PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: RAIL REVITALISATION PROJECT

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:32): I move:

That the 281^st report of the committee entitled 'Rail Revitalisation Project' be noted.

The TransAdelaide rail network provides public transport services to 11 million passengers every year, delivering 36 per cent of the public transport task for Adelaide, as well as carrying nearly 1 million tonnes of freight from the Mid North to Adelaide. Parts of Adelaide's rail track and infrastructure are reaching the end of their useful economic life, with a reduction in train speeds in affected parts of the network. This has a direct impact on train on-time running and passenger satisfaction.

The project scope includes concrete resleepering of the Noarlunga and Belair rail lines between Sleeps Hill Tunnel and Belair. Rail that has reached the end of its useful economic life will be replaced. Road crossings will be encased in concrete and improvements will occur to track drainage and formation to ensure ongoing track integrity.

The rail revitalisation project involves over 65 kilometres of new track, including the construction of a new base layer, drainage, long-life concrete sleepers and new rail where required. It will also replace turnouts and switching equipment and upgrade concrete bearers in locations with high usage and where assets are approaching the end of their effective life. Construction of new track crossover switches will allow for future operational flexibility.

Rail has a significantly longer life expectancy than sleepers, and the majority of rail on the track has a considerable remaining life expectancy. Rail that is approaching the end of its useful life will be replaced. The condition of the track base layer and drainage is critical to the ongoing life expectancy of the track. Track base layer and drainage will be improved, in conjunction with the resleepering, providing the foundation for extended track life and reduced maintenance costs.

Installation of new turnouts will provide significant flexibility and facilitate more rapid, reliable rail services. It will also facilitate more efficient ongoing track work, saving time and money in the future. Road level crossings will be removed, re-laid with new sleepers and formation, and then encased in concrete. This will provide a much longer life than bitumen and a smoother, safer transition for road vehicles using the level crossing. A number of small open deck bridges (where rail lines cross over waterways and culverts) are to be reconstructed as closed deck. These are more stable and safer for environmental and rail safety perspectives.

The resleepering that comprises the majority of works will necessitate closures of sections of the Belair and Noarlunga lines. Options for replacement services will be generated after consultation with the travelling public. It is in the best interest of the project to minimise disruptions to passengers and the general travelling public, and significant resources will be dedicated to the service planning for closures.

A key benefit will be reduced operational rail noise. Removal of rail joints and replacement with continuously welded rail on the new concrete track will significantly reduce wheel and rail impact noise. Construction noise will be an unavoidable issue during construction works, given the proximity of the rail alignment to residential properties, but all reasonable mitigation measures will be implemented. Fortunately, works in any particular location will be relatively short in duration thereby minimising disruption to residents.

A significant volume of ballast fines material within track infrastructure is contaminated, mainly from arsenic-based weedicides. Other contamination includes hydrocarbon from grease and oil spills and the use of contaminated fuel materials (for example, combustion waste from steam locomotives) during original construction of the railway. Removal of the material will be subject to a detailed remediation management plan in order to ensure it is handled according to appropriate safety requirements and does not generate excessive dust.

The project supports South Australia's Strategic Plan objective of increasing the use of public transport to 10 per cent of metropolitan weekday passenger vehicle kilometres travelled by 2018. The project is intended to be the first stage of the revitalisation of the rail network leading to patronage increases in the medium to long term. As such, it will provide a platform for future upgrading of services, including making provisions for potential future standardisation, increased services frequency and electrification.

The project will also improve sub-surface conditions and provide adequate drainage to improve track life and integrity. Improved track structure will allow an increase in maximum train speeds, as well as encourage increased patronage due to reduced travel and delay times and increased passenger comfort.

Speed restrictions associated with track condition will be removed, thereby resulting in a more rapid, reliable service. The economic assessment equates to a net present value of benefits of approximately $61 million and a benefit cost ratio of $1.8 million. Sensitivity testing suggests that the benefit cost ratio could be as high as 2.8 under certain assumptions. This project will reduce passenger and rail worker safety risks by reducing the risk of derailment, track buckling and general hazards. There will also be savings in long-term future investment of around $2 million per annum, which would otherwise be required to maintain the rail infrastructure to an adequate and safe technical standard.

The improved track will also avoid further bids for recurrent infrastructure maintenance, rolling stock maintenance, and fuel cost increases, averaging $1.3 million per annum over the next 25 years. The project will sustainably extend rail infrastructure life to 60 years instead of the current life of 20 to 30 years. There will also be a reduced ecological footprint with a substantial reduction in reliance on river red gum timber for sleepers and a reduction of 6,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions due to the extent of the shift in transport usage from cars to rail.

The project is estimated to cost $121.1 million, and construction will commence in mid-2008. The work on the Belair line is expected to be completed by the end of 2008, and the Noarlunga component will be completed by the end of 2010 or early 2011. Therefore, based upon the evidence that was presented and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee recommends the proposed public work.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:39): I welcome this project and its endorsement by the Public Works Committee. It does not sound very sexy—rail revitalisation, putting in new sleepers and upgrading the track—but it is a first step in what I hope for and to which the member for Norwood alluded: electrification and standardisation of the tracks. One would hope that it is not all that far away, because it needs to happen in Adelaide.

Once the rail lines are standardised, you can then integrate with existing light rail, because the existing Glenelg tram operates on a standard gauge track. With some vision and implementation, you can have an integrated system, which I believe in the long term should be light rail. Light rail can be tram or train, but it is the way of extending services in the future to Aldinga. I also believe that some bold vision is required in providing right rail out to the eastern suburbs, even to areas such as Happy Valley. Trams can easily go up a reasonable incline. There is no engine—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Yes, and they come down even faster than they go up. There is no impediment to having light rail go out to areas such as Happy Valley and Aberfoyle Park. I do not know what is in the budget, obviously, but I would like to see from the government a bold public transport plan, which is genuinely 21^stcentury and which is focused on light rail, whether it be trams or light rail trains.

The public transport system in Adelaide, over time, has grown a bit like topsy. It is not as well integrated as it could or should be. It is unfortunate that, with the upgrade of the Oaklands Park Station (Warradale), it is not part of the nearby shopping centre. We have to blame, I guess, people of years ago for a lack of vision and foresight. Studies show that, if you integrate public transport with shopping centres and shopping areas, patronage will increase substantially. Patronage is increasing at the moment. I come in on the train whenever parliament is sitting and at other times, and patronage is up because, I guess, petrol prices are up.

Apart from the fundamental issue of resleepering these lines and converting them, ultimately, to electrification and standardisation, other things that are needed are improved park and ride facilities at stations. I noticed yesterday that work has commenced at Mitcham station on some upgrading of what I assume are parking areas.

I think that the park and ride facilities need to go a bit further and should follow the Perth model where people can leave their car knowing that it is under surveillance all day. If you think about it, for the cost of, say, a dollar a day—I am sure that most patrons would not mind paying that—if you have 200 cars there all day, that is $200, and that would easily pay for a security guard or for appropriate infrastructure to protect those vehicles.

What we have before us today is a small step; it is an important step. It is over $120 million, so it is not an insignificant amount of money, but I think it is something that needs to happen. I urge the federal Rudd government, which is sitting on a surplus of over $20 billion, to allocate some of that money to Adelaide and South Australia to upgrade our rail system. It will not be inflationary in the short term, because these things take years to do. It will not blow the CPI out of the water, because it will take years to implement a conversion of our rail system to a modern electric standardised system.

You do not have to do every line at once. As is happening with this project, they are doing Belair and then Noarlunga. You do not have to standardise and electrify each line simultaneously; you can do it in stages. It is affordable, but not only is it affordable, it is essential. I commend the government and the minister on this project. He gets a lot of stick, but this is a very positive step forward for public transport in South Australia.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:44): I never let an opportunity go by; if it has anything to do with rail, I will always get on my feet. I certainly welcome this report to the parliament by the Public Works Committee. This is the sort of work that I miss doing on the Public Works Committee, having served on it for the four years previously. I read this report with a lot of interest, and I congratulate the committee and all those who serve on it.

Governments of all persuasions over the last two decades have talked about standardisation of Adelaide's metro rail network, ever since the main interstate railway line was altered from broad gauge to standard gauge. Way back in 1986, the question was: when will we do the rest of South Australia's railway lines, which is mainly the metro lines? Others such as the Gawler-Barossa and Gawler-Kapunda lines were included in that.

The 2007-08 state budget contained the $121 million upgrade to the state's metro rail track, to be undertaken over four years, and I support that—and it is one of the few things that I did support. I hope that the project is underway and that the money has been spent, because the project is over four years and the year has now gone. It has been in the budget a couple of times, and I hope that we have seen some progress there.

I know that the Gawler line is included in the metro rail track, but a question I did ask was whether the Gawler-Barossa line is included as well. Again, members might say, 'Not again,' but one day I would like to see that line included, because that line is still broad gauge, as is the Kapunda line, which is still there and which I understand is still in reasonably good working order. I would be interested to know whether those lines are included, because it does not say anything about it in the report.

I believe it should involve railway lines all over the state. It should include making infrastructure safer and more user friendly, as the report does intimate. We have many bad and dangerous railway crossings, and we have had some frightful tragedies and accidents at railway crossings—and in the Barossa we have had more than our share. Some railway crossings have to become overpasses, as our trains will be travelling faster, will be longer in length and will be more frequent as the public transport modes change, as they will because of the cost of fuel. Every day, we are hearing about that issue.

I think we will all be using public transport a lot more in the future, so we have to make sure that it is user friendly, and we have to make sure that it is safe. I think we have to look at overpasses, even though we know they are very expensive, because it is the only permanent and safe way to do it, particularly when trains are whizzing past at 130 or 140 km/h. You can imagine the damage that is done when you are on the same level as trucks and cars. So, we do have to look at that issue.

Of course, the initial work will not change the gauge in metropolitan Adelaide, which is a bit sad. However, I understand that the extensive ongoing resleepering will be undertaken on the 75 kilometres of new track. These sleepers have a third attachment point to facilitate an easy change of gauge in the near future, and that is good. All they do is come along with a machine to move the rail from one hole to the other; in fact, they bring it in and make it narrower. It will be an easy conversion process. I presume that the sleepers that are being used are the multi-attachment sleeper, which would be the largest cost.

Later on, when we are looking at whether we will electrify the system, we will certainly need to have those type of sleepers as well. So, with whatever work we are doing, as long as we are thinking of the future and we do not waste our money, it will be valuable.

I also note in the report that 17 road level crossings will be upgraded and the bitumen will be replaced by concrete to make it smoother; in other words, there will be no bumps. I certainly welcome that upgrade, particularly because of the noise factor when trucks are going over these crossings. The people who live near these level crossings will certainly be very happy that it will be much quieter.

I also note that nowadays we have the option of running trams on these same lines, and the member for Fisher has just spoken about that issue. I have read lately about new types of tram-trains that can travel on normal standard gauge railway lines. I have previously said in the house that I support trams as being a good way to provide quick and easy public transport, and people like them. However, I do not support the new trams we are operating at the moment. We need to trade them in—sell them to the Victorians; sell them to Melbourne!—and buy these new trams—

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr VENNING: As the member for MacKillop says, they were purchased only because they were the only tram that could be delivered before the last state election, which tells you something. I am sorry, but all the bad thoughts we had about the trams have been proven to be true. They are totally unsatisfactory, and it is sad that we have altered our whole corridor to fit these unsuitable trams. So, the government might as well admit we made a mistake—

Ms CICCARELLO: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask that the member return to the report. The report is about rail sleepering, not about trams.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. While I am prepared to give a certain amount of flexibility to members in their speeches and I am not overly restrictive when it comes to member's remarks, it does need to relate to the report.

Mr PISONI: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, you may not realise it, but the tramline is regularly referred to in the Hansard report. I think the member knows that, and I believe the member has deliberately tried to mislead you on this issue.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member must not say that. If that is the case, I apologise to the member for Schubert, and he may continue his remarks.

Mr VENNING: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that you cannot listen to and know everything; I appreciate that. There is no ill-feeling.

Ms CICCARELLO: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I still think there is a differentiation between sleepers and talking about the replacement of trams. It is totally irrelevant.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will listen to the remarks made by the member for Schubert. I have to admit that I am not intimately familiar with the report, and I will rely on the member for Schubert to stick to the report.

Mr VENNING: In the last few sentences of my remarks I was talking about the resleepering having the third point so that we can move the rail in order to run trains on them. So, we are talking about resleepering, which is quite on the subject. I thank you for your tolerance, Mr Speaker. I think that trams are the future. These lines will have the option of running trains, both passenger and freight, and, indeed, trams.

I would not be at all surprised that when the government announces its budget tomorrow there is some money or some effort in the budget to purchase a new style of tram, which will be called the tram-train multihook. I think that, if the government has any nous at all, it will say, 'Hang on, we made a mistake. We will sell the trams we have to the Victorians, and we will buy new ones, alter the existing track and run these new trams over the whole system'—and the government will be able to do that with the new resleepering program.

So, I am being positive, member for Norwood. If I can, I will always be positive. I think this is the first instalment of a multimillion dollar upgrade. It is going to cost a lot of money to do the rest, but I believe we have to standardise the system. The question is, as always, can we justify the massive amount of money, probably $1 or $2 billion, for the few people who are currently using the public transport system. Well, we probably cannot, but unless we upgrade it and make it more user-friendly, it is a self-perpetuating problem. I think generally we have to say, 'Well, hang on, we'll bite the bullet and we'll do this.'

As I have said before in this house, I support trams as a good way to provide public transport, and I think with these new trams we get flexibility with multi-carriages with one driver; they are wider trams; they are lower; they have more hinges so they allow tight corners; and they look very smart too. I note that the member from Morphett is doing some work on this as well.

I note that the primary objective is to upgrade the track on the Noarlunga line. This could be part of a bold vision, after the upgrade of the track to Gawler and even the Barossa, to extend it beyond Noarlunga, and then we would have a fantastic transport corridor north-south and we could put in connecting services, be they other rail lines, buses, minibuses (including the O-Bahn), or even taxicabs or courier cars to link to it.

I choose to be positive. I commend the Public Works Committee on this report. Let us hope that it is a sign of better things to come.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:54): I think any work that can be done on our rail system should be cheered, and we should be pleased about it. Even Mr Rod Hook, who gave the presentation at the Public Works Committee, said that there has been considerable interest in the shortcomings of our rail network. Mr Hook is very aware of the shortcomings of our rail network, and this project, I suppose, is a late but still welcomed project for the resleepering of the Belair line and the Noarlunga line. It is also interesting that Mr Hook referred to new rolling stock, and he also referred to different forms of powering the network and that this project of concrete sleepering was the precursor before any of that could be done.

I was quite surprised, and I raised with him in the Public Works Committee that at the same time there was a contract out for 7,000 to 8,000 timber sleepers a year to be supplied for the northern line. So, if concrete sleepering is a precursor to the electrification of the rail system then after significant investment in literally tens of thousands of new timber sleepers in the northern line, we can see that electrification at least of the northern line is a very long way away because the life of those sleepers will be 20-odd years or more.

It is also interesting that TransAdelaide and the department of transport do not seem to talk to each other, because Mr Hook denied any responsibility from his point of view for any of the work being done on the northern line because that was TransAdelaide, despite the fact that the Minister for Transport earlier that month had made a statement that Transport SA would be taking over all the responsibilities of rail and tram in South Australia. Mr Hook agreed that that was the case, but that referred only to the transfer of assets of the department, and TransAdelaide would still be responsible for maintenance.

We have a situation where the chief executive officer of Transport SA cannot tell us what TransAdelaide is doing. It is not his responsibility, according to Mr Hook, so it was very hard to get any information about the long-term plans for transport in South Australia under this government. It was very obvious to me—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PISONI: As the member for Finniss interjects, 'There isn't one,' and I think that is very obvious. It is very obvious from this report that, when I asked questions about an overall strategy for expansion of the rail network, electrification of the rail network or public transport in general, I was told, 'Look, I'm not responsible for that. TransAdelaide does maintenance. I do something else. I'm not responsible for new sleepers on the northern line, but I'm responsible for the new sleepers on the southern line and the Belair line.' This is a bizarre situation, and it is no wonder that we have trains derailing, trams not running when it is too hot or too cold, and dress codes being introduced on the trams. We can see the chaos within the department and nothing showed more strongly that chaos than this hearing of the Public Works Committee on the new sleepers on the southern line.

What is also interesting about the way TransAdelaide and Transport SA do not talk to each other is that we were told in the report that we are moving to concrete sleepers because they are more ecologically sustainable. The report states, 'It would reduce the ecological footprint by reducing the impact of human settlements on activities.' That is from the report concerning the installation of concrete sleepers instead of river red gum sleepers sourced from native forests. These are all good things of course. It is good to use concrete sleepers, but the tender documents for the timber sleepers made no mention of a switch because of environmental or ecological concerns, so we have the north of Adelaide using old-fashioned technology and living red gums being cut down for sleepers, and we have the south using concrete sleepers.

The north is being managed by TransAdelaide; the south is being managed by Mr Hook and his department: it is an absolute mess. Then we heard that the train lines will be closed. There will be about a 12-week program for the Belair line and about an 18-month program for the Noarlunga line, and that buses will be brought in to deal with that. Of course, we have a shortage of buses in Adelaide at the moment.

Debate adjourned.