New England Rail Trail’s (NERT) project as it is currently presentled, is not justified on the evidence made public to date.
It’s case is premature.
Its business case is weaker than it first appears.
Its cost-benefit case relies heavily on modelled health benefits.
Its maintenance model is uncertain.
Its options analysis is too narrow. Its rail comparison is incomplete.
Its funding is patchwork.
Its long-term liabilities remain under-tested.
And its effect would be to make any future return of trains slower, harder and more expensive.
That concern is strengthened, not weakened, by the fact that neighbouring Tenterfield Shire Council has signalled in-principle support for retaining rail and preserving the broader corridor for future rail purposes.
This is backed by lodged and acknowledged petitions for passenger re-instatement.
Further studies into future rail services are required to assesa it’s strategic potential before rails are removed. Do rails even have to be removed? Until the cycling trail business case’s numbers can be proven and tested and can stand up for the long term, until the cycling trail can be proven rate payers will not be burdened by it and until transport studies and public transport needs are addressed, until then, it’s a NO GO!
Tanya Langdon
21-apr-2026
Tanya Langdon runs a small local business and is a resident of Tenterfield. She has been active in political issues in the New England region for 10+ year
