Copy of my letter to Armidale Councillors Re proposed Rail Trail.

1. Armidale Regional Council has never given serious consideration to the prospects of re-opening the northern railway line by way of a proper feasibility study. Instead made decisions in the past based on a so-called 6-page AEC desktop study (2018). Council all along showed an unexplained preference for a bike trail. In the process, it adopted an anti-rail position that will have far reaching consequences for the region. Council opposition has been one of blind opposition rather than evidence based one. The subject relating to the rail trail to be discussed today is yet another attempt to go this same path. I urge you to change the course at least now in view of the many challenges we face and the need to find solutions as guardians of our region's future.
2. The Community needs to be consulted when the council decides to spend $1.8M of rate payers money as co-payment on a cycle project with no clear mandate from the community. During the SRV consultation process or afterwards this intention was never mentioned publicly but the Council has simply committed to pay this money as a co-payment I understand without the knowledge of full Council. This seems extra ordinary?
3. As many others, I made a submission to the Council in relation to its Strategic Plan 50,000 before the deadline at the end of March 2024. I am astonished that even before the Councillors had a chance to read these submissions and comprehend the community sentiment about the rail trail, a proposal is brought before you to endorse a rail trail! How many residents and rate payers supported your plan and how many opposed? Isn't it the right thing to carefully listen to the residents in the LG area before rushing to decide about one aspect of your future plan? At least show respect to those who invested time to write to you about your draft Strategic plan.
4. There are many pressing issues in essential and priority areas that the Council can and should spend its time to find solutions. Rail Trail is not one of them. However, roads repair, water security, climate emergency and sustainability, energy production, infrastructure maintenance and housing are. Ground transport options connecting our LG area with the rest of State is a core foundation on which many of these other dimensions rest. We cannot ignore it and prioritise air travel, highway travel and bike riding with consequences to rail travel if we are to move forward with other LG areas like Tamworth and Toowoomba.
5. I don’t know how anti trains position fits with phasing out fossil fuels and minimising heavy vehicle damage to our major highways continually? When the federal government is emphasising and devoting resources to move freight from trucks to rail and investing in renewable energy sources to meet the climate emergency, our Council also needs policies and programs that correspond rather than contradict. What happened to that Consultancey report to establish a freight hub at the Business Park near the airport? It was commissioned before this council was elected but included very useful information.
6. In my submission I pointed out the importance of working with the NSW government to restore ground transport within and beyond the LG area especially to the North if we are to achieve our common goals for the next 20 years. I also expressed doubts about the futility of trying to achieve the Council's goals for more population, businesses, industry, housing etc without a descent "public transport service" connecting our LG area with the rest of State and beyond.
7. There has to be a balance between "public transport" and "active transport" in the LG area instead of the current move to pit rail with trail. This approach is very divisive and harmful to the community. This is not an either-or situation. We can do both. I am sure many of our train supporters aspire to a better future for our people and the region with improved public transport facilities that form the backbone of region's development and progress. Transport is a core factor that can ensure quality of life and human well-being for all demographics -not only a narrow group of professional cyclists.
8. There are many ways that a cycle track can be built away from our historic northern rail corridor. If the Council is open minded these alternative options can be explored even now. e.g. on the service road, along Boorolong road, through the University farm. It is indeed possible to build the bike track on the side of rail line even within the corridor because it is wider enough. You could adopt the Tenterfield model where the Angry Bull Trail is to be built East-West not within the rail corridor. If you adopt this approach, cyclists can come by train and then use bike paths. No wonder Tenterfield Council has expressed a desire to see trains and bike track co-exist.
9. There are already existing bike paths in the LG area. One in fact goes from the town to UNE. Why not extend this to Dumaresq? Why not spend resources to maintain existing bike paths properly and resource those planned for Castledoyle road etc.?
10. Cost of the proposed rail trail to Dumaresq does not reflect value for money. Spending $5.4M for a rail trail of 9kms is very expensive by any measure. It amounts to $555,555 per km? In short, half a million per 1 KM. You could restore the rail line with this amount of money. Why not do that so the heritage trains planned by NERI and NRRC can be operated sooner than later?
11. Hon. Jenny Aitchison, minister for regional transport and roads in a letter sent to me (24.02.2024) says the following:
"You may be aware, the NSW government is committed to developing Strategic Regional Integrated Transport Plans (SRITPs). These will expand on the previous work of the former Regional Transport Plans, and Integrated Transport Plans, to better reflect the needs of regional communities, including detailed evaluations of communities' transport needs now and in the future. It is an opportunity to look at all the existing infrastructure, public transport and road networks across our State and to marry them with planning areas. When planning school precincts and health precincts in the regions, this will ensure there is an aligned transport plan that maps the same area, and we do not put essential services in one place while our transport is in another.
The NSW Government is also passionate that regional communities get their fair share of transport projects, SRITPs will be outcome-focused, and designed to enable funding decisions based on priorities. This allows any proposal to be investigated immediately after each plan is finalised. As such SRITPs will streamline the planning process and provide regional stakeholders and communities with a greater level of assurance around short-to medium term transport priorities.
Transport for NSW advised me the New England Northwest SRITP is due to begin by later 2024 and will be developed with stakeholders"
Q. Why not feed information about the proposed rail trail to this planning process and make it a part of this regional plan to see if it is acceptable to the NSW government rather than rushing to endorse a plan on shaky grounds with no secure funding or approvals at present?
There is no reason for us to follow the path adopted by other councils in the State where similar rail trails have been introduced generating unwanted antagonisms in the community. Instead, we need to adopt a path for healing, human well-being, reconcilliation, sustainability and prosperity.
I appeal to you to defer consideration of this matter until the full funding situation becomes clear or the planned SRITP process is finalised by Transport for NSW so that it will give enough time for the councillors to absorb the information pertaining to the recommendations before a decision is made and potential funding for diverse transport options in the LG area may be assured .
If you come to a decision to proceed with the rail trail today with only a few days of notice to the Council about such an important issue, your decision will be unfair by the community to say the least and it will be recorded as one of the contentious one in the history of the Council. Taking more time to consider diverse aspects and consequences about the proposal, especially as expressed in many submissions already made, and in the context of overall transport needs in the LG area is the better way rather than rushing to a decision today.