1.1 Description and Need for the Proposal 3

2.1 History of Management on Fraser Island 5

2.2 History of Light Rail on Fraser Island 6

2.3 Visitation Figures 6

2.4 Commercial Tourism 7

2.5 Environmental Impact of Recreation on Fraser Island 8

2.6 History of the Proposal and Previous Studies 10

3.1.1 No Change 11

3.1.2 Capping or Reducing Vehicle Permits 11

3.1.3 Limiting Vehicle Numbers or Types on Certain Roads 12

3.1.4 Road Closures 12

3.1.5 Light Rail 12

4.1 BTA Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 14

4.2 Bogimbah Track Route Option 16

This document is and shall remain the property of Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Concerns as to the impact of heavy vehicle movement on the inland roads of Fraser Island have recently been identified by State Government as a significant environmental and visitor management issue. As part of an ongoing assessment of an alternative transportation system on Fraser Island, The Fraser Island Defenders Organisation (FIDO) has commissioned consultants GHD Pty Ltd to undertake further studies into a light rail system on the Island to replace some of the cross-island vehicle traffic. This report supplements and incorporates other studies undertaken to date to assess the feasibility of such a system. The key objectives of this report are to:

to collate all existing reviews undertaken to date;

review an additional transport route not discussed in previous studies (the Bogimbah Track);

assess impacts of vehicle movement;

liaise with Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service regarding the proposal;

detail engineering constraints; and

liaise with key resort and tourism operators regarding the proposal.

Fraser Island has been a popular recreational destination over a number of decades for campers, bushwalkers, fishers and 4WDers. Pressures on the natural environment from recreation (and previous logging and sand mining activities) have also been identified by both conservation groups and government agencies for just as long. Whilst logging and sand mining have now ceased on the Island, recreational pressures have been increasing. With the increase in 4WD popularity, more accommodation opportunities and the inclusion of the Island as a major backpacker/tourism destination, Fraser Island now experiences approximately 400,200 visitors a year, of which 158,584 are commercial tour passengers (Fraser Island Recreational Statistics 1998/99, QPWS). Of these tour passengers in 1996/97 (138,000), 71% stayed on the Island for only one day. Sixty-four percent of these day tour passengers arrived from Hervey Bay with the remainder from Rainbow Beach and the Sunshine Coast (QPWS, 1998).

The recreation pressures have been recognised by the recent commissioning of various management strategies by the State Government. The most recent of these, a Draft Camping Management Plan, was released for public comment in May 1999. The plan concludes that these visitation rates will continue at current levels, with demand from Australian residents to remain at existing levels with possible fluctuations in international backpacker visitation.

A large proportion (40%) of the total visitation volume to the Island are day trippers (1996/97). These visitors primarily access the Island on organised tours using buses or 4WDs. A significant tourism industry has evolved on the Island, with 12 companies (or registered tour names) offering guided trips, using a range of 4WDs and small and large buses (EPA, 1999).

While there are no vehicle figures available in terms of type (ie trucks, buses or 4WDs), an estimate of private vehicle use can be determined for the total number of Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) permits and temporary exemptions. In 1998/99 this figure was 42,052.

The Environmental Protection Agency (formerly the Department of Environment and Heritage) has identified that the existing visitor management system is inadequate for current and future needs (DEH, 1998) and that many of the internal roads have become degraded due to the high levels of traffic, in particular heavy vehicles. A recreation assessment report (EDAW, 1997) also noted that the impacts of 4WDs along the beaches is negligible in comparison to impacts on the inland roads.

The key recreational locations on the Island are primarily located on the eastern side. This is illustrated by the visitation figures for commercial tour operators in 1998/99. Operators are permitted to visit specific locations only.

Central Station

Lake McKenzie

Lake Birrabeen

Pile Valley

Boomanjin

Lake Wabby lookout

Lake Wabby

(See Figure 3.1 for locations)

As an alternative to the existing reliance of 4WDs and buses to carry tourists across the Island, particularly those on organised tours, FIDO has proposed a light rail system be constructed across the Island, primarily to carry day trippers to the eastern coast where they can be met by tour operators for transportation to specific locations. The proposal is for a light rail system consisting of probably 3 cars, each capable of seating 50 adults. These would be pulled by a small diesel locomotive. FIDOís preferred route is mainly along the Bogimbah Road from Urang Creek to Poyungan Valley. A deep water jetty and ferry terminal would be constructed over the mud flats on the northern side of Urang Creek. The current proposal is to replace the existing Bogimbah Road with the rail line. The light rail would then transfer much of the internal traffic to the beaches where 4WD use is more sustainable.

European management of Fraser Island stretches back many decades. A brief summary of European involvement with the Island is given below.

There has only been one sawmill on Fraser Island, which was not particularly successful, but tramlines played an important part in logging the Island prior to the adoption of motor trucks, as the sandy environment was a difficult one for bullock and horse teams, particularly the lack of feed (Kerr, 1998).

There were three main tramlines built on the Island, all running to the west coast which not only suited the Maryborough sawmills (the west coast being the closest point to Maryborough and it enabled barges to be loaded in sheltered waters), it was a necessity as the sharp descent from the high dunes to the eastern coastline made the west coast the only practical destination for logging operations. The northern tramline ran to a log dump near Bogimbah Creek and was 13 km long with two branch lines each about 5 km long. The central tramline ran to McKenzie's sawmill and wharf at White Cliffs, and was about 10 km long with a terminus near Lake McKenzie and had two short branches. The third line roughly followed Woongoolba Creek, also ending at a log dump. There is some doubt whether an early horse-hauled wooden-railed tramline to a loading ramp near Deep Creek was actually built. The main three tramlines were steel-railed and operated by locomotives of three foot six inch gauge.

Timber getting on Fraser Island lasted for more than a century from the late 1860s. Three parties of timber getters were at work in the Aboriginal Protection Areas of the Island in 1869 (Maryborough Chronicle, October 1869).

Wilson Hart and Co. had timber getters on Fraser Island by 1877 (Maryborough Chronicle, October 1877). After the success of the Cooloola tramway, the Maryborough Chronicle reported in 1876 that Pettigrew and Company intended to lay a tramway across Fraser Island to the rafting ground in Hervey Bay to tap the stands of Kauri pine near the eastern side of the Island (Maryborough Chronicle, September 1876) Apparently the idea was dropped, possibly because Pettigrew could not secure tenure over sufficient resources to justify construction.

Wilson Hart and Hyne had 11 km of steel tramway and steam locomotive by mid 1906 and were proposing another 2.5 km extension. (Maryborough Chronicle, July 1906). The first tramway was built about 1906 from the beach at Yerang Creek using grade of 1 in 16 and a 28 tonne ex-Queensland Railways tank engine. It tapped the Poyungan and Bogimbah Creek area. By 1909 the tramway was reported as 16 km long. The rails were moved to Woongoolba Creek about 1915 and closed around 1928.

The new line had been laid by 1921 when visitors were reported as being taken on the company's "engine and tender" four miles to the forest station (Central Station). A survey had been made in 1920 of both road and tramway 8 km to Ungowa but the road option was built in 1922 despite the lack of herbage for teams (Australian Forest Journal, 1921 in Kerr, 1998). In time motor lorries overcame the feed problem. Postan's logging camp, which operated from 1935 to the close of logging in 1991, was the base for logging contractors.

In 1918 Hepburn McKenzie, a large New South Wales timber merchant, contracted to buy the timber off 10,000 acres of Fraser Island harvesting 100,000 super feet per month from 1 April 1919 for ten years, building a sawmill at the Quarantine Reserve, White Cliffs and a tramline system.

The venture was not particularly successful and in 1921 H. McKenzie (Queensland) Limited was registered to acquire the rights under the 28 March 1918 agreement with the state Director of Forests. It was registered in Brisbane on 24 June 1921. Most of the shares were held by H. McKenzie Limited, the parent company, and the company's unprofitability presumably made sale to the public impracticable. In 1925 the shares were written down to one third of their face value. In 1926, after auction of the mill and sale of the tramway and wharf to the Forestry Board, it was resolved to wind up the company voluntarily.

After the original railway was put out of use, 13.5 km of tramway was sold by Hyne and Sons to the Moreton Mill in 1922. Forestry purchased McKenzie's tramline and wharf in 1925/26 for 5000 pounds (Annual Report Forestry Department, 1925-26 in Kerr, 1998). The Department sold the rails from McKenzie's tramway in 1935 and the locomotive in 1941.

Remnants of the tramways can still be found throughout the island. Of particular interest to this study are bridge and rail remnants and rail embankments adjacent to Urang Creek (Plates 1 and 2).

Over the five financial years prior to 1996/97, there has been a steady increase in QPWS permits issued for private vehicles. QPWS assume this increase to be influenced heavily by the increase in number of backpackers visiting the Island. September, December, January and April are typically peak periods for private permits (DEH, 1998). Visitation figures for 1992/93 to 1997/98 are shown below. The totals also include pedestrian access and camping permits.

1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98

Permits

(No. of People) 111,199 120,323_ 122,797 128,434 130,163 138,574

The most recent visitation figures for the 1998/99 year are provided below. Interestingly, 1998/99 figures show a 2.2% drop in 1 month permits over the previous year.

QPWS Permits (12 month) 40 Not applicable

Permits to camp 25,792 106,019

Camper nights 352,584

Exemption labels 1. 914 Not applicable

Commercial tour operator passengers (fee paying) 158,422

Exempt 2. 3,203

Temporary operator passengers 3. 233

Commercial tour campers (ie safari tours) 13,936

Note: 1. For workers employed on the Island (ie resort staff, tradespeople etc. )

2. For permanent Island residents

3. Tours for which Fraser Island is just one stop on a wider tour

Commercial tourism first started on Fraser Island with the establishment of the Happy Valley Village Resort in the early 1930ís. Although the Resort closed during the Depression, small scale tourism continued. Commercial day tours began in the late 1950ís and continued under a number of operators from that time.

Regulated commercial tours have been undertaken on the Island since 1982 when permits were first introduced. The permits aimed to minimise impacts to natural features and roads, to reduce conflict at popular sites and to improve passenger safety and service. The Fraser Island Public Access Act 1985 set the basis for the existing commercial tourism operator policy and included details of passenger capacity, tour routes and types of vehicles used. Recreation management is now the responsibility of the Queensland Recreation Areas Management Board (QRAMB) following the introduction of the Recreation Areas Management Act 1988.

Commercial tour operators are permitted to carry out a particular tour, but may choose not to visit every site on it. Within this constrain it is reasonable to assume that they generally visit the key sites on the their tours. From this assumption, QPWS have calculated the following visitation statistics for each site:

These figures represent permits to carry people on a tour which typically would visit several different sites. As such, the total visitation to the Island is much less than the sum of these figures (L. Fullerton, pers comm). Other key sites on the east coast include:

Eli Creek

the Maheno wreck

the Cathedrals

the Pinnacles

Peak tour visitation times on the Island are from June to October and January. In 1996/97, more than 10,000 passengers visited the Island on each of these months (DEH, 1998). The number of commercial passengers in the Island on any one day varies from less than 200 to more than 700. On 341 days in 1996/97, there were between 300 and 500 passengers on the Island (DEH, 1998).

The environmental impacts of recreation on Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region in general have been identified for some time. These impacts were recently summarised in a May 1998 report prepared by the Department of Environment and Heritage titled ìManaging Visitor and Commercial Operators for Ecological Sustainability - Final report on the review of tourism activities in the Great Sandy Regionî. Based in part on the results of a recreational impact study undertaken by EDAW consultants (1997), the report identified a number of management issues and strategies for the management of both recreational facilities/areas and transportation routes.

The EDAW report concluded that while a significant body of reference material has been produced on how to assess recreation impacts, very little work has actually been undertaken in the field. As such, there are no relevant case studies from within Australia to make valid comparisons as to how visitor impacts should best be managed. Fraser Island also presents unique problems give that it is a sand island with no stable geology on which to develop infrastructure.

The EDAW report assessed 58 sites and 19 vehicle routes on Fraser Island for impacts from recreational use. The report summary concluded that the major scenic routes were all showing signs of high impact due possibly to the volume of use, the size and loads of some vehicles and coaches operating with high tyre pressure. With the exception of Central Station, most of the major tourism sites are showing signs of unsustainable visitor impacts, in particular beach camping areas and Lakes McKenzie, Boomanjin and Birrabeen. The classification of roads is shown below.

Moon Point Road Fraser Central -1

Blue Scenic Route Fraser Central 0

Indian Head Bypass Fraser North -2

North Spit Fraser North -1

Waddy Point Bypass Fraser North 0

Ngkala Rocks Bypass Fraser North 0

Platypus Bay Road Fraser North 0

Red Scenic Route Fraser Southeast -2

Yellow Scenic Route Fraser Southeast -1

Blue Scenic Route Fraser Southeast 0

Bogimbah Link Road Fraser Southwest +1

Postans Road Fraser Southwest +1

Woongoolba Road Fraser Southwest +1

Ungowa Road Fraser Southwest +1

Southern Road Fraser Southwest +1

Dillinghams Road Fraser Southwest +2

Cornwells Road Fraser Southwest -2

Green Scenic Route Fraser Southwest -1

+2_Potential to increase capacity significantly__

+1_Potential to increase capacity somewhat__

0_Maintain status quo, little or no capacity for expansion__

-1_Somewhat over used and requires reduction in level of visitor use__

-2_Heavily over used and requires reduction in level of visitor use__

Of those route classified as over used, all are on routes which carry traffic to the commercial tour destinations listed in Section 2.4. (See Figure 3.1). Assessment by QPWS Rangers undertaken as part of EDAWís study found a higher perceived level of degradation. The report concluded that those routes most severely impacted are those used by large 4WD coaches.

One of the consequences of road degradation has been the sedimentation of waterways and lakes from runoff generated on the roads. Disturbed sand, unconfined by roots and other leaf matter, is carried into the waterways during rainfall events. Sedimentation from nearby roads has been recorded at Lakes Yidney, McKenzie, Birrabeen, Jennings, Allom, Boomerang and Woongoolba and Boon Boon Creeks. Left unchecked, this sedimentation could have a serious impact not only on the ecological processes on the Island but will contribute to aesthetic degradation as well. Degradation of World Heritage values is a serious impact from over use of some road networks.

A light rail network was first proposed by FIDO as early as 1974, when the impact of increasing recreation pressures were first raised. Since then, the issue has been raised several times including a number of investigations by both FIDO and private organisations. The proposal has also been discussed with various state governments since 1974. FIDO has regularly included the issue in its newsletter (MOONBI).

Alternative proposals have been raised in 1991 by Sunny Travel who proposed a north-south route along the Island, and in 1993 by Kingfisher Bay Resort and Village, who proposed a route from the resort to just north of Eurong. Neither proposal was studied in any depth beyond preliminary cost estimates (BTA, 1998).

In 1991, FIDO commissioned a light rail study, undertaken by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd, to identify costs associated with the provision and operation of a light rail system from Woongoolba Creek to Central Station and the McKenzie Line east to the Wabby Plots. The report concluded that the light rail system would be commercially viable if it were able to attract a large proportion of day visitors to the Island.

A preliminary feasibility report was commissioned in 1998 by Environment Australia to assess the proposal. Undertaken by Bramley Tourism Analysists, this report examined the cost effectiveness of a central cross island route from either Woongoolba Creek or Kingfisher Bay to Eurong. This report also concluded that with a high proportion of day trippers using the service, such a system would be commercially viable.

Queensland Transport undertook a series of pavement studies and trials in conjunction with QPWS from 1992 to 1995 for heavily degraded areas. Having been approached by the Fraser Implementation Scheme in 1991, the Pavements and Asset Strategy Branch developed four test sites on the Island at which to monitor the effectiveness of nine road treatments (pallets, wood chip, cement, cellular confinement systems and tyre wall matting) (Queensland Transport, 1993). The report identified heavy vehicles as being the key contributing factor in track degradation (Allen Bell, DMR pers. comm.). The studies recommended cellular confinement systems as a solution in degraded areas, however the cost of $80/m track was prohibitive.

Having identified a need to reduce vehicular impacts on the Island, a number of alternatives have been considered which look at transportation management options. This section is not proposed to be a detailed review of alternatives, but is intended to highlight some of the previous work undertaken by a variety of agencies. Possible options could include:

By not changing management practices, further degradation will occur. With increasing numbers of vehicles on the Island, road conditions will continue to deteriorate. Indications are that the current levels and patterns of road use on the Island are unsustainable. As such, the ìNo Changeî option is considered unacceptable.

QPWS currently issues 4WD vehicle permits from several locations including the Naturally Queensland shop in Brisbane CBD. As such, it would technically be easy to limit vehicle permit numbers during peak periods. Given the historical recreational use of the Island however, it would probably be politically unacceptable to make this decision. In addition, reducing private vehicles may encourage a greater patronage of commercial tours, possibly increasing heavy vehicle use and therefore route degradation.

Rather than limiting the number of standard 4WDs, another option would be to limit the numbers of heavy vehicles, particularly 4WD coaches, using the Island. Again this option is unlikely in the short term given the importance of tourism to the region and the considerable investment operators have in existing vehicles. To maintain the existing visitation figures, operators would have to turn to alternative vehicles such as 4WD. Replacing a fully occupied large coach would equate to 4 - 5 large 4WDs and would result in higher total vehicle numbers on the scenic routes.

At least one commercial tour operator has already commenced using large Land Cruisers as an alternative to coaches.

The report did not outline a process to achieve these objectives without impacting on tourism, access, traffic management and recreational amenity. As detailed in the EDAW (1997) report, the routes most impacted are the nominated scenic routes which connect to the main attractions on the Island. Any change to the management of these routes will have a significant impact on at least one of the key user groups (tour operators, 4WDers, day trippers, campers etc.). Without a coordinated strategy, this approach may simply redirect traffic to different routes which would in turn become degraded. It may also lead to confusion and frustration by Island visitors should they not be able to access certain parts of the Island while other groups can (ie if there were dedicated tour routes or if vehicle numbers were restricted).

Another option would be to close certain roads to vehicle access. This was one of the options discussed in conjunction with the light rail options reviewed by BTA (1997). Road closure alone would be unlikely to mitigate degradation, as users will simple choose another route. The closure of the most degraded routes (Table 2.3) will limit access to key recreation sites on the Island. This would ultimately be seen as unacceptable by visitors, tourism operators and the local community.

QPWS are currently proposing to undertake a Transportation Management Plan for the island. This study, following the recommendations of the Managing Visitor and Commercial Operators for Ecological Sustainability - Final report on the review of tourism activities in the Great Sandy Region report, will address transport management in a holistic review and will look at road closure, axle loading and traffic regulations for the Islandís roads.

The case for a light rail system have in part been outlined above. Under current use, the road transport infrastructure on the Island is unsustainable and it is unlikely that sufficient resources will be made available to QPWS to satisfactorily manage road use. The carrying capacity during peak periods has been reached on most of the scenic routes in central and southern parts of the Island. In order to maintain Australiaís World Heritage management obligations, a reduction in vehicular impacts is required. Given the sensitive nature of vehicle or route restrictions (as detailed above), the concentration of at least one sector of the visitor market (day trippers) on a sustainable transport system is a viable option worthy of further consideration.

By reducing the numbers of large vehicles, the greatest cause of degradation of the road system would be removed. However such a proposal would require the cooperation of key tourism operators and the coordination of tourism services in Hervey Bay and on the Island. As outlined by BTA (1997), the key advantages of light rail are:

large loads can be carried with only a single driver;

once the rail line is laid, there is minimal disturbance to the track;

light rail is very safe and reliable on low grade routes;

carriages can be open;

light rail has novelty appeal; and

the route would be exclusive to rail and therefore strictly controlling access.

A light rail option has been suggested by FIDO for over 25 years. As visitor numbers increase, the levels of degradation are likely to also increase proportionately. The light rail option is considered in more detail in the following section.

It its Preliminary Feasibility Assessment, BTA (1997) concluded that a light rail system could only be commercially viable if it was a means of transport between island arrival points, major accommodation centres and the most visited parts of the Island. The proposal is for a light rail system consisting of probably 3 cars, each capable of seating 50 adults. These would be pulled by a small diesel locomotive.

This assumption limited BTAs assessment to a central cross island route from either Woongoolba Creek to Eurong via Central Station with a spur to Lake McKenzie or from Kingfisher Bay to Eurong via Lake McKenzie with a spur to Central Station. Based on these options, BTA prepared four options for assessment:

Each of the above routes has serious constraints, either in the reduced access to visitors, residents or tour operators or in the management of a World Heritage listed area. These are listed below.

Conclusion: Impacts on stakeholders makes this option unrealistic__

Conclusion: Impacts on road congestion will depend on acceptance of rail mode option will not justify the capital costs of setting up the system__

Conclusion: Clearing a new route will be unacceptable within the World Heritage Area__

Conclusion: The only option (with some variations) considered by BTA__

The BTA report concluded that Option 4 would be commercially viable but would still cause considerable constraints and be unpopular with tourism operators. In addition, for the scheme to be a success, day visitors will need to be compelled to use the light rail to access Central Station by rail.

Given the assumptions derived at the study outset, the BTA report did not consider other options involving new barge landing destinations. An alternative option is discussed below.

An alternative route to those considered by the BTA (1998), Kingfisher (1993), Sunny Travel (1991) and GHD (1991) has been nominated by FIDO as their preferred crossing option. As shown in Figure 3.2, this would involve a western terminus at Urang Creek, a linkage to the existing Bogimbah Track either north or south of the disused Bogimbah airstrip, and then following the Bogimbah track east to Poyungan Valley on the eastern coast. Where possible, the rail would be constructed on the existing track to minimise any vegetation clearance associated with construction of the system.

The Bogimbah route has been identified as it does not impact on existing vehicle movement so does not inconvenience any road users, particularly along key routes. Constructing the light rail over an existing road will greatly minimise environmental impacts as minimal vegetation clearing will need to be undertaken. The route will provide a novel and historic tourism opportunity and will provide the passengers with a varied environmental introduction into the Island, where issues such as conservation, sandmining and logging can be easily discussed in a comfortable and stable environment.

The proposal is that some (or all) of the existing ferry services from Hervey Bay would be redirected to the proposed Unrang Creek Jetty, where passengers would cross the Island by train to meet bus/4WD services at Poyungan Valley. In addition, the train service could also offer freight transport to resorts on the eastern side of the Island. A deep water jetty and ferry terminal would be constructed over the mud flats on the northern side of Urang Creek. The current proposal is to replace the existing Bogimbah Road with the rail line.

The western end of the route would cover the old tramline route used for logging between 1905 - 1913. An alternative starting point would be along Bogimbah Creek which would have additional scenic values. From the existing junction of Bogimbah and Postanís (Poyungan) Roads, the route would travel east along the Bogimbah Road route. The final descent on to the eastern beach at Poyungan Valley would require surveying to determine the exact location.

The proposed route provides an opportunity to view at least six vegetation communities (Figure 3.2) including mangroves, sedgelands/heaths, scribbly gum woodlands, tall eucalypt woodlands/forests, closed forests and coastal forests/shrublands (Plates 3 - 8). As the preferred route is along an existing road, vegetation clearance would be kept to a minimum.

An engineering and economic assessment of a light rail option undertaken by GHD in 1991, indicated that the proposal was feasible given some engineering constraints. For environmental, economic and stability reasons, large earthworks were considered unacceptable. Curves should generally be flatter than 150m radius, with a normal minimum of 100m and an absolute minimum of 50m. These would allow speeds of 25 km/h, 20 km/h and 13 km/h respectively. The 1991 study concluded that grades of 1 in 30 were theoretically possible for a central island route through Central Station, with slightly steeper (1 in 25) grades on the eastern side. Road or valley crossings can be made over wooden trestle type bridging (as an alternative to high embankments) to provide a visual highlight for passengers. The utilisation of an existing low use road was identified as being a preferred route option.

Recent legislative regulations require rail operators be registered/licensed by Queensland Transport to comply with relevant safety standards. Systems with gradients less than 1 in 50 (2%) fall outside this special needs requirement and would be the recommended option for this proposal. This can be achieve on the proposed Bogimbah route but would require a switch-back at the eastern end. This would provide an additional tourism benefit as travellers on both sides of the train would experience extended views of the beach. A more direct route on the coastal side would require special speed restrictions, train braking systems and some form of runaway protection/recovery devices.

Based on these constraints, an preliminary route from Urang Creek to the eastern coast was identified based on engineering constraints. This route meets those criteria (primarily grade) detailed above and is shown in Figure 3.3.

Previous studies (GHD, 1991; BTA, 1998) have indicated that the success of such a system would require integration with existing Island services. Figures suggest that of the 158,422 visitors carried by tour operations (1998/99), about 100,000 come across from Hervey Bay. A substantial number of these visitors (probably around 75,000 - 80,000) would be required to use the train service per annum to ensure viability. With day tours ex-Hervey Bay being around $70 - 80 for adults/$40 children, rail prices would probably be in the order of $15 - 20 each way (BTA, 1998).

A generic route has been nominated for the proposed light rail system from Urang Creek. This route generally travels along either the existing Bogimbah Road or historical light rail route. A detailed route selection process is required to merge the two roots identified (Figures 3.2 and Figure 3.3) to ensure minimal environmental harm without impacting on the overall commercial viability of the project. An environmental assessment of this finalised route will then need to be undertaken to assess any potential impacts.

Another potential use of the rail network is to carry freight from the western to the eastern side of the island, thus minimising cross island freight traffic. Freight would be destined for the resorts, residents and QPWS. Some of the material currently freighted to or from the Island includes fuel, refuse, general provisions for a number of stores on the Island, construction materials, firewood and woodchip (for road maintenance). Much of this material is currently transported by large trucks which contribute to the road network degradation.

Discussions with QPWS suggested that wherever possible, freight from the mainland is brought to the island in staff vehicles to minimise costs to the Service. Some materials require either mechanical or manual assistance to load/unload. These are generally transported by truck.

Several constraints to the use of the system for freight are apparent. Firstly, additional rolling stock would be required, the number determined by the expected freight requirements and frequency of service. Secondly, the freight service would require the double handling of all goods at either terminus. Depending on the types of goods, this may require a number of personnel to physically carry the material. If large and/or heavy freight is to be transported, freight handling services may be required. Additional working space and track work would be required for storage of freight wagons at each terminus.

Some of these constraint could be addressed through innovative carriage design which would allow for storage of smaller material, boxes etc. which could be collected directly from the terminus after passengers have disembarked. Additionally, specific and frequent services (ie firewood, woodchip) could possibly be transported in skip bins or similar to allow easy loading and unloading at either terminus.

The impacts on tour operators from this proposal are primarily limited to changes in scope of tours and competition for tourism. This route option would close a road with little tourism use and would not affect through tour traffic. It would require barge operators to change Island landing areas, making a slightly longer trip than the Urangan to Moon Point which is the main route for tour operators out of Urangan. Rather than boarding a bus at Urangan, barging to the island and being driven to the coast via Moon Point Road, day trippers would be encouraged to board a barge or ferry at Urangan, travel to Urang Creek and board the light rail which would then travel to the east coast where passengers would be met by tour operators for trips to key recreation locations.

Should the proposal proceed and all passenger services from Urangan be diverted to Urang Creek, tour operators would lose the travel component from Moon Point to the east coast. Conversely, operators would be able to offer passengers a greater variation in travel opportunities and a smoother, more favourable viewing platform than is available on a coach. Kingfisher Resort would also be able to offer additional opportunities to residents, including a bus or ferry link to the western rail terminus and a guided rail tour across the island.

Two key tourism operators likely to be affected by this proposal were contacted to discuss their concerns and identify any potential impacts. These were Mr. Gary Smith of Kingfisher Bay Resort and Shane Boyd of Top Tours at Hervey Bay. Of main concern to both was maintaining the commercial viability of their respective organisations. All tour operators work in an extremely competitive environment and such a significant change may impact on commercial operations.

Top Tours is one of the operators who carries passengers from Moon Point. Mr. Boyd claimed that there was no degradation of the Moon Point Road which had been caused by heavy vehicles. Losing the Moon Road section of his fare would significantly impact on Top Tours financially and that the management of vehicles to meet trains would be inefficient and difficult to coordinate.

Kingfisher Bay Resort provides for guests with or without 4WDs. The resort operates a 4WD hire fleet and several 32 seat passenger buses. Mr. Smith wished to protect the commercial tour interest the resort provides, but would possibly support a rail service should it not impact on commercial tour operations. He believed the capital costs of setting up the system would be prohibitive to the development of a light rail option.

This study has not undertaken a detailed economic assessment of the proposal, however the BTA report (1998) did make some preliminary cost estimates based on original costings by GHD (1991) and the routes reviewed by BTA (Kingfisher to Eurong with a single train and the same route with two trains and an additional station at Central Station). They estimated the current capital costs at between $7.9 million and $10.2 million for the above options respectively.

A new landing facility at Urang Creek would also be required in addition to the light rail network. Costs for construction of a jetty similar to that currently operating at Kingfisher Resort were estimated at:

$1,800 - $2,000/m2 for construction of the jetty;

$1,200/m3 for construction of the concrete barge landing platform; and

$50/m3 for rock footings.

Based on these estimated figures, a 350m long, 3m wide jetty with a 0.25m x 10m x 30m concrete barge platform would cost in the order of $2.0 - $2.2 million plus rock footings. Should an office, shop or other facilities be required, these would be at an additional cost.

Given the above, capital costs to construct the light rail network and jetty would be in the order of $9.9 - $12.4 million. The exact costs will vary with the number and types of facilities proposed, the availability of second hand rails and the types of engineering structures required.

Based on estimates by BTA (1997) and GHD (1991), assuming 10 staff required for 365 day operation of the facility and regular maintenance, annual operation costs for the proposal would be in the order of $600,000 to $920,000 depending on the number of trains operating.

Recreational impacts on Fraser Island from camping, fishing, and vehicle movement have been identified by several sources as causing significant degradation. Vehicle impacts, particularly from heavy vehicles, is causing degradation of key visitor routes which in term is impacting on the natural environment through sedimentation of lakes and streams. Whilst the economic and engineering costs have been identified by QPWS, little has been done to quantify or address the associated environmental impacts.

Further transportation studies are evidently being considered by QPWS which may address issues such as vehicle size, road closures, traffic management for both tour operators and 4WD drivers. Given the significance of the Island to the local tourism economy, it is unlikely that serious constraints will be placed on tour operators using heavy vehicles on the island, in particular at the key recreational site. As such, an alternative transportation option is required that achieve the objective of distributing passengers without impacting on the environmental values and management economics of the Island. One alternative to achieve this is to control the impacts from cross island traffic and focus use on beach transport which is more sustainable.

The light rail option has been shown to be commercially viable if a significant proportion of island visitors use the service. This can only be guaranteed if some types of visitors are compelled to use the service. As day visitors are the greatest proportion of passengers using heavy vehicles, it make sense to try and compel these passengers to use light rail for at least some part of their journey. The proposed Bogimbah Road option would take tour bus traffic off Moon Point and Woongoolba Roads and concentrate passengers on a sustainable cross island service. Vehicles travelling along the eastern beaches cause minimal degradation and allow passengers to visit sites to the north and south. Central Station and Lake McKenzie can be accessed via a one-way road network from Eurong Beach.

A preferred route has been identified which does not impact on existing vehicle movement so does not inconvenience any road users, particularly along key routes. Constructing the light rail over an existing road will greatly minimise environmental impacts as minimal vegetation clearing will need to be undertaken. The route will provide a novel and historic tourism opportunity and will provide the passengers with a varied environmental introduction into the Island, where issues such as conservation, sandmining and logging can be easily discussed in a comfortable and stable environment.

Given the apparent benefits and commercial prospects of such a scheme, further consideration of the light rail proposal is warranted. Assessment of the potential environmental impacts, economic feasibility and transport integration aspects is required before such a proposal could proceed to the detailed planning phase. As such, this report recommends a more detailed feasibility study should include:

A needs analysis which identifies projected passenger demand and includes:

Increased road patronage on Fraser Island, in particular heavy vehicles, has lead to degraded roads and environmental impacts on the Island's waterways. This report has assessed the option of a light rail system on Fraser Island to replace some cross island heavy vehicle passenger and freight services. The report has examined a number of options (both rail and traffic management) and concludes that a light rail system located on the existing Bogimbah Road could provide significant environmental and tourism benefits by replacing existing heavy bus services on some roads and by providing a new tourism opportunity.

This report recommends that given the potential benefits from such a proposal, further studies should be undertaken to assess the overall feasibility of the project and how it would be incorporated into the existing transportation and tourism networks. A feasibility study, as detailed in Section 7, should be undertaken prior to any detailed planning phase.

Allan Bell, 1999. Queensland Transport, Pavements and Asset Strategy Branch. Personal communication.

Bramley Tourism Analysts, 1998. Preliminary Feasibility Assessment of Operating a Light Rail System on Fraser Island. Environment Australia.

EDAW (Aust) Pty Ltd, 1997. Great Sandy Region Tourism Impacts Assessment.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Fraser Island World Heritage Area Draft Camping Management Plan.

Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd, 1991. Tourism Tramway Study. Fraser Island Defenders Organisation.

Kerr, J. 1998. Forest Industry Heritage Place Study: Sawmills and Tramways South Eastern Queensland. Environmental Protection Agency.

Lachlan Fullerton, 1999. Manager, Great Sandy Region. Personal communication.

Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, 1998. Managing Visitors and Commercial Operators for Ecological Sustainability: Final report of the review of tourism activities in the Great Sandy Region.

Queensland Transport, 1993. Fraser Island Alternative Sand Pavement Trial Assessment Report 1. Pavements and Asset Strategy Branch.

bnemail@ghd.com.au - Bryce Skarratt

B Skarratt - Environmental Scientist

07 3832 4592