Plans to duplicate the single rail line into Port Botany have generated a generally positive response from industry stakeholders. But while there has been widespread support, others have questioned whether such a project is even necessary.
The Opposition Australian Labor Party has pledged $175m to duplicating the rail line should it be elected to office at the July 2 federal election.
According to Labor infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese, the money would “unclog freight rail bottlenecks” which were costing jobs across Sydney.
“Australia’s economic prosperity is tied to our ability to minimise bottlenecks in the logistics chain and Port Botany is vital to that,” Mr Albanese said.
“Labor understands this and will invest in the infrastructure needed to create jobs and boost operations at this important trade hub.
“As a main gateway for container freight, unclogging Port Botany is a priority project for the future of Sydney industries, and central to boosting employment in the industry.”
Mr Albanese said duplicating rail would free up the movement of goods for exporters and importers, reducing logistics costs and boosting capacity.
“Sydney’s freight task is growing, with Sydney Ports predicting a growth rate of five to seven per cent each year at Port Botany,” he said.
“The more freight that travels by rail, the less congested the roads around Port Botany, including the M5, will be. Only about 14% of containers that arrive at the Port are currently carried by rail.”
The plans outlined by Labor resemble those of the New South Wales state Liberal Government led by Mike Baird which has talked of doubling rail mode share by 2020. Duncan Gay, the NSW Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, previously vowed to duplicate these rail links during the Australian Logistics Council Forum 2016, held in Sydney in March this year. He told the forum he was “determined” to duplicate the line.
Following Mr Albanese’s announcement, Australian Logistics Council managing director Michael Kilgariff said duplicating the Port Botany rail line would improve the overall efficiency of Sydney’s freight supply chains.
“ALC also supports the Opposition’s commitment to provide funds for a crossing loop at Warwick Farm in Sydney’s West.
“Getting more freight on to rail in Sydney is critical to addressing Sydney’s rising congestion issues and will support the NSW Government’s vision to double the amount of freight moving to and from Port Botany by rail, which currently sits at around 16% and NSW Ports’ target to move 3 million TEU by rail over the longer term,” he said.
“Improving rail connections are also fundamental to meeting expected container growth at Port Botany, where volumes are expected to triple over the next 30 years.
“An efficient rail freight connection to Botany will also underpin improved efficiencies in the supply chain which a number of planned intermodal facilities in Sydney will help to deliver.”
Mr Kilgariff said there had been progress during the past year to develop several intermodal projects in Sydney, helping transform how freight moves to and from Port Botany.
These included the Qube/Aurizon Moorebank Intermodal Terminal project, the proposed Asciano ‘constellation hub’ strategy, a proposal by DP World and Toll to connect a container staging zone at Port Botany to a Villawood intermodal freight terminal and the recent start of operations at NSW Ports’ Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre by Aurizon.
“Ensuring there is appropriate capacity on the Port Botany rail freight line is critical to maximising the economic potential of these major logistics projects,” he said.
Mr Kilgariff said improving rail access to major Australian ports, as well as their linkages with key inland intermodal facilities, was one of the key recommendations from the recent ALC Annual Forum.
“I encourage both major political parties in this election campaign to continue prioritising funding for major logistics projects such as this and for the Government to match the Opposition’s funding commitment for the Port Botany rail line upgrade,” he said.
“With an ALC report finding a 1% percent improvement in our supply chains would boost Australia’s national GDP by $2 billion, ongoing support for major infrastructure projects are critical to supporting jobs, improving our economy and boosting Australia’s international competitiveness,” he said.
He concluded by acknowledging that the funding is subject to an Infrastructure Australia assessment of the business case, and noted that the project is already identified by Infrastructure Australia as ‘high-priority’.
Also welcoming the Labor announcement was NSW Ports, whose chief executive Marika Calfas said completing the freight rail line duplication would improve the reliability and efficiency of rail.
“Growing the movement of containers by rail is vital to securing an efficient and sustainable transport system to meet the State’s growing trade needs into the future” Ms Calfas said.
“Taking trucks off the roads around the Port is good for the people and businesses of New South Wales and will assist in lowering the cost of transporting goods to and from the Port.”
She said the start of rail operations by Aurizon at the Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre (ILC) at the beginning of May provided a platform for future growth and development and also paved the way for the introduction of port shuttles between Port Botany and the Enfield ILC.
However, a research paper released late last year argued that, rather than needing more rail, the existing Port Botany line was simply under-used.
Daniel Guimarans from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and NICTA Optimisation Research Group and Daniel Harabor, also from NICTA Optimisation Research Group, together with Pascal Van Hentenryck from University of Michigan, argued that, “contrary to conventional wisdom, our findings indicate that current rail resources appear distinctly under-utilised”.
According to the authors, their report examined the efficacy of rail at Port Botany and inside the 20km Enfield- Botany rail corridor with the objective of evaluating rail performance in and around the waterfront and investigating the peak rail capacity of current and proposed infrastructure.
“We found that Botany Yard and its associated stevedore terminals appear to be distinctly under-utilised. Particular problems that we identified include under-utilised trains, unproductive staging practices, and peak-hour congestion stemming from poor train scheduling and unbalanced allocation of rail resources,” the authors noted.
“We found that, under a set of ideal (but not unrealistic) operating conditions, the peak capacity of rail at Port Botany is 1.780m TEU per annum.
“This result is achieved through operational changes only and is significantly higher than previously reported estimates which assume costly investment in additional infrastructure.
“We also investigated the potential of such investments including: the duplication of the Mascot-Botany line, the extension of rail sidings at the DP World rail terminal and replacing Port Botany’s existing on-dock rail terminals with a single on-dock centralised facility.
“In each instance, we found that new infrastructure is either not necessary or that investment can be deferred in favour of changes to operational practices.”
Recommended changes included:
- Replacing fixed servicing windows by dynamic train scheduling;
- Staging trains at the Enfield Marshalling Yard instead of Botany Yard;
- Replacing non-dedicated non-standard metro/regional track with dedicated and standard 650 metre trains;
- The introduction of a minimum take utilisation policy preventing low-volume trains from accessing the port.
“Our work focused only on the operational aspects of rail. We have not evaluated the economic impact of our results nor attempted to construct any cost model,” the authors wrote.
“Our results do show however that Port Botany is well positioned and adequately equipped to achieve the NSW State Government’s stated rail mode share targets for the year 2020 and beyond.
“The key to unlocking the potential of Port Botany over the next decade and beyond lies not in new infrastructure but better utilisation of existing rail resources.
“These findings run contrary to conventional wisdom within the port community, and industry media, which purports that Port Botany suffers from limited rail resources and requires additional investment in new infrastructure.”
The authors noted Port Botany is Australia’s second largest container port, handling about a third of the nation’s maritime container trade.
During 2011-12, total volumes at the port topped two million TEU equivalents, with 86% of all containers moved by road and the remaining 14% transported by rail.
Container volumes are expected to rise each year over the next decade reaching 3.6m TEU by 2020, five million TEU by 2025 and more than seven million by 2031.
Additionally, one third-party industry executive separately commented to Lloyd’s List Australia, on condition of anonymity, that another reason that rail is under-used at Botany is because there is double-handling of containers from the wharf to the train.
An examination of the port shows that on the more northerly of the two terminals, the rail-line at Port Botany runs parallel to the wharf, while on the southerly of the two it runs along the landside-end of the terminal. In neither case does it run on the terminal. And that means that once a container has been unloaded from the ship onto the wharf, it then has to be re-handled by being taken out of the automated area and then physically moved by fork-lift to the waiting block train.
The source added that no-one has any incentive to address this flaw.
This article originally appeared in the print edition of Rail Express affiliate Lloyd’s List Australia, dated May 26, 2016