EcoRadio

Category: General news

Managing director of Ebono Institute and major sponsor of The Generator, Geoff Ebbs, is running against Kevin Rudd in the seat of Griffith at the next Federal election. By the expression on their faces in this candid shot it looks like a pretty dull campaign. Read on

  • US Military Build-up against China

    US Military Build-up against China

    By Peter Symonds
    Global Research, August 13, 2012
    World Socialist Web Site August 13, 2012
    Region:
    Theme:
    US Military Build-up against China

    A paper by the Washington think tank, the Centre for Strategic and Independent Studies (CSIS), entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” provides what amounts to a blueprint for the Obama administration’s military preparations for conflict with China.

    While the CSIS is a non-government body, its assessment was commissioned by the US Defense Department, as required by the 2012 National Defense Authorisation Act, giving semi-official status to its findings and proposals. The paper involved extensive discussions with top US military personnel throughout the Pentagon’s Pacific Command. The CSIS report was delivered to the Pentagon on June 27, but gained media coverage only after its principal authors—David Berteau and Michael Green—testified before the US House Armed Services Committee on August 1.

    The report featured prominently in the Australian media, which headlined one of its proposals: to forward base an entire US aircraft carrier battle group at HMAS Stirling, a naval base in Western Australia. If implemented, the recommendation would transform the base, and the nearby city of Perth, into a potential target for Chinese and Russian nuclear missiles. The proposal serves to underscore the far-reaching implications of the CSIS assessment, which is in line with Obama administration’s confrontational “pivot” to Asia, aimed against China.

    The CSIS assessment declares that the underlying US geostrategic objective in the Asia-Pacific region has been to prevent “the rise of any hegemonic state from within the region that could threaten US interests by seeking to obstruct American access or dominate the maritime domain. From that perspective, the most significant problem for the United States in Asia today is China’s rising power, influence, and expectations of regional pre-eminence.” In other words, the prevailing American hegemony in the region must continue.

    The document recognises that military strategy is bound up with economic imperatives. It identifies “trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement” as crucial to “a sustainable trans-Pacific trade architecture that sustains U.S. access and influence in the region.” While declaring that the US “must integrate all of these instruments of national power and not rely excessively on US military capabilities,” it is precisely America’s relative economic decline that is driving the use of military power to maintain its dominance in Asia, as in the Middle East.

    Having identified China as the chief potential rival, the report rules out any repeat of the US containment strategy employed to isolate the Soviet Union during the Cold War—thus pointing to the United States’ economic dependence on China. Significantly, the authors reject a power-sharing arrangement with China, or, as described to the armed services committee, “a bipolar condominium that acknowledges Beijing’s core interests and implicitly divides the region.” This latter conception, in one form or another, is being promoted by some strategic analysts in the US and Australia as the only means of preventing war. The CSIS report rejects any pull back by the US from Asia, which would effectively cede the region to China.

    Having ruled out peaceful alternatives, the CSIS paper sets out a military strategy. The authors do not openly advocate war with China, declaring that “the consequences of conflict with that nation are almost unthinkable and should be avoided to the greatest extent possible, consistent with U.S. interests.” They do not exclude the possibility of conflict in the event that US interests are at stake, however, adding that the ability to “maintain a favourable peace” depends on the perception that the US can prevail in the event of conflict. “U.S. force posture must demonstrate a readiness and capacity to fight and win, even under more challenging circumstances associated with A2AD [anti-access/area denial] and other threats to U.S. military operations in the Western Pacific,” the report states.

    Thus, in the name of peace, the US is preparing for a catastrophic war with China. US strategic planners are especially concerned with China’s so-called A2AD military capacities—the development of sophisticated submarines, missiles and war planes capable of posing a danger to the US navy in the Western Pacific. While the US habitually presents such weaponry as a “threat” to its military, in reality China is defensively responding to the presence of overwhelming American naval power in waters close to the mainland. US naval preponderance in the East China Sea, the South China Sea and key “choke” points such as the Malacca Strait, menaces the shipping lanes from the Middle East and Africa on which China relies for energy and raw materials.

    The CSIS report approves of the repositioning and strengthening of US military forces in the Western Pacific that has accelerated under the Obama administration’s “rebalance” to Asia. This includes: consolidating US bases, troops and military assets in Japan and South Korea; building up US forces on Guam and Northern Mariana Islands, strategically located in the Western Pacific; stationing in Singapore littoral combat ships—relatively small, fast, flexible warships capable of intelligence gathering, special operations and landing troops with armoured vehicles; and making greater use of Australian naval and air bases and positioning 2,500 Marines in the northern city of Darwin. In addition, the paper confirms that the US has held discussions with Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam over possible access to bases and joint training.

    The document also reviews US efforts to strengthen military ties throughout Asia—from India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to Burma, Indonesia and New Zealand—as well as with its formal allies. Significantly, in ranking military contingencies from low to high intensity, it identifies Australia, Japan and South Korea as critical allies “at the higher spectrum of intensity”—in other words, military conflict with China—“with other allies and partners at the lower spectrum of intensity.”

    While broadly dealing with all contingencies, the CSIS assessment is primarily focussed on “high intensity.” Its recommendations involve the further development of military arrangements with South Korea, Japan and Australia, and also between these allies. It recommends the implementation of the latest military agreements with Japan and South Korea. In relation to Japan, the document makes the strategic significance of Okinawa clear. It is “centrally located” between Northeast Asia and maritime Southeast Asia, and “positioned to fight tactically within the A2AD envelope in higher intensity scenarios”—that is, it is crucial in any war with China. The Obama administration has intransigently opposed Japanese government calls to relocate the large US Marine base at Futenma off Okinawa.

    The CSIS document is not the official policy of the Obama administration: its findings are couched as recommendations. It considers all scenarios, including maintaining the status quo and winding back US forces from the Asia Pacific region, neither of which it favours. However, the most ominous aspect of the report deals with a substantial list of steps that could be taken to markedly strengthen the US military throughout the region.

    As well as basing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Western Australia, these include: doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based at Guam; deploying littoral combat ships to South Korea; doubling the size of amphibious forces in Hawaii; permanently basing a bomber squadron on Guam; boosting manned and unmanned surveillance assets in Australia or Guam; upgrading anti-missile defences in Japan, South Korea and Guam; and strengthening US ground forces. While recommending consideration of all these options, the CSIS specifically calls for more attack submarines to be placed at Guam—that is, within easy striking distance of Chinese shipping routes and naval bases.

    Any of these moves will only heighten tensions with China and the danger of an arms race and conflict in the Asia Pacific region. The CSIS assessment points to potential flashpoints, from the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea and the disputed borders between India and China. The report clearly represents the thinking more broadly within the Obama administration, and top US military and intelligence circles that are recklessly preparing and planning for war with China.

  • Gunns announces massive $900m loss

    Gunns announces massive $900m loss

    ABCUpdated August 31, 2012, 9:19 pm

    Tasmanian forest products company Gunns has reported a net loss of $904 million for the past financial year.

    This compares to an almost $356 million loss for the previous 12 months.

    The company blamed the costs associated with a major restructure and the state of the export woodchip market, which forced significant write-downs of forestry assets and its pulp mill project.

    Gunns told the stock exchange that underlying earnings for the period were nearly $30 million, down from nearly $42 million in the previous 12 months.

    It listed its net tangible assets at the end of the year at just over $24 million.

    Gunns also warned that earnings were likely to be materially less for the current financial year.

    The company has been in a trading halt for almost six months, which will continue until it can provide more detail about proposed capital raising.

    Matthrew Torenius from Shadforth Financial Group says the company’s earnings have been hit hard by falling demand for its woodchips.

    “What we’ve seen in a deterioration in the woodchip market, both the combination of the high Aussie dollar and also the supply of woodchips coming out of Australia and other countries have meant prices have really dived,” he said.

  • US report on reasons for no longer supporting Israel

    US report on reasons for no longer supporting Israel

    Published August 29, 2012 | By John James

    • Israel, given its current brutal occupation and belligerence cannot be salvaged any more than apartheid south Africa could be when as late as 1987 Israel was the only “Western” nation that upheld diplomatic ties with South Africa and was the last country to join the international boycott campaign before the regime collapsed;

    • The Israel leadership, with its increasing support of the 700,000 illegal settlers on the occupied West Bank is increasing out of touch with the political, military and economic realities of the Middle East;

    • The post Labor government Likud coalition is deeply complicit with and influenced by the settlers’ political and financial power and will increasingly face domestic civil strife which the US government should not associate itself with or become involved with;

    • The Arab Spring and Islamic Awakening has, to a major degree, freed a large majority of the 1.2 billion Arab and Muslims to pursue what an overwhelming majority believe is the illegitimate, immoral and unsustainable European occupation of Palestine of the indigenous population;

    • Simultaneous with, but predating, rapidly expanding Arab and Muslim power in the region as evidenced by the Arab spring, Islamic Awakening and the ascendancy of Iran, as American power and influence recedes, the US commitment to belligerent oppressive Israel is becoming impossible to defend or execute consistent given paramount US national interests which include normalizing relations with the 57 Islamic countries;

    • Gross Israeli interference in the internal affairs of the United States through spying and illegal US arms transfers. This includes supporting more than 60 ‘front organizations’ and approximately 7,500 US officials who do Israel’s bidding and seek to dominate and intimidate the media and agencies of the US government which should no longer be condoned;

    • That the United States government no longer has the financial resources, or public support to continue funding Israel. The more than three trillion dollars in direct and indirect aid from US taxpayers to Israel since 1967 is not affordable and is increasingly being objected to by US taxpayers who oppose continuing American military involvement in the Middle East. US public opinion no longer supports funding and executing widely perceived illegal US wars on Israel’s behalf. This view is increasingly being shared by Europe, Asia and the International public;

    • Israel’s segregationist occupation infrastructure evidenced by legalized discrimination and increasingly separate and unequal justice systems must no longer be directly or indirectly funded by the US taxpayers or ignored by the US government;

    • Israel has failed as a claimed democratic state and continued American financial and political cover will not change its continuing devolution as international pariah state;

    • Increasingly, rampant and violent racism exhibited among Jewish settlers in the West Bank is being condoned by the Israeli government to a degree that the Israel government has become its protector and partner;

    • The expanding chasm among American Jews objecting to Zionism and Israeli practices, including the killing and brutalizing of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, are gross violations of American and International law and raise questions within the US Jewish community regarding the American responsibility to protect (R2P) innocent civilians under occupation;

    • The international opposition to the increasingly apartheid regime can no longer be synchronized with American claimed humanitarian values or US expectations in its bi-lateral relations with the 193 member United Nations.

    For full report and astonishing list of authors.

    Published August 29, 2012 | By John James

    • Israel, given its current brutal occupation and belligerence cannot be salvaged any more than apartheid south Africa could be when as late as 1987 Israel was the only “Western” nation that upheld diplomatic ties with South Africa and was the last country to join the international boycott campaign before the regime collapsed;

    • The Israel leadership, with its increasing support of the 700,000 illegal settlers on the occupied West Bank is increasing out of touch with the political, military and economic realities of the Middle East;

    • The post Labor government Likud coalition is deeply complicit with and influenced by the settlers’ political and financial power and will increasingly face domestic civil strife which the US government should not associate itself with or become involved with;

    • The Arab Spring and Islamic Awakening has, to a major degree, freed a large majority of the 1.2 billion Arab and Muslims to pursue what an overwhelming majority believe is the illegitimate, immoral and unsustainable European occupation of Palestine of the indigenous population;

    • Simultaneous with, but predating, rapidly expanding Arab and Muslim power in the region as evidenced by the Arab spring, Islamic Awakening and the ascendancy of Iran, as American power and influence recedes, the US commitment to belligerent oppressive Israel is becoming impossible to defend or execute consistent given paramount US national interests which include normalizing relations with the 57 Islamic countries;

    • Gross Israeli interference in the internal affairs of the United States through spying and illegal US arms transfers. This includes supporting more than 60 ‘front organizations’ and approximately 7,500 US officials who do Israel’s bidding and seek to dominate and intimidate the media and agencies of the US government which should no longer be condoned;

    • That the United States government no longer has the financial resources, or public support to continue funding Israel. The more than three trillion dollars in direct and indirect aid from US taxpayers to Israel since 1967 is not affordable and is increasingly being objected to by US taxpayers who oppose continuing American military involvement in the Middle East. US public opinion no longer supports funding and executing widely perceived illegal US wars on Israel’s behalf. This view is increasingly being shared by Europe, Asia and the International public;

    • Israel’s segregationist occupation infrastructure evidenced by legalized discrimination and increasingly separate and unequal justice systems must no longer be directly or indirectly funded by the US taxpayers or ignored by the US government;

    • Israel has failed as a claimed democratic state and continued American financial and political cover will not change its continuing devolution as international pariah state;

    • Increasingly, rampant and violent racism exhibited among Jewish settlers in the West Bank is being condoned by the Israeli government to a degree that the Israel government has become its protector and partner;

    • The expanding chasm among American Jews objecting to Zionism and Israeli practices, including the killing and brutalizing of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, are gross violations of American and International law and raise questions within the US Jewish community regarding the American responsibility to protect (R2P) innocent civilians under occupation;

    • The international opposition to the increasingly apartheid regime can no longer be synchronized with American claimed humanitarian values or US expectations in its bi-lateral relations with the 193 member United Nations.

    For full report and astonishing list of authors.

  • ‘Weird chemistry’ by microbe is prime source of ocean methane

    ‘Weird chemistry’ by microbe is prime source of ocean methane

    Posted: 30 Aug 2012 11:13 AM PDT

    Up to four percent of the methane on Earth comes from the ocean’s oxygen-rich waters, but scientists have been unable to identify the source of this potent greenhouse gas. Now researchers report that they have found the culprit: A bit of “weird chemistry” practiced by the most abundant microbes on the planet.

  • North West railway line, Sydney

    Announced on channel 10 news this evening. A whole row of houses and a newly constructed day centre in a whole street in Cherrybrook will be demolished to accommodate the new proposed North West Rail Line.


    North West railway line, Sydney

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    		 It has been proposed that North West railway line, Sydney be renamed and moved (Discuss).
    For the proposed rapid transit line, see North West Metro.
    North West Rail Link
    CityRailconstruction.png
    Mode Commuter rail
    proposed
    Owner RailCorp
    Connects Epping, Hills Centre, Rouse Hill
    Length 23 km
    Stations 6 planned; 8 possible
    Key dates
    1998 Line announced
    2008 Changed to North West Metro, later cancelled
    2010 Line re-announced
    2014 Start of major tunnelling work
    2019 or 2020 Line opened

    North West Rail Link is a proposal for a heavy rail link to the north-western suburbs of Sydney, Australia. It is proposed to connect Rouse Hill to Epping via Castle Hill. The project is being managed by Transport for New South Wales, an agency of the Government of New South Wales.

    Contents

    [hide]

    [edit] History

    [edit] Original proposal

    The North West Rail Link was originally announced on 23 November 1998 by the then-Transport Minister in the Carr Labor Government, Carl Scully, and was part of an A$2.6 billion package of eight major rail projects due for construction by 2010 dubbed the Action for Transport 2010.[1] At the time, the proposal was for a $360 million heavy rail connection from Epping to Castle Hill, with potential extension to Mungerie Park and Rouse Hill after 2010.

    Delays in 2000 by the Carr Government in releasing a draft report on the proposal led to concern about the viability of the proposed route.[2] This led to a deadlock between the State Government and Baulkham Hills Shire Council regarding construction of the $200 million Mungerie Park industrial and residential development at Kellyville. On 5 June 2000 the Council voted to defer planning approval for the Mungerie Park development until the State Government demonstrated a commitment to improve local transport infrastructure, which included building the North West rail link. In response, the State Government threatened to remove the Council’s planning powers for the Rouse Hill Development Area if planning approval was not granted.[3]

    Member for the then-State electorate of The Hills, Michael Richardson, submitted a Freedom of Information request for the draft report on 3 November 2000. The State Government had not responded to the request by 13 December 2000, well beyond the 21 day response limit, leading to accusations that the Government was trying to hide something.[4] The State Government formally rejected the Freedom of Information request on 9 January 2001, despite acknowledging that release of the report would be in the public interest.[5][6] As a result, the NSW Ombudsman began an investigation into NSW Transport’s refusal to release the report.

    News reports from March 2001 suggested that cost estimates for the Action for Transport 2010 plan had blown out so much that the scope of the plan was now reduced to an Epping to Chatswood rail link due for completion in 2008. The completion date for the Parramatta to Epping section of the original Parramatta to Chatswood link was unspecified, which meant that the North West rail link proposal was effectively deferred indefinitely—it would not be built until the Parramatta to Chatswood link was completed.[7] The Action for Transport 2010 cost blowout was seen as the reason for the State Government’s refusal to release the draft report into the North West rail link route.[8]

    According to Member for The Hills, Michael Richardson, the then-Premier Bob Carr effectively confirmed that the Epping to Castle Hill rail link was dead during a session of Parliament on 27 March 2001 when he refused to answer a specific question about the details of the proposed rail link.[9] There was no mention of the rail link in the 2001 budget, released the week of 30 May.[10]

    A 2002 NSW Treasury report mentioned the North West rail link, and that it was “under development or investigation”, but no estimate of cost or start date were provided.[11] On 10 March 2002, Transport Minister Carl Scully released a report detailing the preferred route alignment.[12] The 19 km (12 mi) route was proposed to run from Epping to Mungerie Park at Rouse Hill via Castle Hill. The cost of construction was estimated at $1.4 billion.

    Public consultation on the proposal was conducted over eight weeks from 10 March to 3 May 2002.[13][14] The consultation received 118 written submissions, 73% of which were in favour of the project proceeding, and only 5% strongly opposed the project.

    On 3 October 2002, the Minister announced a feasibility study for an extension of the proposed route beyond Rouse Hill to meet the existing Richmond Line.[13]

    Various studies in support of the Epping to Castle Hill link were made during 2003; most of this work related to the proposed alignment of the route.[15] It was revealed on 12 August 2003 that Railcorp was considering a new $6 billion rail link that would connect Hornsby with Campbelltown via the Sydney CBD and that the North West rail link could form an extension to this route.[16]

    On 9 June 2005 the State Government announced the Metropolitan Rail Expansion Plan (MREP), an $8 billion plan to add three new railway lines to the CityRail network over the following 15 years. The North West Rail Link was one of the proposed railway lines, the other two being the South West Rail Link and the CBD Rail Link.[17] In 2005 the schedule was revised and a new completion date of 2017 was set.[18]

    In 2006 the construction schedule was revised with a new completion date of 2017. In April 2006, the NSW Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation released the North West Rail Link Project Application and Preliminary Environmental Assessment in support of the planning approval process.[17] On 20 November 2006, the government announced a staged plan for the North West Rail Link with train services to Castle Hill and Hills Centre in 2015, two years ahead of the original completion date of 2017.

    [edit] Cancellation and North West Metro

    In March 2008, the Government changed the project to a metro line dubbed the North West Metro and expanded the line to run all the way to the Sydney CBD via the suburbs of Ryde, Gladesville, Drummoyne and Pyrmont. On 23 October 2008, the NSW Government announced the CBD Metro instead, a shortened version of the North West Metro which would run from Rozelle to Central station, and the project was submitted to Infrastructure Australia for funding. It was announced that North West Metro may be extended to link from Rozelle Station to Epping and Macquarie Park in the future if the CBD Metro was built. Then, on 31 October 2008, the NSW Government announced that the North West Metro would be indefinitely deferred due to budgetary cuts.[19]

    [edit] Resumption of original proposal

    On 21 February 2010, two and a half months after Kristina Keneally had become Premier, the NSW Government revealed the cancellation of the Sydney Metro project in its Metropolitan Transport Plan[20][21] and returned to the North West Rail Link proposal. At the time, construction was anticipated to begin in 2017.

    In August 2010 the State Government applied to Infrastructure Australia for funding to accelerate the delivery of the project, but no funding was granted.[18]

    [edit] 2011 Liberal Government proposal

    Following his victory in the NSW state election on 26 March 2011, newly-elected Premier Barry O’Farrell announced that his first order of business would be to start construction on the North West Rail Link.[22] On 6 April 2011, Premier O’Farrell and newly-installed Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian announced the project team that will be responsible for construction and delivery of the North West Rail Link.[23] It is expected that initial planning and geotechnical investigation of the route corridor will begin by the end of 2011,[24][25] with construction beginning before the 2015 state election. Some doubt these estimates and believe a construction start date in 2017 is more realistic[26].

    [edit] Call for tenders

    On 15 May 2011, Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian announced that a tender had been called for engineering, rail systems and architecture services.[27][28] A tender was called on 6 June 2011 for a financial and commercial services specialist.[29] The tender documents indicate the Government’s desire to appoint a financial adviser to examine the possibility of securing funding from private sources.[30] As of July 2011, the preferred financial model (public-private partnership or otherwise) is unknown, but it is anticipated that the Government will finalise the funding plan by the end of 2011. As of 5 July 2011, no application for federal funding had been made to Infrastructure Australia, despite the need for federal funds for the project to proceed.[31]

    Tenders were called on 10 June 2011 for a range of services including geotechnical work, master planning and urban design, scheduling and planning support, integrated transport and land use services, and legal services.[24][25][32]

    Applications for the first six of twelve tenders closed the week of 8 July 2011 with 44 proposals having been received from a range of Australian and international companies.[33][34] The first six tenders were for financial services, geotechnical investigations, integrated transport and land use studies, scheduling and program support, legal services, and master planning and urban design.[33] As part of the tender process, applicants were asked to demonstrate how they would design station precincts at the Rouse Hill, Samantha Riley Drive and Cudgegong Road sites.[34] The geotechnical information is required to determine the best method of tunnelling through the Hawkesbury sandstone that underlies much of the Sydney basin[25].

    Gladys Berejiklian announced on 14 July 2011 that the first major tender—for design services—had been awarded to a consortium led by AECOM Australia Pty. Ltd.[35][36][37][38] AECOM will be supported by Cox Architects Pty. Ltd., Grimshaw Architects and Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty. Ltd. The consortium will be tasked with investigating route alignment options, rail systems, tunnel design, station locations and infrastructure planning.[36][37] AECOM also lodged applications for the master plan and integrated transport tenders.[38]

    Consulting firm Turner & Townsend were awarded the tender for cost planning services on 22 July 2011.[39][40][41] According to Turner & Townsend, the company’s role will be to “manage the project budget and demonstrate to the taxpayer that they are receiving maximum value for money”.[40]

    [edit] Establishment of Community Information Centre

    On 8 June 2011, Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian announced that the North West Rail Link Community Information Centre would be established on Old Northern Road at Castle Hill.[42] The information centre officially opened on 29 June 2011 and is located opposite the Castle Towers shopping centre on Old Northern Road.[43] In its first fortnight of operation, the information centre received 453 visitors, an average of 35 per day.[44] The Premier Barry O’Farrell announced on Twitter on 28 July 2011 that around 700 people had visited the Centre in its first month of operation.[45]

    [edit] Impasse over Federal funding

    The Federal Government refuses to commit any funding to the North West Rail Link because it favours completion of the Parramatta to Epping section of the Parramatta to Chatswood route.[46] The refusal dates back to a promise made during the 2010 Federal election campaign—on 11 August 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that the Federal Government would fund 80 per cent ($2.1 billion) of the construction of the Parramatta to Epping rail link if it were elected at the Federal election on 21 August 2010,[47][48][49] despite the Prime Minister’s revelation on 16 August 2010 that the plan was not formally approved by the Federal Cabinet before the announcement was made.[50]

    Premier Barry O’Farrell asked Prime Minister Julia Gillard in his first official meeting with her after becoming Premier in April 2011 to divert the Federal funds allocated to the Parramatta to Epping rail link to the North West Rail Link project.[51] Despite this, the Federal Government did not allocate any funds to the North West Rail Link in the 2011 Budget.[52] At least part of the reason for the snub, apart from the Federal Government’s transport priorities, is the fact that the O’Farrell State Government did not submit a project proposal for the North West Rail Link to Infrastructure Australia[53].

    Results of a cost-benefit analysis released in November 2011 indicate that the North West Rail Link will be three times more beneficial to New South Wales than the Federal Government’s preferred Parramatta to Epping extension[54]. The report also indicated that the cost of constructing the Parramatta–Epping line would cost $1.78 billion more than initially expected.

    Infrastructure Australia formally rejected Infrastructure NSW’s request for $2.1 billion in funding in May 2012, saying the project is “not the highest priority” transport project for Sydney. Instead, Infrastructure Australia suggested an expansion of the bus network and better transport links with Parramatta[55]. Infrastructure Australia cited the lack of a completed proposal and lack of information on cost, infrastructure and development as reasons for the rejection[56]. The State Government has vowed to build the line anyway[57][56].

    [edit] 2011-12 State Budget

    The NSW Government allocated $314 million towards the North West Rail Link in the 2011-12 State Budget. $222 million of this will go towards buying land along the proposed route alignment [58]. $2.5 billion was provisionally allocated to the North West Rail Link over the next four years[59].

    [edit] Commencement of geotechnical work

    Coffey Geotechnics supported by AECOM were awarded the tender for geotechnical drilling services in August 2011, and drilling began on 7 September 2011. A drilling rig was set up in a park opposite the Castle Towers shopping centre at Castle Hill, where one of the underground stations will be built[60]. At least 150 boreholes with a diameter of up to 15 centimetres (5.9 in) will be drilled up to 75 metres (246 ft) deep along the proposed alignment between Epping and Rouse Hill in order to develop an understanding of the geological profile[59]. The drilling is anticipated to take about 9 weeks to complete[61].

    [edit] Operation of line

    As of December 2011, the State Government had not ruled out the possibility of contracting the operation, rolling stock and signalling on the North West Rail Link to private operators as part of a public-private partnership[62].

    We are focused on the longer term rail options. It’s got to work as a single network, the whole network, but we are looking at private sector involvement in those as well. And we’ve got an open mind.
    —Les Wielinga, Director-General, Transport NSW

    It is currently unclear, if the line is to be privately operated, how services would integrate with the rest of the CityRail network.

     

    [edit] Skytrain proposal

    It was announced by the Liberal State Government on 13 December 2011 that the line will be proposed as a skytrain line which would allow roads and some houses to remain in place without the need to do zoning work. The proposal also states that the line will be built above ground between Bella Vista and Rouse Hill and the other 19 kilometres of the line would be built underground in tunnels.

    Also, under the proposal it would enable to station around 4000 new car parking facilities. [63]

    [edit] Proposed route

    [edit] Original proposal

    Diagram of the North West Rail Link. The line is marked in black.

    The original North West Rail Link route proposal was planned to be 22 km (14 mi) in length, consisting of a 16 km (9.9 mi) tunnel (underground) section from Epping to the proposed Burns Road Station, followed by a 4 km (2.5 mi) section above ground from Burns Road Station (now Kellyville Station) to Rouse Hill. A train stabling facility was proposed to the north west of Rouse Hill Town Centre. The latest version of the original proposal proposed to connect the North West Rail Link alignment to the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link via a tunnel between Epping and Franklin Road (now Cherrybrook) stations, whereas the earliest version of the original proposal had the route alignment connect with the existing Northern Line north of Cheltenham.[64] The direct route proposed using the stub tunnels originally built for the deferred Parramatta Rail Link between Parramatta and Epping.[64] New stub tunnels for the Parramatta Rail Link were to be constructed so that if the Epping to Parramatta line were completed, trains from Parramatta would have also been able to link into the Epping-Chatswood Line.[64]

    Six new stations were proposed along the North West Rail Link:

    The line was scheduled to open in two stages: the first stage from Epping to Hills Centre Station was scheduled for completion by 2015 (originally 2017), and the second stage from Hills Centre to Rouse Hill Station was scheduled for completion by 2017. Construction was scheduled to begin in 2010. The original proposal called for off-peak rail service of four trains per hour, with six to eight trains per hour in peak periods. The route was expected to carry six to eight million passengers per year.

    The line was originally part of the Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program (MREP) proposed by the Carr Labor Government in 2005.[65] The MREP included the South West Rail Link, North West Rail Link and the CBD Rail Link and was intended to augment transport links between the major new growth and employment areas of the Sydney metropolitan region. The route proposal was abandoned in 2008 by the Iemma Labor Government in favour of the development of a metro-style rapid transit system.[65][66]

    • Original proposed station at Castle Hill

    • Franklin Road station proposal in the original North West Rail Link

    [edit] 2011 proposal

    The route proposal put forward in May 2011 by the State Government is a 23 km (14 mi) route that calls for six new stations, and the possibility of two more at some point in the future.[18][67] The proposed stations are:

    • (connection with existing CityRail system at Epping)
    • Cherrybrook
    • Castle Hill
    • Hills Centre
    • Norwest 1
    • Norwest 2[68]
    • Kellyville (Burns Road)[68]
    • Samantha Riley Drive (possible)
    • Rouse Hill
    • Cudgegong Road (possible)

    The current proposed stations are listed below[69]:

    • (connection with existing CityRail system at Epping)
    • Cherrybrook
    • Castle Hill
    • Hills Centre
    • Norwest
    • Bella Vista
    • Kellyville
    • Rouse Hill
    • Cudgegong Road

    Cherrybrook, Castle Hill, Hills Centre and Norwest stations will be underground, whereas Kellyville and Rouse Hill will be above ground. The twin tunnels between Epping and Kellyville, at 15.5 km (9.6 mi) long,[18] will be the longest rail tunnels in Sydney when they are built.[24] They will also be the deepest tunnels in Sydney: 67 m (220 ft) below ground at the deepest point below the intersection of Pennant Hills Road and Castle Hill Road—deeper than the floor of Sydney harbour (about 50 m (160 ft)), and much deeper than the deepest point of the City Circle tunnels at St James (about 11 m (36 ft)).[70] Most of the tunnel will be bored, although the section at Kellyville will be constructed using cut-and-cover techniques.[70][71] As of December 2011, tunnelling is expected to begin in 2014, subject to planning approval[72].

    A new train stabling yard will be constructed at Tallawong Road in Rouse Hill, with room for 16 trainsets.

    3,000 new parking spaces will be provided across proposed carparks at Cherrybrook, Hills Centre and Kellyville stations.[18]

    [edit] Service frequency

    Services will run seven days per week.[18] A report released in July 2011 indicates that upon opening of the line, four to six trains per hour will connect Rouse Hill station with Chatswood station via Epping.[73][74] Of these, only as few as 2 trains per hour will be able to continue from Chatswood to the CBD due to capacity constraints on the North Shore line.[75]

    [edit] Possible future extensions

    Previously there were long term plans to extend the proposed heavy-rail North West Rail Link to meet the existing Richmond branch of the Western Line near Vineyard.[76] However, the location of the alignments were never finalised and further investigation and studies would have been required.

    Recent State Government documents, dated 13 May 2011, suggest an intention to eventually extend the line to meet the Western Line near Schofields.[67] A Transport Department report dated 9 June 2011 shed more light on such plans, suggesting an extension of the North West Rail Link beyond Rouse Hill to meet the Richmond line at Schofields, Riverstone, or beyond.[77] If the extension is built, it would likely service the planned Sydney Business Park at Marsden Park, and make RAAF Base Richmond a more viable option for a second Sydney airport.

    [edit] Criticism

    • Transport experts suggest that unless a second heavy rail link is built across Sydney Harbour from the North Shore to the CBD, the North West Rail Link will only increase congestion on the existing North Shore Line, which crosses the Sydney Harbour Bridge.[78] That a second harbour crossing is necessary has been known for some time.[12][79][80] This is because the Sydney Harbour Bridge can only accommodate 20 trains per hour, and currently already sees 18 services per hour during peak periods.[75] In addition, it is expected that passenger congestion on existing North Shore line services will increase because CBD-bound passengers on North West Rail Link services that terminate at Chatswood will be forced to transfer to the North Shore line services to continue their journeys.
    • Concern has been expressed that the proposed configuration of the North West Rail Link will not allow eastbound trains coming off the new alignment at Epping to continue south on the existing Northern Line to Strathfield station.[74] This will affect the number of trains per hour that the North West Rail Link can accommodate.
    • E-mails originating within the NSW Treasury by Principal Financial Anlayst, Rodney Forrest to Rail Corporation Manager of Finance, Peter Crimp were released as part of a Parliamentary Standing Order 52 in October 2011 indicating that the North West Rail Link would have to be subsidised by the state government by about $80 per passenger based on predictions of population and passenger volumes in 2021[81][82][83]. Across the CityRail network this equates to about $30 per passenger in 2021, compared to $10 per passenger in 2010. The modelling by NSW Treasury estimates that the North West Rail Link would generate only 9 million new passengers annually, or 2.15% of all CityRail trips. A Hills Shire councillor questioned the size of these estimates based on the projected population increase in the region over the next 8 years[26].

  • PNG MP to stop detention centre

    PNG MP to stop detention centre

    Updated: 15:59, Tuesday August 14, 2012

    A prominent Papua New Guinea politician says he will take legal action to stop Manus Island detention centre being reopened to house asylum seekers.

    National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop, a member of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s coalition government, says a detention centre contradicts PNG’s law and culture.

    ‘You cannot detain people here in PNG – even if they are aliens from outer space – we cannot detain them indefinitely,’ Mr Parkop says.

    ‘That’s the law in PNG. It isn’t in our culture to lock people up without a charge.

    ‘So absolutely I will take legal action. I am a member of this government, but the government must obey the law.’

    Mr Parkop said PNG cannot change its laws to suit a ‘good friend’ like Australia, and worried it would set a legal precedent for detaining people without charge in the 37-year-old democracy.

    ‘I call on both governments to obey the law and … not make a deal for conveniences sake.’

    Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on Tuesday asylum seekers could begin arriving in Nauru and PNG within a month, after her government agreed to an expert panel’s recommendation to reopen detention facilities in both nations.

    Ms Gillard said the defence force told her it can construct temporary facilities in both locations while the main centres are being reopened.

    ‘That means that within a month we would hope to see people being processed in Nauru and in PNG,’ she told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.

    ‘That’s clearly subject to the work of the recon teams that could go as early as Friday.’

    Mr O’Neill said in a statement on Monday he welcomed the reopening of the centre.

    Updated: 15:59, Tuesday August 14, 2012

    A prominent Papua New Guinea politician says he will take legal action to stop Manus Island detention centre being reopened to house asylum seekers.

    National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop, a member of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s coalition government, says a detention centre contradicts PNG’s law and culture.

    ‘You cannot detain people here in PNG – even if they are aliens from outer space – we cannot detain them indefinitely,’ Mr Parkop says.

    ‘That’s the law in PNG. It isn’t in our culture to lock people up without a charge.

    ‘So absolutely I will take legal action. I am a member of this government, but the government must obey the law.’

    Mr Parkop said PNG cannot change its laws to suit a ‘good friend’ like Australia, and worried it would set a legal precedent for detaining people without charge in the 37-year-old democracy.

    ‘I call on both governments to obey the law and … not make a deal for conveniences sake.’

    Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on Tuesday asylum seekers could begin arriving in Nauru and PNG within a month, after her government agreed to an expert panel’s recommendation to reopen detention facilities in both nations.

    Ms Gillard said the defence force told her it can construct temporary facilities in both locations while the main centres are being reopened.

    ‘That means that within a month we would hope to see people being processed in Nauru and in PNG,’ she told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.

    ‘That’s clearly subject to the work of the recon teams that could go as early as Friday.’

    Mr O’Neill said in a statement on Monday he welcomed the reopening of the centre.