton Roads will increase rather than fall substantially (with the same logic applying around Ports Botany and Hunter), and
g. Commuting support to the growing population of the South West and Illawarra are lost with a passenger crisis from 2020 and coal crisis from 2031 - in the context of the $100 billion waiting list of unfunded promises in Berejiklian’s inner zones menu of metros, trams and mega-tunnels without due diligence legitimisation.
Shipping Australia’s submission was the only one to hit the central Port issue on its head, albeit it got its formulae wrong and noting the PM seems to have no clue about such reality:
In our view, too little, too late. On page 170 of the draft strategy, it says that in 2011, Sydney Ports Corporation forecast an increase in the container trade from 2 million TEU in 2010-2011 to 10.98 million TEU in 2036.
ALC also got its numbers wrong according to the modelling (below) but the direction right:
Both forgot or didn’t know about the only real rail capacity econometrics I am aware of:
The foreign economistswho reviewed Port Botany’s railing revealed these myths (NB their throughput projections are questioned*):
o low-volume trains
o unproductive staging practices, and
o peak-hour congestion stemming from poor train scheduling
* the key lies in streamlining its operations. Our recommendations include:
o a dynamic train scheduling system to replace fixed servicing times at stevedore terminals;
o train staging outside the port precinct; and
o standardising all port-bound trains so that they contain a minimum number of containers
Note that 28% involves excessive and unacceptable road movements,* and the sustainable “social contract” railing level remains at 40% via Kirby and Turnbull if throughput is to increase over say 3 million TEU p.a. The railing capacity needed at 4 million TEU is 1.6 million TEU while at 7 million TEU it is 2.8 million TEU. The truck numbers are modelled in the confidential appendix to the original report and are horrifying, showing that Governments have surrendered their credibility to political naïveties and lobbyists with fancy PowerPoints and suspect motives. The respective train numbers are c 100 trains per day and 170 trains per day (both “full” – more if the current disarray continues).
I have done detailed capacity and productivity projections and a social impact matrix – all for the first time - in order to give a boundary to the social contract and say that Botany must overspill by 2025 if* truck numbers are not to explode beyond all acceptable limits.
* This conclusion is in white font as a protected IP, as are passages related to recovery strategies
NB The Chinese investors have got poor value from their chosen managers
The remaining misunderstandings that are beyond the industry’s, Governments’ and Calfas Panel’s ability to resolve, all three main ports being at risk, include:
One industry submission to TfNSW on the draft of a revision of the 2013 Freight and Port “Plan” said it was a national exemplar, but every other body said the opposite. Not one, including the main victim, Port of Newcastle, can see a way to relieve their burdens, but waste money on clock-watchers and reject outsider ideas and experts in a classic “groupthink” loss of reality.
 See Harabor, Guimarans and Van Hentenryck, , “Port Botany doesn’t need another expensive rail project – here is the evidence”, The Conversation of 9 February 2016
Some years ago, say in 2013-4, iA contracted a disease that is common in NSW, of backfilling on a capricious Ministerial announcement with an analytically weak “independent” report as retrospective “justification”. Its host, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, was specifically infected, especially after a period when the Prime Minister’s Office had micro-managed it according to Mike Mrdak. (A specific example was trying to justify double-handling as a virtue at Moorebank while its chair was on iA’s Board.) (
Berejiklian and Turnbull knew I’d written Thinking Logical Logistics ll and strangely (but as with my critique of the Greater Sydney Commission’s performance), iA conducted an “industry consultation” exercise through a Panel that was chaired by Calfas, two of the other three members being associated with iA and Botany/Moorebank.
The Panel did not present a professional SWOT and also misunderstood the nature of “critical issues” and “scenario planning”, so the methodological and empirical gaps are fatal. To illustrate, one of the most profoundly critical issues is the WS City Deal’s defilement of Port Kembla’s access to Inland Rail and the Illawarra’s economic future post-BHP. This is what the Panel said:
That is their summary of the NSW crisis (apart from generic urban congestion). Newcastle does not get a mention, as usual. Genuine “critical issues” were omitted (as in most industry submissions to the Panel). The host agency, DIRD/iA, is in the same position with their relevant reports. They didn’t even mention the PM’s proclivity in taking dud projects off Treasury and Budget cycles through unconstitutional devices, including City Plans.
It is simply not good enough. Thinking Logical Logistics ll has greater relevance.
The City Deal was engineered by the then Cities’ Angus Taylor MP and – as publicly revealed – a PMO executive who had not previously worked in urban and regional planning. They reversed the UK precedent by reinforcing central capricious control instead of delegating and devolving to city-states as in the UK. The pressure had come from my critiques of the GSC conflicted structures, legislation, methodology, empiricism and analysis.
The pre-planning had no councils involved but then discussions proceeded with 8 councils in GSC’s arbitrary “Parkland” city. It excluded three with massive interests, namely Wollongong, Parramatta and Blacktown. (Under Carr, DPC conducted extensive consultations about the formation shapes of Sydney’s regions, the outcome being “catchment-based”. GSC ignored that.)
The City Deal was running towards a South West to St Marys via Badgerys orientation, partly for passenger services but also linking with Maldon-Dombarton which the Chinese Centurion wanted to use fast trains on. (They don’t mix, below.)
At the 11th hour, the 72nd week of 72, the Prime Minister and Berejiklian capriciously rotated the route so that the South West will be metro rail and incapable of carrying freight trains, thus killing all commuting benefits but favouring the Berejiklian Chinese NW metro model which is failing and apparently deserves camouflage instead of correction.
The 8 Councils were given $15 million each for community benefits so Wollondilly households got the $800 jackpot. Blue Mountains took the lollies, saying that at least our hatred of the Badgerys Airport was stated somewhere. Liverpool thought that the Deal that excluded her LGA was a “huge win for Western Sydney”. Bankstown “welcomed” the Metro then opposed it after RG explained the reality Vs the bull!
Supposedly the St Marys logic was based on the WS Rail Needs Scoping Study which did not satisfy stages 1 and 2 of iA’s protocols (although it did not have the geographical disability of the City Deal), in particular it:
· Suggests rail access not needed when airport opens
· States sotto voce that metro technology is preferred but without meeting due diligence protocols = PM’s notion of “ideology and stupidity”.
o “The preferred type of rail for the East-West Link from Western Sydney Airport to Greater Parramatta is a rapid metro. This provides high frequency, all stop services and competitive journey times while connecting communities along the route. These trains are designed to operate at up to 130km/h”- is not impartial.
o The XPT operates well below its design speed and cutting metros off from the Bradfield system is possibly the worst error ever made in Sydney’s history (previously the non-implementation of the 1909 recommendation to lift the CBD and suburban tram tracks and re-lay them around the new electrified rail’s stations).
· Does not discuss freight uses of a north/south connection which is now doubly critical given $10 billion to inland rail bridge + iA clarion calls to protect long-term corridors. Maldon-Dombarton and Moss Vale-Unanderra both need that heavy rail connection through to Inland Rail
· Has excellent sensitivities etc but accepts an invalid circular argument from GSC – 30-Minute City = axial rail = metro not “expressnet” etc. iA itself disproved 30-Minute Cities in its Growth implications report, meaning the ideological basis of the Scoping report invalidates it. (That iA report assumed SW to Badgerys and to NW so the pessimism about 30-Minutes was justified – GSC is in disgrace.)
· Includes options but gets relative capacities completely wrong, repeating a mistake iNSW (then iA) made in 2012 in using MTR (proponent) numbers – rail is 38,400 not 28,800; and metro is 30,000 (15% seated!) not 46,000. Greiner 2012 confirmed Bradfield re-engineering at 40,000. The metro is a myth in most respects
· Gets value capture and Transit Orientated Development economics and practicality wrong – see this analysts’ refutation of the PM’s and Minister Fletcher’s (et al’s) proclamations at the time - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17989&page=0
A mythical outer orbital including 20-km tunnel has been floated by TfNSW as with the equally mythical long rail by-pass of Sydney (below). Both have been left to the never-never in a State where $15.9 billion from poles and wires blew out to $80 billion then over $100 billion in Berejiklian’s elongation of Labor’s horror story.
Logistics chains as well as corridor reservations and capacity adjustments require careful planning, route reservations and staged construction, all heading in the right direction. The current intentions use the wrong technology, wrong trackage and wrong route. The run-ons are horrendous.
The greatest myth is that Maldon-Dombarton linked to the SW chain had been properly planned. (I say that as one of the three initial planners in the Dark Ages of 1981-2.) Albanese’s Feasibility Study said it has a maximum capacity of 60 trains per day (which is doubtful given over-standard grades) which is about 2 million TEU; but the Illawarra’s SWIRL has fast trains on it as well as its baseloads of grains, minerals, coal and car imports (if TfNSW can get its act together).
SWIRL’s case and iA’s evaluation are disreputable but so is Newcastle’s case – not forgetting Turnbull’s Port Botany’s Budget blunder (below). M-D has been a Fed football for Coalition and Labor Governments alike since 1988. Just a year ago, iA ruled it out – looking for a regional re-engineering (not that they’d know what this is – I did it but no one listened).
A re-engineering of the whole Illawarra/South West/West chain is required, not yet another ideological time warp. Illawarra hits a capacity limit with passenger services in 2020 (i.e. tomorrow) and coal in 2031 (i.e. next week).