Not all happy for trail progress
While the information included in your report, "Joint efforts propel rail trail forward" may be true as far as it goes, I would not want readers to be left with the false impression that the New England Rail Trail proposal has satisfied all the pre-conditions and has been approved by the relevant Minister.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
It has not.
(Ed's note - neither council nor the Examiner claimed final approval has been granted).
To achieve approval for the lease of the rail corridor for a rail trail, the Minister for Regional Transport must present a regulation to Parliament for approval, after consulting relevant stakeholders and weighing the options if there are alternative proposals for use of the railway.
Neither the Armidale nor Glen Innes parts of the rail trail project has satisfied the requirement for "demonstrated community support" and backing for the project is not unanimous on either Council. In contrast, the petition delivered by Trains North, with over 10,700 signatures, and debated in parliament on 8th February, was a significant expression of public opinion, favouring the preservation of the Main North Line railway rather than destroying the track to make way for other activities. Trains North have observed widespread community appreciation of the value of keeping the rails in place, not just preservation of the land corridor, to provide for the resumption of train operations.
The current situation with the suspension of the Inland Rail project north of Parkes means it has never been more important to keep the Main North Line through Armidale in consideration for possible reinstatement as an interstate rail artery, to help satisfy calls from the logistics industry for greater investment in freight rail. The managers of long distance freight want more of it off the roads and onto the rails.
This is for their own practical and commercial reasons and is also consistent with Federal Government policy for reducing carbon emissions.
Proponents of local rail freight operations on the Northern Tablelands and of popular heritage trains should also be kept in mind.
The likely increased burden on ratepayers of allowing the maintenance costs for over a hundred kilometres of rail corridor to be shifted from Macquarie Street to our local councils is another good reason to resist the rail trail rush.
This is no time to be consigning our railway to the dustbin. The Northern Tablelands will have a brighter future with trains running "all the way".
Matthew Tierney, Trains North president
We don't want nuclear
Michael McNamara ("Joyce proffers up area for nuclear", 28/3) is spot on. Australians would be reluctant to welcome a nuclear power plant, or toxic waste dump, in their neighbourhood. Barnaby Joyce, who once said he was "sick of government being in my life" wants government to lift a ban on nuclear power plants, then offer up millions of tax dollars in subsidies - if overseas experience is anything to go by.
But perhaps the real question is: when will the nuclear enthusiasts tell us how they propose meeting our international emissions reduction commitments? The nuclear 'debate' is an endless distraction. The climate crisis warrants huge investment in renewables right now and - at the same time - a cessation of fossil fuel extraction and export. Mr Joyce rejected the science that showed methane emissions from cattle could be drastically reduced by the food additive Asparagopsis; by the same token he ignores the science that shows just how urgently we need to reduce carbon emissions, and how Australia is able to do this via plentiful and cheap renewables.
Fiona Colin
