User talk:Jackicasey

REQUEST EDIT
Hello,

Could an editor please check the Inland Rail Wikipedia page. I believe it is inaccurate and contains bias. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Rail

Can the below please be reviewed and removed? “There are very many problems and serious impacts of the project as demonstrated by relevant Inquiries by the NSW State Legislative Council and the detailed Submissions to the ongoing Australian Senate Inquiry into the Inland Rail (see Submissions for download on link https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/InlandRail/Submissions ). The many problems and serious impacts of the Inland Rail are very real and are detailed in the Senate Submissions (which include detailed expert plus local advice). These problems and impacts are also the topic of many discussions between the communities, government representatives and the official Community Consultative Committees (CCC’s) of the Inland Rail of which this author “Concerned InlandRail” is a member. It is unfortunate and wrong that the concerns that were included in a recent edit (yesterday) of this Inland Rail page were deleted by someone seemingly unaware or dismissive of the reality of these concerns and the validity of the Submissions to the Senate Inquiry. It is not correct or right for any person to “Remove sections based solely on opinions” (i.e. “solely on opinions” of the removalistItalic text) as stated for the reason in the “View History of Edits” of this Inland Rail Wikipedia site when those important sections are factual and based on expert advice. For a factual understanding of the Inland Rail, please would all researchers and everyone download and read the independent Submissions on the link above (including especially Submissions 98 & 98.1 plus 31 & 31.1 plus 196 & 196.1). Please would Inland Rail staff and others not delete, belittle, dismiss or attempt to obscure or whitewash on this Wikipedia page, the accurate advice of the experts and the CCC’s involved for no monetary gain - doing so deliberately reduces the value of this Wikipedia page for everyone. The Inland Rail Web Page link is already provided on this Web Page (as well as the content on most of this Wikipedia Page in addition to huge amounts of glossy Public Relations material issued by Inland Rail) for those who understandably do not have the time or priority or simply do not want to hear of the advice and impacts and important issues associated with the Inland Rail. The main beneficiary of the Inland Rail will be the thermal coal industry of SE Queensland as demonstrated in the business case in the attached graph “Economic Impacts by Industry during....” as provided by Inland Rail itself to the Senate Inquiry (Figure 15 on Page 37 of ARTC Submission 128 Attachment 1 available for downloading from the Senate Submission site above). This fact is supported by many published experts and respected journalists (see Submission 98 and also the links https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/03/20/inland-rails-dirty-secret-subsidised-coal-exports/ and https://www.afr.com/companies/infrastructure/business-case-for-10b-melbourne-to-brisbane-inland-rail-unravelling-20190326-p517li ). In contrast to the benefits to the thermal coal industry in SE Queensland, any positive benefits to the Agricultural and Primary Industry sectors in Australia will be negligible (see again the Graph “Economic Impacts by Industry....” as provided by Inland Rail itself. THIS INLAND RAIL IS NOT A PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE AND WILL PROVIDE NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE EXCEPT THE VERY FEW ABLE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON SOME OF THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PUBLIC MONEY SPLASHED BY POLITICAL FRIENDS . A long-term well-known public advocate of a very different Inland Rail has stated the project “is in the hands of gross political and bureaucratic incompetents who have turned it into an unbelievable farce at huge cost to the nation” (see link http://mhdsupplychain.com.au/2019/03/29/opinion-inland-railway-politics-of-disaster/ ) The railway will transport some freight between Melbourne and Brisbane over large floodplains, bisecting established farms, blocking roads and crossing within metres of established premises and residences in both rural communities and heavily populated suburbs to achieve a strongly-debated anticipated transit time of less than 24 hours. For example, the currently unfunded section between Toowoomba and Kagaru in Queensland will require the funding, planning, design, construction and maintenance of:- • circa 130 kilometres of new dual gauge track; almost nine kilometres of tunnels, including a 6.5 kilometre tunnel of 10 metres diameter through the Toowoomba Ranges which will be the largest diesel train tunnel in the Southern Hemisphere; • 25 level crossings and 10 road-over-rail separations; • 21 viaducts totaling 5.7 kilometres in length; • 37 river bridges, including 20 totaling one kilometre between Helidon and Calvert; and • 11 crossing loops”. see link https://infrastructurepipeline.org/project/inland-rail---toowoomba-to-kagaru-sections-ppp/ Construction of the railway commenced in 2018 despite a serious lack (currently many billions of dollars) of funds and the controversies and lack of proven feasibility and approvals over much of the route, and it is never-the-less scheduled to be completed in 2025.[1]. Despite the lack of funds and its unviability (based on economical, environmental and social responsibilities), the Inland Rail Team (for whatever reason but probably for extra handouts of public cash anticipated and lobbied for) is now attempting to feast off the Covid-19 tragedies and deaths by offensively launching a public campaign stating that these tragedies and deaths somehow justify their project - see the web link https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/8dc81b6194fb5df157b4d2a1131f246ae6bc7b49/original/1587698718/IR_1752_B2G_project_update_web.pdf_bbb912cca445d88cf55b03e9527bd0f6?1587698718”

"Concerned Inland Rail" is the user behind this inaccurate edit - and this content would be better suited to a forum. It is both biased and incorrect. We would appreciate if it was removed as the content violates the Wikipedia policy of including personal bias and contempt. Thanks for your help.