-309-
IX
OPTIONS WHICH HAVE NOW LAPSED
1. OPPORTUNITIES TO INFLUENCE THE RAIL SHARE
1.1 The Port Botany Development
The chronology of the Port Botany development
is as follows:
is as follows:
- In March 1969 the New South Wales
Government approved in principle the
construction of a port at Botany.
- In 1971 a contract was awarded for the
dredging and reclamation of part of
Botany Bay.
- In March 1974 the Maritime Services
Board invited applications to lease
the container terminals.
- The Australian National Line executed
an Agreement for Lease on 15.12.75.
- The Simblist Inquiry (the Botany Bay
Port and Environment Inquiry) reported
to the Government in November, 1976.
- CTAL executed an Agreement for lease
in respect of the southern terminal on
9.2.78.
- Development approval was given to the
Australian National Line by the planning
and Environment Commission on 16.2.78.
- The Australian National Line terminal
was opened by the premier on 10.12.79
and commenced operations on 10.3.80.
- The completion of the CTAL terminal is
expected by mid-1981.
-310-
By the early 1970's Mort Bay was already a problem.
Containerisation was gathering momentum. The
adverse public reaction to the road transportation
of containers was beginning to become obvious.
To what extent were Government bodies presented
with opportunities to calm the gathering storm?
To what extent is the dispute which is the subject
of this Report (the free market case versus the
case for regulation) the result of having permitted
options to lapse?
with opportunities to calm the gathering storm?
To what extent is the dispute which is the subject
of this Report (the free market case versus the
case for regulation) the result of having permitted
options to lapse?
1.2 The Maritime Services Board Lease Agreements
Lease agreements are simply contracts which regulate
the basis upon which a party is permitted by another
to occupy certain land. The Maritime Services Board
is the statutory owner of the reclaimed land upon
which the container terminals have been constructed.
It negotiated an Agreement for Lease with ANL and
CTAL.
the basis upon which a party is permitted by another
to occupy certain land. The Maritime Services Board
is the statutory owner of the reclaimed land upon
which the container terminals have been constructed.
It negotiated an Agreement for Lease with ANL and
CTAL.
Was it in a position to demand stringent conditions
from the terminal operators? It is clear the
Australian National Line had no real alternative
than to establish at Botany Bay. Mort Bay was quite
unsatisfactory, and the Line was forced to split its
operation between that terminal and the Glebe Island
facility. The following was put to the Board (328):
from the terminal operators? It is clear the
Australian National Line had no real alternative
than to establish at Botany Bay. Mort Bay was quite
unsatisfactory, and the Line was forced to split its
operation between that terminal and the Glebe Island
facility. The following was put to the Board (328):
"COMMISSIONER: Was it a
seller's market
when the lease was being negotiated with
ANL?
when the lease was being negotiated with
ANL?
SILVA: I suppose
its fair to say as far
as ANL (is concerned) it certainly wanted
to get (into Botany) in fact ANL approached
the Board quite some time before this
regarding the problems of Mort Bay and
getting out of Mort Bay. As far as the Board
is concerned I suggest yes.. So when you asked
me was it a seller’s market I suppose in some
sense that it was. What I’m saying is we had
two companies (ANL and Seatainer Terminals Ltd.)
who were each after the best thing that was
available (i.e., the northern container berth).”
as ANL (is concerned) it certainly wanted
to get (into Botany) in fact ANL approached
the Board quite some time before this
regarding the problems of Mort Bay and
getting out of Mort Bay. As far as the Board
is concerned I suggest yes.. So when you asked
me was it a seller’s market I suppose in some
sense that it was. What I’m saying is we had
two companies (ANL and Seatainer Terminals Ltd.)
who were each after the best thing that was
available (i.e., the northern container berth).”
328.
Transcript Maritime Services Board (Day 2)
16/4/80, page 66-68.
16/4/80, page 66-68.
-311-
Was it open to the Board to include a condition
in the lease embodying a Government policy?
Clearly it was. The Board inserted a condition
that neither terminal operator should be permitted
to establish an LCL depot at the port. That was
then a matter of Government policy. In the
Inquiry's view the Board could have regulated the
mode split by an appropriate condition. The
condition might have stipulated that containers
destined for the Western zone should be carried
by rail to a decentralised depot within that zone.
in the lease embodying a Government policy?
Clearly it was. The Board inserted a condition
that neither terminal operator should be permitted
to establish an LCL depot at the port. That was
then a matter of Government policy. In the
Inquiry's view the Board could have regulated the
mode split by an appropriate condition. The
condition might have stipulated that containers
destined for the Western zone should be carried
by rail to a decentralised depot within that zone.
Was it reasonably foreseeable that, unless action
were taken by the Board, a confrontation would
develop in the way we have witnessed in the course
of this Inquiry? In the Inquiry’s view it was not.
The following question was put to the Board:
were taken by the Board, a confrontation would
develop in the way we have witnessed in the course
of this Inquiry? In the Inquiry’s view it was not.
The following question was put to the Board:
"COMMISSIONER: My real
question is this:
To what extent did the authorities involved,
including the MSB, see that container trucks,
as such, would be a problem. That's the
first point. The second point is, to what
extent did the MSB see that sending containers
by rail may be a solution to that problem?
To what extent did the authorities involved,
including the MSB, see that container trucks,
as such, would be a problem. That's the
first point. The second point is, to what
extent did the MSB see that sending containers
by rail may be a solution to that problem?
SILVA: Probably
it is fair to say we didn’t
our view was and always has been that from
our point of view, the way that cargo should
be handled should be the most economical and
acceptable manner.”
our view was and always has been that from
our point of view, the way that cargo should
be handled should be the most economical and
acceptable manner.”
We do not criticise the Maritime Services Board in
respect of its failure to insist upon a condition
requiring a certain proportion of containers to
go by rail. It is important to view that matter
through the eyes of the Board at the time the
decisions were taken. We do not doubt that in 1974
the Board was conscious of the public reaction to
container traffic. It should be remembered that in
Sydney containerisation was then barely five years
old. It was widely believed that a freeway would be
constructed along the Cook's River Valley, and would
be completed by the time the port opened, or soon
thereafter. The Board could certainly not have
respect of its failure to insist upon a condition
requiring a certain proportion of containers to
go by rail. It is important to view that matter
through the eyes of the Board at the time the
decisions were taken. We do not doubt that in 1974
the Board was conscious of the public reaction to
container traffic. It should be remembered that in
Sydney containerisation was then barely five years
old. It was widely believed that a freeway would be
constructed along the Cook's River Valley, and would
be completed by the time the port opened, or soon
thereafter. The Board could certainly not have
-312-
foreseen the difficulties which the Kyeemagh/
Chullora Road has encountered, both in design
and in its reception by the community.
Chullora Road has encountered, both in design
and in its reception by the community.
The terminal operators insisted, before this Inquiry
and elsewhere, that they had no power to require
containers to be transported in this way or that.
The matter, so it was said, was entirely one for
the importer or exporter: it was out of their
hands. We have rejected that view (329). It was
out of their hands because they chose not to bring
it within their control.
and elsewhere, that they had no power to require
containers to be transported in this way or that.
The matter, so it was said, was entirely one for
the importer or exporter: it was out of their
hands. We have rejected that view (329). It was
out of their hands because they chose not to bring
it within their control.
We hasten to add that terminal operators were not
engaged in deception. Nowhere in Australia (or,
for that matter, the world), do terminal operators
insist upon the right to determine the way in
which a container is transported.
engaged in deception. Nowhere in Australia (or,
for that matter, the world), do terminal operators
insist upon the right to determine the way in
which a container is transported.
In 1974 when the leases were executed it would have
been bold indeed for the Maritime Services Board to
have negotiated such a condition. It would have
taken a degree of perspicacity one cannot reasonably
expect.
been bold indeed for the Maritime Services Board to
have negotiated such a condition. It would have
taken a degree of perspicacity one cannot reasonably
expect.
We raise the matter simply because the issue may
present itself again. The Board should be conscious
of the power it has when negotiating a lease, to
insist upon conditions which will adequately protect
the environment or advantage other Government
instrumentalities.
present itself again. The Board should be conscious
of the power it has when negotiating a lease, to
insist upon conditions which will adequately protect
the environment or advantage other Government
instrumentalities.
1.3 Planning Enquiries
Statements have been made by the terminal operators
which betrayed a certain expectation, on their part,
that planning permission would be subject to certain
conditions designed to preserve the environment. The
terminal Manager of the Australian National Line,
Mr. Alty, made the following statement to the Simblist
Inquiry (330):
which betrayed a certain expectation, on their part,
that planning permission would be subject to certain
conditions designed to preserve the environment. The
terminal Manager of the Australian National Line,
Mr. Alty, made the following statement to the Simblist
Inquiry (330):
329. See
pages 59-61.
330. Transcript Botany Bay Port & Environment
Inquiry, 7/10/76, page 12.
330. Transcript Botany Bay Port & Environment
Inquiry, 7/10/76, page 12.
-313-
"MR. ALTY: ..We believe
the argument
that a container terminal should exist
at Botany Bay, and that it is both
necessary and urgent, is irrefutable.
I think perhaps some of our most eloquent
adversaries on this matter agree with
that. So one may suggest that what it
boils down to as far as this Inquiry is
concerned, is under what terms and
conditions will you allow us to operate."
(emphasis added)
that a container terminal should exist
at Botany Bay, and that it is both
necessary and urgent, is irrefutable.
I think perhaps some of our most eloquent
adversaries on this matter agree with
that. So one may suggest that what it
boils down to as far as this Inquiry is
concerned, is under what terms and
conditions will you allow us to operate."
(emphasis added)
Later Mr. Alty had this to say (331):
"The conditions which
are imposed upon us
in that operation whether it be restricted
hours or restricted modes of transport or
whatever, we believe will cause an additional
cost, and it will be an additional cost
the people of Sydney and New South Wales
will bear rather than the terminal operators
who are unable to absorb such costs."
in that operation whether it be restricted
hours or restricted modes of transport or
whatever, we believe will cause an additional
cost, and it will be an additional cost
the people of Sydney and New South Wales
will bear rather than the terminal operators
who are unable to absorb such costs."
(emphasis added)
The Simblist Inquiry recommended that the terminal
operators should be compelled to accept a higher
rail share. It suggested a 50% share.
operators should be compelled to accept a higher
rail share. It suggested a 50% share.
There was a further opportunity to implement the
Government policy when planning permission was
given. The following was put to the Australian
National Line by this Inquiry (332):
Government policy when planning permission was
given. The following was put to the Australian
National Line by this Inquiry (332):
"COMMISSIONER: Now I
appreciate that in this
case it wasn’t done at the leasing stage, it
wasn’t done in the S.P.C.C. Inquiry stage
and although certain things were recommended
in the Simblist Inquiry, they were in the
nature of general recommendations without a
specific modus operandi.. That if conditions
had actually been attached to the development
of Port Botany, presumably the various
terminal operators would have accommodated
themselves to that. Is that not right?
case it wasn’t done at the leasing stage, it
wasn’t done in the S.P.C.C. Inquiry stage
and although certain things were recommended
in the Simblist Inquiry, they were in the
nature of general recommendations without a
specific modus operandi.. That if conditions
had actually been attached to the development
of Port Botany, presumably the various
terminal operators would have accommodated
themselves to that. Is that not right?
BRYANS: Yes I
think that's a fair statement
to make Mr. Commissioner, but you must realise
our point of view at that time, was for general
recommendations, there was certainly no likeli-
hood of any mandatory conditions being imposed
on us and...
to make Mr. Commissioner, but you must realise
our point of view at that time, was for general
recommendations, there was certainly no likeli-
hood of any mandatory conditions being imposed
on us and...
331.
Transcript ibid., page 13.
332. Transcript ANL 14.4.80, page 23.
332. Transcript ANL 14.4.80, page 23.
-314-
COMMISSIONER: Just on
that point, the
Simblist Inquiry does say "That the rail
share should be increased to 50%, if need
be by compulsion." It does actually use
those words, again, as I say, it doesn't
really spell out what has to be done..."
Simblist Inquiry does say "That the rail
share should be increased to 50%, if need
be by compulsion." It does actually use
those words, again, as I say, it doesn't
really spell out what has to be done..."
Planning permission was given to the Australian
National Line without an attempt, by means of
conditions, to regulate the rail share. The Australian
National Line thereafter altered its plans to install
four rail sidings in the terminal. Instead it chose
to install two (333).
National Line without an attempt, by means of
conditions, to regulate the rail share. The Australian
National Line thereafter altered its plans to install
four rail sidings in the terminal. Instead it chose
to install two (333).
The S.P.C.C. had the unenviable task of conducting
an Inquiry into the application by CTAL for planning
permission. It could hardly impose conditions upon
the CTAL terminal which had not been imposed upon
ANL. In a painstaking report it was painfully aware
of the environmental implications. It contemplated
the possibility of a scheme such as that recommended
by this Inquiry. It said (334):
an Inquiry into the application by CTAL for planning
permission. It could hardly impose conditions upon
the CTAL terminal which had not been imposed upon
ANL. In a painstaking report it was painfully aware
of the environmental implications. It contemplated
the possibility of a scheme such as that recommended
by this Inquiry. It said (334):
"However, the extent that
container vehicles
as an identifiable group of vehicles do
contribute to environmental problems of
traffic, it is considered an urgent need
now exists for an evaluation of future
likely container movements by road and
rail throughout the Sydney region.
Objectives of such a study would be to
rationalise container vehicle movement...
Consideration should be given to the move-
ment of containers by rail, including FCL
containers, to strategically located depots
for collection, ensuring a minimum of move-
ment_by road."
as an identifiable group of vehicles do
contribute to environmental problems of
traffic, it is considered an urgent need
now exists for an evaluation of future
likely container movements by road and
rail throughout the Sydney region.
Objectives of such a study would be to
rationalise container vehicle movement...
Consideration should be given to the move-
ment of containers by rail, including FCL
containers, to strategically located depots
for collection, ensuring a minimum of move-
ment_by road."
(emphasis added)
This passage is important because it emphasises the
paucity of information available even in mid-1979.
paucity of information available even in mid-1979.
It would be quite unfair in these circumstances to
criticise the Planning and Environment Commission
in 1978 for failing to attach a condition to the
criticise the Planning and Environment Commission
in 1978 for failing to attach a condition to the
333. See
Transcript ANL, ibid., page 19.
334. S.P.C.C. Report on the CTAL application
dated July, 1979, page 34.
334. S.P.C.C. Report on the CTAL application
dated July, 1979, page 34.
-315-
planning instrument of the Australian National
Line. It may have suspected, at that time, that
a condition requiring a certain rail share was
warranted and was desirable. Without intensive
study of the sort undertaken by this Inquiry (and
before this Inquiry by STSG) that suspicion
could not be transformed into a firm conviction.
Line. It may have suspected, at that time, that
a condition requiring a certain rail share was
warranted and was desirable. Without intensive
study of the sort undertaken by this Inquiry (and
before this Inquiry by STSG) that suspicion
could not be transformed into a firm conviction.
It is appropriate in this context that we should
remark upon the evaluation by STSG. We have
referred on many occasions in this Report to the
work of the Study Group. It has proved invaluable
in this Inquiry. We have suggested that a number
of matters should be tested in the field and reviewed
in the light of experience. We are firmly of the
view that further survey work should be carried out
by STSG building on the Port survey of 1978 and the
depot survey of 1979.
remark upon the evaluation by STSG. We have
referred on many occasions in this Report to the
work of the Study Group. It has proved invaluable
in this Inquiry. We have suggested that a number
of matters should be tested in the field and reviewed
in the light of experience. We are firmly of the
view that further survey work should be carried out
by STSG building on the Port survey of 1978 and the
depot survey of 1979.
2. THE DESIGN OF THE BOTANY TERMINALS
2.1 The Issues
There are two issues which must be examined:
- First, whether, in the design of the
Botany terminals, rail has been
disadvantaged.
- Secondly, whether it was open to the
Government, through the intervention
of the Board, to advantage rail and
ensure the maximum rail share.
2.2 The Attitude of the State Rail Authority to Matters
of Terminal Design
of Terminal Design
The Authority outlines its attitude in the following
passage (335):
passage (335):
335. S.K/C
208, PTC (Now State Rail Authority)
Submission, letter 24.7.80.
Submission, letter 24.7.80.
-316-
"The Commission's (now S.R.A.)
involve-
ment as to location and number of
sidings in the terminals was limited
as they are basically private sidings.
Private sidings are generally designed
and constructed by the owners and the
Commission only checks for structural
adequacy and operational feasibility...
The number of sidings is determined by
the owners to suit their own requirements.”
ment as to location and number of
sidings in the terminals was limited
as they are basically private sidings.
Private sidings are generally designed
and constructed by the owners and the
Commission only checks for structural
adequacy and operational feasibility...
The number of sidings is determined by
the owners to suit their own requirements.”
The same was said even more starkly at the public
hearing (336):
hearing (336):
"FENNELL: We had no say in the
number
of tracks because basically our involve-
ment with those terminals stops at their
entrance. What they do inside their
entrance is up to them, the number of
sidings they put in, the length of the
sidings and where they locate them.”
of tracks because basically our involve-
ment with those terminals stops at their
entrance. What they do inside their
entrance is up to them, the number of
sidings they put in, the length of the
sidings and where they locate them.”
(emphasis added)
It would appear that the Australian National Line
takes the same view. Its submission reads in part (337):
takes the same view. Its submission reads in part (337):
"The technical details of the
siding radii
of curves and length were in fact discussed
with the P.T.C., however, in respect of
location, the Line believes that as an
experienced terminal operator and developer,
that it is best suited to determine the
location of the siding inside the terminal
compatible with the operation."
of curves and length were in fact discussed
with the P.T.C., however, in respect of
location, the Line believes that as an
experienced terminal operator and developer,
that it is best suited to determine the
location of the siding inside the terminal
compatible with the operation."
The approach of the State Rail Authority is wrong
in principle. It should concern itself with the
design, length and location of sidings within the
terminal, to ensure that it is not disadvantaged
(and to seek an advantage if one is reasonably
open). We are not suggesting that the State Rail
Authority should impose its will upon the terminal
operators, oblivious to their needs. Obviously they
cannot. It is a matter for careful negotiation and
ultimately compromise. Clearly it should not
passively stand by and accept a situation which will
impede its performance and discourage the use of rail.
in principle. It should concern itself with the
design, length and location of sidings within the
terminal, to ensure that it is not disadvantaged
(and to seek an advantage if one is reasonably
open). We are not suggesting that the State Rail
Authority should impose its will upon the terminal
operators, oblivious to their needs. Obviously they
cannot. It is a matter for careful negotiation and
ultimately compromise. Clearly it should not
passively stand by and accept a situation which will
impede its performance and discourage the use of rail.
336. Transcript
P.T.C. (now S.R.A.) 7.11.79, page 19.
337. Submission S.K/C 1422. ANL letter 27.12.79,
page 4.
337. Submission S.K/C 1422. ANL letter 27.12.79,
page 4.
-317-
2.3 The Involvement of the Maritime Services Board.
A number of suggestions were made in the course of
the public hearings against the Board. First, it
was suggested that there was a failure on the part
of the Board to consult the interests of the Rail
Authority on important matters effecting the design
of the sidings. Secondly, there was a faint
suggestion that the Board ignored the best
interests of the Authority.
the public hearings against the Board. First, it
was suggested that there was a failure on the part
of the Board to consult the interests of the Rail
Authority on important matters effecting the design
of the sidings. Secondly, there was a faint
suggestion that the Board ignored the best
interests of the Authority.
We reject these suggestions. The Maritime Services
Board was not the only party involved in the Botany
Bay development, although the development was
primarily its responsibility. Other Government
Departments were involved from the outset, including
the State Rail Authority (then the Department of
Railways and later the P.T.C.). The Board directed
the terminal operators to discuss questions relating
to the sidings with the State Rail Authority. They
did so. The State Rail Authority thereafter executed
agreements with the terminal operators.
Board was not the only party involved in the Botany
Bay development, although the development was
primarily its responsibility. Other Government
Departments were involved from the outset, including
the State Rail Authority (then the Department of
Railways and later the P.T.C.). The Board directed
the terminal operators to discuss questions relating
to the sidings with the State Rail Authority. They
did so. The State Rail Authority thereafter executed
agreements with the terminal operators.
There is no evidence to justify the suggestion that
matters were drawn to the attention of the Board,
affecting the vital interests of the State Rail
Authority, which the Board then refused to act upon,
even though, as the leasing authority, it had the
power to regulate matters affecting the terminal.
Indeed, the evidence is all the other way. It is
plain from the State Rail Authority's approach that
matters of design within the terminal were not
thought to be the concern of the Authority,
matters were drawn to the attention of the Board,
affecting the vital interests of the State Rail
Authority, which the Board then refused to act upon,
even though, as the leasing authority, it had the
power to regulate matters affecting the terminal.
Indeed, the evidence is all the other way. It is
plain from the State Rail Authority's approach that
matters of design within the terminal were not
thought to be the concern of the Authority,
Having said that, we think it obviously important
that the Maritime Services Board should be alert to
the possibility of advantaging rail wherever possible.
that the Maritime Services Board should be alert to
the possibility of advantaging rail wherever possible.
2.4 Has Rail Been Disadvantaged?
2.4.1 Introduction
There were three suggested disadvantages:
-318-
- the CTAL siding was not sufficiently
long
- provision has not been made for what
is known as a train-run-around in the
CTAL terminal
- the location of the sidings in both
terminals
We will examine each of these suggestions.
2.4.2 The Length of the CTAL Siding
Describing the Freightliner operation in the United
Kingdom the following is said (338):
"Not surprisingly, the size of
the train
operated has a more significant effect
than the length of haul on unit costs
for the purely rail element...”
operated has a more significant effect
than the length of haul on unit costs
for the purely rail element...”
Reproduced in the same book is a diagram (339) which
depicts (by means of a graph) the unit cost where ten
waggons, fifteen waggons and twenty waggons are hauled.
There is a large saving by increasing the haul from
ten waggons to fifteen waggons. There is a further
small but significant saving where twenty waggons
are used.
depicts (by means of a graph) the unit cost where ten
waggons, fifteen waggons and twenty waggons are hauled.
There is a large saving by increasing the haul from
ten waggons to fifteen waggons. There is a further
small but significant saving where twenty waggons
are used.
It is clear from the evidence that the CTAL sidings
were designed for fifteen waggons, although they may,
at a pinch, take as many as seventeen waggons (340).
In evidence the following was said (341):
at a pinch, take as many as seventeen waggons (340).
In evidence the following was said (341):
"FENNELL: Let me put it
this way.
Perhaps it would have been desirable
for the siding (i.e., the CTAL siding)
to be longer but at the same time we
will not have any problems operating
that siding with our existing set-up."
Perhaps it would have been desirable
for the siding (i.e., the CTAL siding)
to be longer but at the same time we
will not have any problems operating
that siding with our existing set-up."
338. Containers
- Their Handling and Transportation,
page 323.
339. ibid., page 324.
340. S.K/C 1424 Maritime Services Board Submission
letter 31/1/80, page 2.
341. Transcript PTC (now SRA) 2/11/79, page 26.
page 323.
339. ibid., page 324.
340. S.K/C 1424 Maritime Services Board Submission
letter 31/1/80, page 2.
341. Transcript PTC (now SRA) 2/11/79, page 26.
-319-
Upon investigation it appears that the length of
the siding is not a disadvantage. Within the
Metropolitan Area the railways find it convenient
to confine the container trains to fifteen waggons.
That number is compatible with the locomotives
which are used for container haul. On a longer
country run, a larger locomotive may be used and
a larger number of waggons may be hauled (342).
the siding is not a disadvantage. Within the
Metropolitan Area the railways find it convenient
to confine the container trains to fifteen waggons.
That number is compatible with the locomotives
which are used for container haul. On a longer
country run, a larger locomotive may be used and
a larger number of waggons may be hauled (342).
2.4.3 Absence of a Train Run-Around
The same English text dealing with the Freightliner
operation, makes the following comment (343):
operation, makes the following comment (343):
"Many of these new terminals
were built
with rail connections at both ends or
locomotive run-around facilities so as
to speed up and simplify train arrival
and departure arrangements."
with rail connections at both ends or
locomotive run-around facilities so as
to speed up and simplify train arrival
and departure arrangements."
In respect of this matter the State Rail Authority
makes the following comment (344):
makes the following comment (344):
"There has been some
discussion...as to
the fact that the siding (in the CTAL
terminal) are dead-ended and trains must
be reversed into the terminal. These
limitations are not expected to affect
train operations, as the sidings adjacent
to the terminals are designed to accommo-
date these limitations."
the fact that the siding (in the CTAL
terminal) are dead-ended and trains must
be reversed into the terminal. These
limitations are not expected to affect
train operations, as the sidings adjacent
to the terminals are designed to accommo-
date these limitations."
Figure 8 is a diagram depicting the CTAL terminal
layout. The railway line stops short of Friendship
Road. On the other side of Friendship Road is the
bulk liquids terminal. The origin of the present
design is described in the following passage (345):
layout. The railway line stops short of Friendship
Road. On the other side of Friendship Road is the
bulk liquids terminal. The origin of the present
design is described in the following passage (345):
"FENNELL: Now when we were proposing to
build the coal loader the track leading
to the coal loader would have gone parallel
Lo the CTAL siding and gone past the bulk
342. Transcript
P.T.C. (now S.R.A.) 2.5.80, page 45.
343. ibid., page 315.
344. S.K/C 208 Answers to questions posed on 5.12.79.
345. Transcript P.T.C. (now S.R.A.) 27.11.79, page 19.
343. ibid., page 315.
344. S.K/C 208 Answers to questions posed on 5.12.79.
345. Transcript P.T.C. (now S.R.A.) 27.11.79, page 19.
-320-
liquids terminal and that road
(Friendship
Road) would have bridged the tracks. So
what could have been done at that stage
was to extend the track beyond the CTAL
terminal under the bridge to allow for
an engine run-off. Now because we didn’t
build the coal loader, obviously there was
no need to build that bridge...so therefore
we couldn't extend the sidings beyond the
CTAL terminal.
Road) would have bridged the tracks. So
what could have been done at that stage
was to extend the track beyond the CTAL
terminal under the bridge to allow for
an engine run-off. Now because we didn’t
build the coal loader, obviously there was
no need to build that bridge...so therefore
we couldn't extend the sidings beyond the
CTAL terminal.
COMMISSIONER: But there
is still room,
is there not, to build a track past the
bulk liquids into the other area of the
port?
is there not, to build a track past the
bulk liquids into the other area of the
port?
FENNELL: Yes but
we would have to put a
bridge in there and it would be fairly
expensive to put in a bridge just for an
engine run-off."
bridge in there and it would be fairly
expensive to put in a bridge just for an
engine run-off."
The Inquiry accepts that it would not have been
practicable, in view of the small time disadvantage
involved, to extend the CTAL siding simply to
provide an engine run-around.
practicable, in view of the small time disadvantage
involved, to extend the CTAL siding simply to
provide an engine run-around.
2.4.4 The Location of the Rail Sidings
Both terminals are unashamedly designed to service
road vehicles. Both operators expected the vast
majority of containers to be carried by road. The
rail sidings, in each case, are located on the very
perimeter of the terminals.
road vehicles. Both operators expected the vast
majority of containers to be carried by road. The
rail sidings, in each case, are located on the very
perimeter of the terminals.
Has rail been disadvantaged by the way in which the
terminals have been designed? In our view the
disadvantage to rail arises not from the design of
the terminal, but rather from the insistence of the
terminal operators that the choice of mode is
exclusively the preserve of importers and exporters.
So long as that philosophy was maintained, it really
would not matter where the rail siding was located.
The importer or exporter would select the appropriate
mode according to his convenience rather than the
convenience of the terminal.
terminals have been designed? In our view the
disadvantage to rail arises not from the design of
the terminal, but rather from the insistence of the
terminal operators that the choice of mode is
exclusively the preserve of importers and exporters.
So long as that philosophy was maintained, it really
would not matter where the rail siding was located.
The importer or exporter would select the appropriate
mode according to his convenience rather than the
convenience of the terminal.
Having said that, it is nonetheless instructive to
examine two issues:
examine two issues:
-321-
FIGURE 8.
C.T.A.L. AUST. LIMITED
PROPOSED TERMINAL LAYOUT
PROPOSED TERMINAL LAYOUT
-322-
- What would the Rail Authority have
done if it, had chosen the location
of the sidings in each terminal.
- If the rail share were higher, as
this Inquiry suggests it should be,
would the terminal have been designed
differently.
Dealing with the first issue, the question was put
to the State Rail Authority (346):
to the State Rail Authority (346):
“COMMISSIONER: In the best
of all
possible worlds, how would you have
gone about designing this terminal
to suit your own ends?
possible worlds, how would you have
gone about designing this terminal
to suit your own ends?
FENNELL: I have no
idea what the
optimum design would be. There have
been suggestions that it would have
been better to have a combined rail
siding outside the terminals themselves.
Now that's only a suggestion that I've
heard, so the siding would be a common
user siding, but apparently this wasn't
looked at in the planning stages, or
maybe it was, and it was thought better
for each terminal to have its own siding."
optimum design would be. There have
been suggestions that it would have
been better to have a combined rail
siding outside the terminals themselves.
Now that's only a suggestion that I've
heard, so the siding would be a common
user siding, but apparently this wasn't
looked at in the planning stages, or
maybe it was, and it was thought better
for each terminal to have its own siding."
The Australian National Line in its submission
responded to the suggestion by Mr. Fennell (347):
"The Line has indeed examined
the alterna-
tive of having a combined rail siding
outside of the terminal and the decision
not to proceed was based on the following
grounds:
tive of having a combined rail siding
outside of the terminal and the decision
not to proceed was based on the following
grounds:
(a)
duplication of expensive cargo
handling equipment
handling equipment
(b)
employment of additional labour
specifically to man the rail
head (a siding within the terminal
confines can be manned by the
integrated labour force)
specifically to man the rail
head (a siding within the terminal
confines can be manned by the
integrated labour force)
(c)
additional costs of hard-stand
area to work outside rail
area to work outside rail
(d)
possible union demarcation and
security problems."
security problems."
346.
Transcript 7.11.79 P.T.C. (now S.R.A.), page 25.
347. S.K/c 1422 Submission ANL letter 27.12.79,
page 3.
347. S.K/c 1422 Submission ANL letter 27.12.79,
page 3.
-323-
It appears that certain terminals in the United
Kingdom have a centralised rail siding. The
following evidence was given by Mr. Plant, the
Chief Operations Manager of CTAL (348):
Kingdom have a centralised rail siding. The
following evidence was given by Mr. Plant, the
Chief Operations Manager of CTAL (348):
"PLANT: Had we been
certain from Day 1
that the road/rail split was going to
be reversed for arguments sake (i.e.,
64% rail 36% road), I think that both
ourselves and probably ANL would have
made a very strong approach to the public
Transport Commission to put in a
centralised rail siding where in fact
the boxes could be moved to the rail
siding in a similar manner to say
Southampton and Tilbury which have a
very large volume of rail. They don't
actually have the siding within the
terminal. "
that the road/rail split was going to
be reversed for arguments sake (i.e.,
64% rail 36% road), I think that both
ourselves and probably ANL would have
made a very strong approach to the public
Transport Commission to put in a
centralised rail siding where in fact
the boxes could be moved to the rail
siding in a similar manner to say
Southampton and Tilbury which have a
very large volume of rail. They don't
actually have the siding within the
terminal. "
The views of the terminal operators are by no
means unanimous on the second issue: whether the
terminal would have been designed differently if
the rail share had been higher. Mr. Peggram, the
Manager of the ANL Botany terminal gave the
following evidence (349):
means unanimous on the second issue: whether the
terminal would have been designed differently if
the rail share had been higher. Mr. Peggram, the
Manager of the ANL Botany terminal gave the
following evidence (349):
"PEGGRAM: ..You would
not have built a
terminal for 105 (acres). It would not
have been so deep and broad; it would
have been a lot narrower. You would
certainly have had the quay length but
you would certainly have been a lot
slimmer so that in fact your rail would
have been closer. In places like Rotterdam
they actually load freight from the ships
onto the trains and I don’t think that
could happen in Australia because the
planning of that is enormous. But you
could certainly have brought your tracks
a lot closer."
terminal for 105 (acres). It would not
have been so deep and broad; it would
have been a lot narrower. You would
certainly have had the quay length but
you would certainly have been a lot
slimmer so that in fact your rail would
have been closer. In places like Rotterdam
they actually load freight from the ships
onto the trains and I don’t think that
could happen in Australia because the
planning of that is enormous. But you
could certainly have brought your tracks
a lot closer."
Drawing on an analogy closer to home, the Fisherman
Islands Terminal being constructed in Brisbane, Mr.
Peggram later said (350):
Islands Terminal being constructed in Brisbane, Mr.
Peggram later said (350):
348. Transcript
CTAL 28.3.80 (Day 2), page 80.
349. Transcript ANL 14.4.80, page 18.
350. ibid., page 25.
349. Transcript ANL 14.4.80, page 18.
350. ibid., page 25.
-324-
"If you had started from
scratch you
might well have run into the centre of
the terminal and geared your whole
operation up around it (i.e. rail).
You might have brought them in on each
berth. At Fisherman Islands they are
bringing it straight in, at sort of a
tangent to the wharf facer so that you
can feed direct onto trains. It would
have been a completely different
appraisal altogether, your sheds, your
stacks, your layout, your sub-stations,
your reefer areas would have been
completely different."
might well have run into the centre of
the terminal and geared your whole
operation up around it (i.e. rail).
You might have brought them in on each
berth. At Fisherman Islands they are
bringing it straight in, at sort of a
tangent to the wharf facer so that you
can feed direct onto trains. It would
have been a completely different
appraisal altogether, your sheds, your
stacks, your layout, your sub-stations,
your reefer areas would have been
completely different."
Clearly, on this evidence the rail sidings may be
located in the middle of the terminal, or at an
angle to the wharf, and this may be advantageous
where a higher rail share is expected (or compelled).
located in the middle of the terminal, or at an
angle to the wharf, and this may be advantageous
where a higher rail share is expected (or compelled).
The evidence given by the General Manager of CTAL,
Mr. Roberts, is to the same effect. He said (351):
Mr. Roberts, is to the same effect. He said (351):
"ROBERTS: If the
ultimate intention of
State Government), whether it be one
year, five years or ten years was to
maximise to the ultimate rail movements
in and out of Botany Bay, then we would
have designed a different terminal. In
fact we may, I emphasise may, have elected
not to accept the site made available to
us because of the limitations in having
one line entering our terminal at the
head of the dock.
State Government), whether it be one
year, five years or ten years was to
maximise to the ultimate rail movements
in and out of Botany Bay, then we would
have designed a different terminal. In
fact we may, I emphasise may, have elected
not to accept the site made available to
us because of the limitations in having
one line entering our terminal at the
head of the dock.
COMMISSIONER: Well how
would you have
designed a different terminal?
designed a different terminal?
ROBERTS: WeIt
there are instances overseas
where terminals have been designed
consciously and from the concept to
maximise rail where there is a substantial
marshalling yard immediately adjacent to
the terminal, and the terminal under those
circumstances' is designed not to cater for
road vehicles at all or to a very limited
extent.”
where terminals have been designed
consciously and from the concept to
maximise rail where there is a substantial
marshalling yard immediately adjacent to
the terminal, and the terminal under those
circumstances' is designed not to cater for
road vehicles at all or to a very limited
extent.”
Mr. Plant from CTAL, on the other hand, took the view
that rail operations must be segregated from road
operations for reasons of efficiency and safety.
Otherwise there will be conflict between trains
that rail operations must be segregated from road
operations for reasons of efficiency and safety.
Otherwise there will be conflict between trains
351. Transcript
CTAL (Day 2) 28.3.80, page 25.
-325-
(especially if they are being shunted) and large
container vehicles. Obviously it is more hazardous
to terminal employees and road vehicles if a train
is moving up and down the centre of the terminal.
The following evidence was given (352):
container vehicles. Obviously it is more hazardous
to terminal employees and road vehicles if a train
is moving up and down the centre of the terminal.
The following evidence was given (352):
"COMMISSIONER: If the
mode split between
road and rail were different and the rail
share were greater, would you, given a
free hand in the design of the terminal
and given the constraints which you have
outlined both in your submission today
and in your evidence, design a terminal
any differently so far as the siting of
the rail siding is concerned?
road and rail were different and the rail
share were greater, would you, given a
free hand in the design of the terminal
and given the constraints which you have
outlined both in your submission today
and in your evidence, design a terminal
any differently so far as the siting of
the rail siding is concerned?
PLANT: ...As an operator I would
still
site the rail siding where it is from the
point of view of separation of operations,
safety and the ability to be able to give
service to the ship, the road and the rail;
I find it very difficult to see a terminal
with a rail siding coming right down the
middle of the terminal. It has been done
but there are very very big safety
considerations to be taken into account
and it would have been very difficult in
the area that we have been able to lease
from the Maritime Services Board...”
site the rail siding where it is from the
point of view of separation of operations,
safety and the ability to be able to give
service to the ship, the road and the rail;
I find it very difficult to see a terminal
with a rail siding coming right down the
middle of the terminal. It has been done
but there are very very big safety
considerations to be taken into account
and it would have been very difficult in
the area that we have been able to lease
from the Maritime Services Board...”
This evidence has been recited at some length to
highlight issues which must be confronted by the
State Rail Authority and the Maritime Services
Board in respect of any further port land which
may be developed (either at Botany or elsewhere).
Design questions are of the utmost importance.
The State Rail Authority must concern itself with
them. Consultants should be retained, if need be,
to consider the best interests of the State Rail
Authority, and whether proposals made by a port
developer further those interests.
352. Transcript
CTAL (Day 1) 19/3/80, page 82.
-327-
IX
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THE FREE MARKET CASE
The Free Market Case advocates no regulation of
the Port and no attempt to divert containers
from road transportation to rail transportation.
the Port and no attempt to divert containers
from road transportation to rail transportation.
RECOMMENDATION: The Inquiry recommends
against the adoption of that
view.
against the adoption of that
view.
2. THE STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OPTION
The State Rail Authority recommended a scheme which
envisages the establishment of four decentralised
depots at the following locations:-
envisages the establishment of four decentralised
depots at the following locations:-
- Cooks River goods yard
- Rozelle goods yard
- Chullora (the existing depot)
- Villawood (also an existing depot)
Under the scheme import containers would be carried.
by rail to the depot nearest their final destination.
Export containers would be taken to the depot
closest to their origin.
by rail to the depot nearest their final destination.
Export containers would be taken to the depot
closest to their origin.
RECOMMENDATION: The Inguiry recommends
against
the adoption of that option.
the adoption of that option.
3. THE WESTERN SUBURBS OPTION
The Western Suburbs Option envisages the creation of
an Eastern zone and a Western zone for the Sydney
Metropolitan Area. Import containers destined for
the Western zone would be carried by rail to
decentralised depots at:-
an Eastern zone and a Western zone for the Sydney
Metropolitan Area. Import containers destined for
the Western zone would be carried by rail to
decentralised depots at:-
- Villawood
- Chullora
-328-
Export containers coming from the Western suburbs
will be delivered to these decentralised depots
rather than to Port Botany or Port Jackson.
will be delivered to these decentralised depots
rather than to Port Botany or Port Jackson.
RECOMMENDATION: The Inquiry recommends the
adoption of this option
with the following essential
features:-
adoption of this option
with the following essential
features:-
1. The service areas of the Chullora and
Villawood depots should not be defined.
Both depots should serve the entire
Western region and should be permitted
to compete with each other for whatever
share of the market they can capture.
2. There should be no regulation of the road
transportation of containers to or from
the decentralised depots. Specifically
there should be no exclusion of owner-
drivers in favour of large transport
companies from that portion of the trade.3. For the time being, empty containers
should be excluded from the scheme though
the matter can be reviewed if the need
arises4. The scheme shou1d be confined to the Sydney
Metropolitan Area FCL containers (both
import and export) and should not, for
the time being, extend to interstate or
intrastate containers carried by road.5. Further depots in the Western suburbs should
be permitted to establish and participate in
the Scheme, subject to their having:-
- rail access
- adequate access to the arterial
road network
-329-
6. The scheme should operate in the following
way:
(a) the term ‘container' should be
defined in a very general way.
Two pitfalls should be avoided.
First, the definition should be
an 'inclusive definition' embracing
the standard I.S.O. box container,
and the many specialist varieties.
Secondly, to satisfy a tribunal that
a recepticle is in fact 'a container',
it should not be obligatory for an
inspector or police officer to measure
the box to ensure that it conforms
with a particular standard.(b) the shipping lines should be responsible
for ascertaining the final destination
of import FCL containers and the origin
of FCL export containers.(c) the shipping lines should be obliged
to direct exporters, whose containers
originate in the Western zone, to
deliver the container to a depot in
that zone.(d) the shipping lines should transmit
information concerning the origins and
destinations of containers to the
container terminals. No statutory
sanction is necessary, The presumption
referred to in (e) below is a sufficient
sanction.(e) Where at the time of discharging the
vessel's cargo, the terminal does not
know, or has not been told, the
destination of the import FCL container, it
should be presumed that the container is
destined for the Western zone.
-330-
(f) where it is proposed to stuff or
unstuff an FCL container (whether
import or export) partly in the Western
zone and partly elsewhere (whether
in the Eastern zone, interstate or
intrastate) it should be obligatory:-
- to first send the container
by rail to the decentralised
depot in the case of an FCL
import.
- to deliver the container to
the decentralised depot (so
that it can be sent by rail to
the port) in the case of an FCL
export.
(g) it should be an offence to carry a
loaded FCL container (not being a
container exempt from the scheme)
from the Eastern zone to the West
(or from the Western zone to the
East) on the same day as the
container is picked up from the
terminal or delivered to the terminal.
The offence should be that of the
importer or exporter. The truck
driver should be deemed the authorized
agent of the importer or exporter
(in the same way as the Customs Act
deems the Customs Agent the
authorized agent of the importer or
exporter).
7. To prevent the scheme being evaded, the following
measures are desirable:-
measures are desirable:-
(a) the inspectorate within the
Department of Motor Transport should
be given the duty of enforcing the
scheme.
-331-
(b) the Department of Motor Transport
should undertake a review of its
manpower requirements arising from
the scheme.(c) the New South Wales Police Force
should be given a general duty in
respect of the scheme, Supplementing
the inspectorate from the Department
of Motor Transport.(d) it should be obligatory for the
driver of a vehicle carrying a
container to have in his possession,
throughout the journey, documents
relating to the container being
carried, disclosing, inter-alia, the
name and address of the consignee or
consignor, the container box number,
the nature of the contents, the name
of the shipping line etc.(e) it should be obligatory for the driver
of the vehicle carrying a container
to produce the shipping documents to
an authorized inspector from the
Department of Motor Transport or a
member of the New South Wales Police
Force.(f) the driver of the vehicle carrying a
container should be obliged to disclose
to the terminal, on leaving the
terminal (having taken delivery of an
import container) the destination of
the container. With an export
container, the driver should be obliged
to disclose its origin upon entering
the terminal.(g) the terminal should be obliged to mark
the shipping documents (including copies
in its possession) in accordance with
the driver's statement specifying:-
-332-
* the category into which the container falls,
whether: -
- the Eastern zone
- the Western zone
- country/interstate
- exemption (whether empty, LCL or an
exempt class of container)* the date* the name of the terminal
(h) the terminal should be obliged to produce
the shipping documents, and copies thereof,
to an authorized inspector from the Department
of Motor Transport or a member of the
New South Wales Police Force. Other terminal
records relating to the receipt or despatch
of a container should also be made available
for inspection to the same officers.(i) exporters and importers should be obliged
to make a declaration as to the origin
(export FCL) or the destination (import FCL)
of the container.(j) it should be unnecessary for a separate
declaration to be made with respect to each
import or export container. It should be a
sufficient compliance with the scheme if an
importer or exporter, or an agent duly
authorized in writing, lodges with a
designated officer of the State Rail Authority
or the Maritime Services Board (whichever is
specified) a declaration in respect of all
imported or exported containers.(k) if abuse occurs it may be necessary to extend
the scheme to LCL containers, stuffed or
unstuffed, (or partly stuffed/unstuffed) in
the Western zone.
-333-
8. The following safeguards (to protect the
legitimate interests of various parties) are
an essential part of the scheme:-
legitimate interests of various parties) are
an essential part of the scheme:-
1. there should be duplication of the
Botany Goods Line to be completed
by the end of 1985.2. electrification of the Botany Goods
Line may be postponed.3. the capacity of the State Rail
Authority to handle the expected
throughput under the Western Suburbs
Scheme should be immediately reviewed,
and arrangements made to correct any
deficiency in either locomotives or
container wagons.4. certain categories of containers (such
as hazardous cargoes) should be excluded
from the scheme. The Inquiry recommends
that an invitation be extended to the
industry to submit a list of appropriate
exclusions (supported by reasons) within
a specified period. The formulation of
exceptions should adhere to the following
guidelines: -
(a) they should be specified with
precision(b) carqo should be excluded where
it is unsuited to carriage by rail
either because of the nature of
the cargo or the dimensions of the
container box.(c) there may be limitations upon the
capacity of depots to handle
certain containers (such as 40 ft.
containers).(d) urgent containers, as such, should
not be exempt.
-334-
(e) a procedure should, nonetheless,
exist whereby an importer or
exporter may, in an emergency (the
facts of which should be stated on
affidavit) by-pass the requirements
of the scheme to enable the container
to be dealt with more expeditiously.(f) the coastal trade of the Australian
National Line should be exempt. This
exemption should be kept under constant
review to ensure that it is not abused,
and does not jeopardise the environmental
benefits which this Report has sought
to promote.
5. Steps should be taken to preserve the residential
amenity of the Villawood area in the vicinity
of the Freightbases depot. The steps should
include:
amenity of the Villawood area in the vicinity
of the Freightbases depot. The steps should
include:
(a) at State Government expense, Christina
Road, Leightonfield should be upgraded.(b) in consultation with the Department of
Main Roads and the Traffic Authority,
the intersection of Christina Road,
Miller Road and Waldron Road should be
reviewed, with a view to easing the
passage of container vehicles to and
from Freightbases via Christina Road
to Woodville Road.(c) vehicles carrying full containers
should leave the Freightbases depot
via Christina Road.(d) provision should be made for landscaping,
noise barriers and even double glazing
(if it is warranted) in Miller Road, after
monitoring the effects of the scheme upon
that road, and after consultation with
the local community. If vehicles are
substantially confined to Christina Road
-335-
the amenity of Mil1er Road should
not
be seriously affected.
be seriously affected.
6. Consultation should take place between the
following bodies to work out truck routes to be
used by heavy container vehicles:-
following bodies to work out truck routes to be
used by heavy container vehicles:-
- Department of Main Roads
- Traffic Authority
- Planning and Environment Commission
- the inner city Councils
- Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
- New South Wales Road Transport Association
- Long Distance Road Transport Association
- Chamber of Commerce
- any other bodies involved in the
importation or export of goods or the
transportation of containers
Especial consideration should be given to the
suggestion that heavy container vehicles should be
confined to the main and secondary road network in
the off peak.
suggestion that heavy container vehicles should be
confined to the main and secondary road network in
the off peak.
7. A number of matters should be tested in the field
and reviewed in the light of experience. They
include: -
and reviewed in the light of experience. They
include: -
- the exclusion of LCL containers
- the exclusion of empty containers
- the exclusion of intrastate and
interstate containers
- the exclusion of the coastal trade
To assist in that review, STSG should carry out
further survey work, building on the Port Survey
1978 and the Depot Survey 1979.
further survey work, building on the Port Survey
1978 and the Depot Survey 1979.
-336-
4. DEPOT AT PORT BOTANY
RECOMMENDATION: The Inquiry recommends
that
the Government permit one
5,000 TEU depot at Port
Botany subject to the
following conditions : -
the Government permit one
5,000 TEU depot at Port
Botany subject to the
following conditions : -
1.
It is to be understood that there should be
one only depot for the two terminals and not
one depot for each terminal.
one only depot for the two terminals and not
one depot for each terminal.
2.
The lease agreement between the Maritime
Services Board and the Terminal Operators
at Port Botany (ANL or CTAL or both)
should be amended to make it a condition
of the lease that 6,000 TEU only are
handled each year at the depot.
Services Board and the Terminal Operators
at Port Botany (ANL or CTAL or both)
should be amended to make it a condition
of the lease that 6,000 TEU only are
handled each year at the depot.
3.
Any planning permission given with respect
to the erection of a shed for the purposes
of stuffing and unstuffing should ensure
that proper environmental safeguards are
observed, and should be conditional upon the
annual throughput of the depot not exceeding
6,000 TEU.
to the erection of a shed for the purposes
of stuffing and unstuffing should ensure
that proper environmental safeguards are
observed, and should be conditional upon the
annual throughput of the depot not exceeding
6,000 TEU.
4.
The size of the shed permitted for the
purposes of such a depot should not be
greater than is reasonably required for a
depot with a throughput of 6,000 TEU per
annum.
purposes of such a depot should not be
greater than is reasonably required for a
depot with a throughput of 6,000 TEU per
annum.
5. THE APPLICATION OF A SCHEME TO PORT BOTANY AND
PORT JACKSON
PORT JACKSON
RECOMMENDATION: The Inquiry recommends
that
the Western Suburbs Scheme
be applied to the following
terminals:-
the Western Suburbs Scheme
be applied to the following
terminals:-
-337-
·
- the Australian National Line terminal
at Port Botany
- the CTAL terminal at Port Botany
- the White Bay terminal at Port Jackson
- the Glebe Island Terminal at Port Jackson
- any other terminal or wharves connected
to rail which may be constructed at
either Port Jackson or Port Botany in
the future.
Go to Appendix I -->
