❓ A WA parliamentary question examines the carbon emissions of transporting resources by truck versus rail, potential penalties for exceeding emissions or failing to use rail, and the condition of the rail line. The response indicates rail is significantly less polluting, but no penalties exist, and speed restrictions would negate rail's economic benefits.
AnsweredQoN 2415Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) what are the carbon emission comparisons (assuming all trucks and locomotives are diesel) to move the daily output; (c) can any penalties apply, or accrue, to a truck company or operator if their emissions were found to be in excess of those of the rail option; (d) similarly, can penalties be applied to company/ies involved in not getting the product back on rail as originally intended; and (e) was the rail line in such bad condition that speed restrictions could not have been used?
(c) can any penalties apply, or accrue, to a truck company or operator if their emissions were found to be in excess of those of the rail option; (d) similarly, can penalties be applied to company/ies involved in not getting the product back on rail as originally intended; and (e) was the rail line in such bad condition that speed restrictions could not have been used?
(d) similarly, can penalties be applied to company/ies involved in not getting the product back on rail as originally intended; and (e) was the rail line in such bad condition that speed restrictions could not have been used?
(e) was the rail line in such bad condition that speed restrictions could not have been used?
(c) can any penalties apply, or accrue, to a truck company or operator if their emissions were found to be in excess of those of the rail option; (d) similarly, can penalties be applied to company/ies involved in not getting the product back on rail as originally intended; and (e) was the rail line in such bad condition that speed restrictions could not have been used?
(d) similarly, can penalties be applied to company/ies involved in not getting the product back on rail as originally intended; and (e) was the rail line in such bad condition that speed restrictions could not have been used?
(e) was the rail line in such bad condition that speed restrictions could not have been used?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 August 2007
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
63 days
(a) If this question relates to WA Plantation Resources trucks for the North Greenbushes Project as originally envisaged, then the answer is two trains per day.
(b) These are estimated at 1785 tonnes of emissions per annum for road and 874 tonnes of emissions for rail based on an assumed freight task of 700,000 tonnes per year.
(c) No.
(d) No.
(e) The original plan was one woodchips train and one logs train per day from Greenbushes to Bunbury. Each of these trains operated on a 12-hour cycle approximately resulting in excellent utilisation of equipment and better economic outcomes as a result. Therefore the track is required to provide a certain level of speed to achieve the utilisation benefits of the 12 hour cycle. To maintain this level of track performance, sleepers needed to be replaced. Alternatively, running with speed restrictions would not have achieved the required utilisation benefits and would impact on the economic viability of rail.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(b) These are estimated at 1785 tonnes of emissions per annum for road and 874 tonnes of emissions for rail based on an assumed freight task of 700,000 tonnes per year.
(c) No.
(d) No.
(e) The original plan was one woodchips train and one logs train per day from Greenbushes to Bunbury. Each of these trains operated on a 12-hour cycle approximately resulting in excellent utilisation of equipment and better economic outcomes as a result. Therefore the track is required to provide a certain level of speed to achieve the utilisation benefits of the 12 hour cycle. To maintain this level of track performance, sleepers needed to be replaced. Alternatively, running with speed restrictions would not have achieved the required utilisation benefits and would impact on the economic viability of rail.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.