CRR Inquiry: Updates

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Citizens Inquiry into Operational Deficiencies with CRR
Update 5th June 2021

Greetings,

RAIL Back On Track has closely followed and supported Cross River Rail since 2009 ( Long thread on Cross River Rail here > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.0 ).  The initial concept for the project was sound and had strong support of Infrastructure Australia.  Since 2009 the project has undergone changes due to political interferences and bureaucratic bumbling, such that the current version of the project is seriously flawed and is no longer supported by Infrastructure Australia as a priority project.

*Quote
... Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure Priority List at this time. Infrastructure Australia considers that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to exceed its benefits. ...
End quote

* https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/20170727-Cross-River-Rail-Summary.pdf page 1 Summary

We have been seeking the planned operational details for Cross River Rail now for a number of years. RTI (Right To Information) applications both administrative and under the legislation, Ministerial requests, requests to CRRDA have all been unsuccessful.  In other jurisdictions for similar scale projects this sort of information IS PUBLICLY available.  We are now of the view that the details are being withheld because it will confirm the poor outcomes for the current CRR version.  Operational details exist and are contained within the Concept of Operations Document for the project, copies of which are held by DTMR, CRRDA and Queensland Rail.  There is nothing stopping the operational concepts being released from that document, other than the Government's intent to hide them. Have a look at this discussion thread on Metro Tunnel (Melbourne) at RBoT forum > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14290.0. This what operational transparency looks like.

So in an attempt to get some transparency and possibly some changed improved outcomes for the project we are conducting our own Inquiry to document the operational weaknesses and suggest what can done to improve the outcomes. It is most regrettable, and a sad indictment on the Queensland State Government and the State Opposition that we must take these steps.

Feedback from citizens is welcome ( see https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14278.0 ).

We are presently working on possible solutions to fix the northern side and southern side capacity constraints.

We have also identified there will be a rollingstock shortfall that will further restrict any significant service improvements when Cross River Rail is commissioned.
( See > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14046.msg247499#msg247499 ).

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

Reference: Citizens Inquiry into Operational Deficiencies with CRR https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?board=103.

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1400895509452124160

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

CRR Inquiry: Example of feedback received

8th June 2021

Good Morning,

The lack of transparency with respect to the how the rail network will operate when Cross River Rail is commissioned is a serious failure of communication and Government.

I will share some feedback received.  Guess the authorities will ignore this too hey?  Never mind, our Inquiry is proceeding well.  To think that SEQ is hopeful for the Olympics, when the rail network is now so many years behind.  Cross River Rail is shaping up very much as a flawed stranded investment.

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14281.msg247113#msg247113

27th May 2021

Message:

I would like to reflect the sentiments and concerns raised by the RBOT membership with regards to the outcomes CRR will generate in its current form.

In particular, I would like to echo a few specific points, some of which I fear may be too late to remedy:

Southside:

(1) No additional track capacity from the tunnel portal. This is a critical issue. A 2 platform, 4 track solution is the best approach, rather than the 3 track/3 platform solution currently being implemented. Intermediate stations that will not be used for pax transfers (e.g. Salisbury for future Flagstone services) do not require 3 platforms and bi-directional running of express services is critical for service frequency improvements into the future. A 4 track solution is required, at least as far as Salisbury but preferrably as far as Loganlea (or an alternative 2-track alignment elsewhere).

(2) Use of the existing legacy alignment. The Beenleigh Line has many tight curves which severely restrict operating speed. A new alignment should be considered into the future, especially if the idea of 'fast/faster rail' is ever to be realised.

(3) Lack of Cleveland Line duplication. The Cleveland Line will be doing all the heavy lifting for South Brisbane etc, but the far end of the line will gain nothing with the status quo of single track.

Central section:

(1) CRR tunnel alignment. Once again, to save $$ there is a steep gradient and at least one tight curve on the line, which will severely restrict operating speed within the CRR tunnel. It's too late to change this, but I have doubts that 'fast/faster rail' could effectively achieve these speeds in the tunnel. Rail projects should be targeting shallow grades/slopes and curve radii of at least 1,200m (preferably more) to support 160kph operation or future fast rail conversion. Continually settling for dodgy curves and steep grades to save money limits the utility of major infrastructure projects.

(2) Roma Street Station underground. I believe it would be preferable to have two island platforms at Roma Street underground. This would allow for dwells of local trains or originating/terminating platforms for fast/faster rail into the future using the CRR tunnel.

(3) Roma Street Station master plan. The Busway/Metro should be undergrounded here. To have no plan right now, or now actively be talking about not undergrounding the Busway/Metro is a joke. The wonderful heritage station should be the defining viewpoint/vista of the redesigned station.

Northside:

(1) cr%p connection to existing Mains. RBOT members have gone over this time and time again. A cheap and nasty solution which will create track conflicts destroys any utility gains on the Mains north of Bowen Hills.

(2) Lack of additional track capacity at least as far as Eagle Junction/Airport turnouts. I understand there are major restrictions in the corridor width north of Albion, but the gains being made on this section are almost entirely driven by ETCS. It begs the question - what's the point of all this then for the Northside? No plan for track capacity, and no plan for NWTC/Trouts Rd Corridor. If NWTC won't happen, more track capacity is needed, probably at least as far as Northgate, and it's probably worthwhile to build the fourth track as far as Lawnton junction. As for the southside, you can remove platforms to fit in a fourth track if needed, as many of these stations only require 2 platforms (not 3, certainly not 4).

(3) Lack of any plan at all for future NWTC connection. If the State Government doesn't plan now, it'll end up as an arterial road. What a joke. Also thinking it would be ok to use the existing FG Line to connect if ever built. Also a joke.

Overall, it's unacceptable to be building this piece of infrastructure with public funds whilst being totally ignorant of how it needs to tie into other projects to realise positive outcomes. Furthermore, it's also unacceptable to use such an amount of public funds to achieve a cheap and nasty solution, which is where we'll end up at the current rate. In what world is it ok to forge ahead like this with the blinders on and a 'plan to make a plan' for what happens next?

The idiocy is staggering.

====

RAIL Back On Track calls for an operational review of Cross River Rail by qualified independent rail planners.  There are too many recent rail failures in Queensland to let this project be another.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Sent to all outlets:

Citizens Inquiry into Operational Deficiencies with CRR
Update 5th June 2021

Greetings,

RAIL Back On Track has closely followed and supported Cross River Rail since 2009 ( Long thread on Cross River Rail here > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.0 ).  The initial concept for the project was sound and had strong support of Infrastructure Australia.  Since 2009 the project has undergone changes due to political interferences and bureaucratic bumbling, such that the current version of the project is seriously flawed and is no longer supported by Infrastructure Australia as a priority project.

*Quote
... Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure Priority List at this time. Infrastructure Australia considers that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to exceed its benefits. ...
End quote

* https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/20170727-Cross-River-Rail-Summary.pdf page 1 Summary

We have been seeking the planned operational details for Cross River Rail now for a number of years. RTI (Right To Information) applications both administrative and under the legislation, Ministerial requests, requests to CRRDA have all been unsuccessful.  In other jurisdictions for similar scale projects this sort of information IS PUBLICLY available.  We are now of the view that the details are being withheld because it will confirm the poor outcomes for the current CRR version.  Operational details exist and are contained within the Concept of Operations Document for the project, copies of which are held by DTMR, CRRDA and Queensland Rail.  There is nothing stopping the operational concepts being released from that document, other than the Government's intent to hide them. Have a look at this discussion thread on Metro Tunnel (Melbourne) at RBoT forum > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14290.0. This what operational transparency looks like.

So in an attempt to get some transparency and possibly some changed improved outcomes for the project we are conducting our own Inquiry to document the operational weaknesses and suggest what can done to improve the outcomes. It is most regrettable, and a sad indictment on the Queensland State Government and the State Opposition that we must take these steps.

Feedback from citizens is welcome ( see https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14278.0 ).

We are presently working on possible solutions to fix the northern side and southern side capacity constraints.

We have also identified there will be a rollingstock shortfall that will further restrict any significant service improvements when Cross River Rail is commissioned.
( See > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14046.msg247499#msg247499 ).

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

Reference: Citizens Inquiry into Operational Deficiencies with CRR https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?board=103.

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1401965564533219344

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1403503088653062147

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Citizens Inquiry into Operational Deficiencies with CRR
Update 13th June 2021

We have discovered a very interesting document.

Australian Institute for Progress October 2020

Cross River Rail Project
Review of Challenges and
Opportunities

https://aip.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CRR_Charles_and_Sayeg_Final_20_10_28.pdf

This review was conducted by Professor Phil Charles, consultant and Director Transport Futures Institute with extensive experience as an adviser on transport strategy and planning projects. And Philip Sayeg, consultant and Managing Director of Policy Appraisal Services with wide ranging Australian and international experience in urban and regional transport.

It is an excellent review of Cross River Rail and raises issues that RAIL Back On Track has also raised, and we continue to raise.
Some examples:

Page 3
Quote
1.2 Review Objectives and Scope The purpose of this review of the CRR project is to assess current and emerging challenges, highlight issues and risks and look towards potential opportunities to maximise the value for money of the project.

In view of the current prevailing difficulties with access to persons concerned with, and knowledgeable on, CRR it has been necessary to rely on publicly available documents for data, analysis and conclusions, filtered for technical relevance and integrity by the authors.
End quote

There is a lack of transparency with the rail operational details for the Citytrain network.  Even the basic network structure is hidden.
'Time to Publicly Release the Cross River Rail Service Plans!' https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14092.msg245380#msg245380

Page 5
Quote
Footnote 6 Business Queensland. 2017. Cross River Rail Business Case. August. Page 140. Figure 6.12 indicates the maximum number of inbound train paths that can be operated through the CRR tunnels at 2036 is 34 per hour or 71% of the ultimate capacity of 48 per hour, with the latter dependent on "augmentation of the connecting surface network north and south of the project."
End quote

There are problems with the track layouts north and south of the CRR tunnel which restrict capacity.
'Problems with Cross River Rail hidden' https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14092.msg242134#msg242134


Page 10
Quote
3.5 Governance
The CRR project had an independent Board reporting to the Minister responsible for Cross River Rail, however the Board was replaced by a board of senior public servants in April 2020.

Independent governance arrangements need to be instituted for the CRR project to ensure accountability and value for money.
End quote

RAIL Back On Track raised the problem with a board of senior public servants in July 2020.
'Call for proper public scrutiny of the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority' https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/3648150715199089

Page 24
Quote
8. Recommendations
It is recommended that:

1. Given the recent changes in governance with the removal of the nongovernment members of the CRRA, the new Minister should immediately commission an independent review of CRR, ensuring the Commissioner has the necessary investigative powers to assess the overall performance of the project.

2. The investigation should also include a full technical review, identification of major risks, as well as confirmation of the total direct, indirect, and associated capital costs for the project and the whole--of life and operating costs for the project.

3. The investigation should also identify and recommend ways to better integrate the planning and delivery of other associated infrastructure projects such as inland rail and inner city freight corridors, Brisbane Metro and major urban redevelopment projects such as Queens Wharf Brisbane and the proposed Eagle Street redevelopment.

4. The investigation should also consider whether current governance arrangements are best suited to the evolving nature of the project as well as mechanisms to ensure ongoing reviews of the project. This includes the concept of "pop up" governance such as an ongoing, independent and appropriately-powered Inspector-General to develop and implement an ongoing assurance programme for the Minister for Transport as the Project Sponsor.
End quote

RAIL Back On Track called for an independent review of CRR in December 2020.
'Call to halt Cross River Rail - independent review needed!' https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14092.msg242138#msg242138

The lack of transparency with the CRR project is disturbing.  We again call on the Queensland Government to immediately appoint an independent review panel with at least 3 qualified rail planners to review the project.  This is now critical.  With the recent history of rail blunders in Queensland we wish to avoid yet another costly blunder with Cross River Rail, it is clearly off the rails.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1403788186262773760

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1403792208696774658

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1404506866697211908

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1404508461115731969

[ozbob]

20th June 2021

Show us the money, NOT!

In 2017 Cross River Rail (CRR) was evaluated by Infrastructure Australia (IA).

The published 2017 CRR business case is available at https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf
It is understood this is not full business case, certain information is redacted.

Infrastructure Australia assessed the business case and concluded that " Infrastructure Australia has retained Cross River Rail as a High Priority Initiative on the Infrastructure Priority List. Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure Priority List at this time. "

Infrastructure Australia Statement:

Evaluation of the current business case for Cross River Rail 27 July 2017
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/listing/media-release/evaluation-current-business-case-cross-river-rail

Infrastructure Australia has concluded its independent evaluation of the Queensland Government's current business case for Cross River Rail, following a rigorous assessment process.

Chief Executive Philip Davies said: "we have reached the conclusion that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to exceed its benefits.

"Based on a thorough evidence-based analysis of the business case, we have found that the rail patronage growth projections and the estimation of project benefits are unrealistically high."

"Infrastructure Australia regularly assesses business cases for nationally significant projects as part of our role as an independent advisor to governments. The assumptions that have been used to justify the benefits in the Cross River Rail business case are well in excess of those we have seen for comparable projects.

"For example, the projected rail patronage growth in the business case is 7 times faster than actual growth in Brisbane over the last decade and 2.5 times that of comparable projects in larger Australian cities.

"Infrastructure Australia first raised concerns with the Queensland Government about the business case for Cross River Rail in July 2016. To date, the issues we raised have not been fully addressed", he said.

Infrastructure Australia has determined that Cross River Rail will remain on the Infrastructure Priority List, however the current proposal cannot be added to the list of projects with an approved business case at this time.

"We would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case from the Queensland Government addressing our concerns about the assumptions and projections used in the business case. A revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks.

"Infrastructure Australia has long supported the strategic need for improvements to public transport and additional capacity across the Brisbane River into the CBD. However, based on the assumptions and projections underpinning the current business case, the timeframe for this need remains unclear.

"We are committed to working with the Queensland Government to evaluate and prioritise proposals for nationally significant infrastructure." Mr Davies said.

Evaluation of the business case for Cross River Rail is now available on the Infrastructure Australia website.

====

Project Evaluation Summary
Cross River Rail
Proponent Queensland Government
Evaluation date 19 July 2017


https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/20170727-Cross-River-Rail-Summary.pdf

Summary

Infrastructure Australia has retained Cross River Rail as a High Priority Initiative on the Infrastructure Priority List.
This rating recognises that the emerging problem of rail capacity into and through Brisbane's CBD is a nationally
significant infrastructure problem which will need to be addressed.

Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure
Priority List at this time. Infrastructure Australia considers that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the
business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to
exceed its benefits.

Infrastructure Australia would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case which addresses our
concerns with benefit estimation, and clarifies the estimated timeframe for the emerging capacity problem. A
revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to
result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks.

====

Queensland rules out submitting another Cross River Rail business case 3 July 2019
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/queensland-rules-out-submitting-another-cross-river-rail-business-case-20190702-p523fq.html

" ... A Queensland government spokesman said there were no plans to submit a new business case and the government was getting on with the job of building Cross River Rail. ... "

====

In the 2021-22 State Budget Cross River Rail is now costed at $6.888 billion ( was $5.4 billion).
This is an increase of 27.6% ( https://budget.qld.gov.au/files/Budget_2021-22_Capital_Statement.pdf page 6 ).
The failure to resubmit the business case is now proving to be even more costly and is starving funds for other projects.

====

The Queensland State Government complains that there is no Federal Funding for Cross River Rail.  Well, the State Government has not put in a revised business case.  On this basis we can assume that IA's assessment is valid.

This is a factor no doubt in the State Governments lack of transparency with respect to the operational details of the rail network when CRR is commissioned.   The project is operationally flawed.  If the State Government believes otherwise, show us the evidence!

Show me the money!!

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1406360483163115523

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

Thinking about the business case some more.  I think the State should redo the business case and resubmit, even at this later stage.

IA  "  A revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to
result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks. .. "

I think these aspects particularly are a lot clearer now and a much better effort could be made. 
The Olympics also offers a further glimmer of hope.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.  A couple of billion dollars in Federal funding, will free up funds for other projects.

Do it!

[#Metro]

Federal money could be used to fix up the project's shortcomings.

[timh]

Federal money could be used to fix up the project's shortcomings.

It would certainly be a benefit. Won't a new business case take like another $10m and 18 months to complete though?

Not that editing a documebt SHOULD take that long or cost that much but I know how these govt plans usually work...

[kram0]

The CRR business case was probably like the quarantine facility Anna wanted at Welcamp, lacking detail and full of glossy pictures.

Not surprised the feds didn't support it.

[ozbob]

The CRR business case was probably like the quarantine facility Anna wanted at Welcamp, lacking detail and full of glossy pictures.

Not surprised the feds didn't support it.

The ' public version ' 2017 CRR business case is available at https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf

This is not the complete document, that is, cough cough ' Cabinet-in-confidence '.   

But you are right, it simply was not up to the standard and despite IA inviting a resubmission and suggesting where improvements needed the Queensland Government spat out its dummy.  Outrageous when I think it through 

I really think they should swallow some misplaced pride and have another crack at it. Even if it costs a little bit. 
With the project starting to crystalise in terms of land use urban form etc. they must be able to do a better effort now.

CRR is not what it seems at all.  No wonder they are hiding operational details.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1406626138642796544

^

** Show us the money, NOT!
or ... why the Federal Government is not supporting Cross River Rail **https://t.co/o5MOO476p8#qldpol pic.twitter.com/DdAXu4nMS4

— RAIL_BoT_Forum (@railbotforum) June 20, 2021

[HappyTrainGuy]

I suspect their additional station costings needed for the gold coast line have blown out.

[ozbob]

I suspect their additional station costings needed for the gold coast line have blown out.

Yes, agree.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1406675286393974785

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1407039562766065670

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Call for Queensland Government to resubmit an improved business case for Cross River Rail to Infrastructure Australia

23 June 2021

In 2017 Cross River Rail (CRR) was evaluated by Infrastructure Australia (IA).

The published 2017 CRR business case is available at https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf
It is understood this is not full business case, certain information is redacted.

Infrastructure Australia assessed the business case in 2017 and concluded that "Infrastructure Australia has retained Cross River Rail as a High Priority Initiative on the Infrastructure Priority List. Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure Priority List at this time."

Infrastructure Australia Statement:

Evaluation of the current business case for Cross River Rail 27 July 2017
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/listing/media-release/evaluation-current-business-case-cross-river-rail

"Infrastructure Australia has concluded its independent evaluation of the Queensland Government's current business case for Cross River Rail, following a rigorous assessment process.

Chief Executive Philip Davies said: "we have reached the conclusion that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to exceed its benefits.

"Based on a thorough evidence-based analysis of the business case, we have found that the rail patronage growth projections and the estimation of project benefits are unrealistically high."

"Infrastructure Australia regularly assesses business cases for nationally significant projects as part of our role as an independent advisor to governments. The assumptions that have been used to justify the benefits in the Cross River Rail business case are well in excess of those we have seen for comparable projects.

"For example, the projected rail patronage growth in the business case is 7 times faster than actual growth in Brisbane over the last decade and 2.5 times that of comparable projects in larger Australian cities.

"Infrastructure Australia first raised concerns with the Queensland Government about the business case for Cross River Rail in July 2016. To date, the issues we raised have not been fully addressed", he said.

Infrastructure Australia has determined that Cross River Rail will remain on the Infrastructure Priority List, however the current proposal cannot be added to the list of projects with an approved business case at this time.

"We would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case from the Queensland Government addressing our concerns about the assumptions and projections used in the business case. A revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks.

"Infrastructure Australia has long supported the strategic need for improvements to public transport and additional capacity across the Brisbane River into the CBD. However, based on the assumptions and projections underpinning the current business case, the timeframe for this need remains unclear.

"We are committed to working with the Queensland Government to evaluate and prioritise proposals for nationally significant infrastructure." Mr Davies said.

Evaluation of the business case for Cross River Rail is now available on the Infrastructure Australia website."

====

Project Evaluation Summary
Cross River Rail
Proponent Queensland Government
Evaluation date 19 July 2017


https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/20170727-Cross-River-Rail-Summary.pdf

"Summary

Infrastructure Australia has retained Cross River Rail as a High Priority Initiative on the Infrastructure Priority List.
This rating recognises that the emerging problem of rail capacity into and through Brisbane's CBD is a nationally
significant infrastructure problem which will need to be addressed.

Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure
Priority List at this time. Infrastructure Australia considers that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the
business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to
exceed its benefits.

Infrastructure Australia would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case which addresses our
concerns with benefit estimation, and clarifies the estimated timeframe for the emerging capacity problem. A
revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to
result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks."

====

Comment:

Queensland rules out submitting another Cross River Rail business case 3 July 2019
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/queensland-rules-out-submitting-another-cross-river-rail-business-case-20190702-p523fq.html

" ... A Queensland government spokesman said there were no plans to submit a new business case and the government was getting on with the job of building Cross River Rail. ... "

This was a serious mistake.

====

Comment:

In the 2021-22 State Budget Cross River Rail is now costed at $6.888 billion ( was $5.4 billion).
This is an increase of 27.6% ( https://budget.qld.gov.au/files/Budget_2021-22_Capital_Statement.pdf page 6 ).
The failure to resubmit the business case is now proving to be even more costly and is starving funds for other projects.

====

Comment:

The Queensland State Government complains that there is no Federal Funding for Cross River Rail.  Well, the State Government has not put in a revised business case.  On this basis we can assume that Infrastructure Australia's assessment is valid. This is a factor no doubt in the State Governments lack of transparency with respect to the operational details of the rail network when CRR is commissioned.   The project is operationally flawed in our opinion.  If the State Government believes otherwise, show us the evidence!

Infrastructure Australia indicated that  " A revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks. .. "

We think these aspects particularly are a lot clearer now and a much better effort could be made.
The Olympics also offers a further glimmer of hope.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.  A couple of billion dollars in Federal funding, will free up funds for shortfalls with Cross River Rail and other projects.  It is not too late.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1407405450602061826

[#Metro]

Is there a restriction on who may submit a business case, or will IA take a submission from a third party?

[ozbob]

Is there a restriction on who may submit a business case, or will IA take a submission from a third party?

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/2018%20Assessment%20Framework.pdf page 13

A3.2 How to make a submission for the
Infrastructure Priority List (IPL)
Who can make a submission?
Infrastructure Australia welcomes initiative submissions
from any individuals or organisations who would like to
nominate potential infrastructure solutions for inclusion
on the IPL. This can include joint submissions. These
submissions can be made at any time.
Proponents for projects must have the technical and legal
capacity to develop a full business case, and implement
the project. Projects should be endorsed by the appropriate
delegated authority of the proponent. Project submissions,
including private sector submissions, are required to show
support from the relevant state and/or territory governments.
For projects seeking more than $100m of Australian
Government funding, the Australian Government
requires that the business case be evaluated by
Infrastructure Australia.

Basically anyone can.  The problem is of course having the resources and information to support.  Cross River Rail is too complex for anyone other than Government. 

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1410617647280971789

[ozbob]

See thread Cross River Rail Delivery Board > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14329.0


Sent to all outlets:

Citizens Inquiry into Operational Deficiencies with CRR
Update: 4th July 2021
Cross River Rail Delivery Board - effective?

The Cross River Rail (CRR) Delivery Board membership is presently six Queensland Government Public Servants.

See Cross River Rail Delivery Board https://governmentbodies.premiers.qld.gov.au/BodyDisplay.aspx?Parameter=858

Until recently the membership details were also available on the CRR website at https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/about/our-people/
On the 9th June 2021 we highlighted the fact that details for the CRR Delivery Board as displayed then were out of the date.  The response from CRR was to remove the membership details and then hide the complete details and make available on request only.  Hardly transparent is it?

Appointment of members of the Cross River Rail Delivery Board was announced by Cabinet in March 2017  https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Mar/ApptCRRD/Appointment%20of%20members%20of%20Cross%20River%20Rail%20Delivery%20Board.docx ).
The role of the Board was described as " ... the Cross River Rail Delivery Board is to ensure the proper, efficient and effective performance of the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority's functions and decide its objectives, strategies and policies, as well as ensure that it complies with its strategic plan and operational plan under the Financial Accountability Act 2009. The Cross River Rail Delivery Board would also report to the Minister about the performance of the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority's functions."  Membership then was four public servants and up to a further six independent members. ( https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2016-066#pt.3 ).

On the 26th February 2020 the then Minister for Innovation and Tourism Industry Development and Minister for Cross River Rail
The Honourable Kate Jones announced by statement ( https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/89425 ) in part that " ... 1. The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority will report directly to the Minister 2. A Compliance Unit will be established to ensure all commitments made by the contractor are met during the construction of the project 3. The board will be restructured once the current term expires in April this year, in line with the transition from procurement to construction ".

As a result the independent members of the Board were dismissed, and the Board reformed with the six public servants.

Membership of the Board in July 2020 was:

Mr Damien Walker, Director-General, Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation (Chair)
Mr Dave Stewart, Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Ms Rachel Hunter, Under Treasurer, Queensland Treasury
Mr Neil Scales OBE, Director-General, Department of Transport and Main Roads
Ms Liza Carroll, Director-General, Department of Housing and Public Works
Dr Sarah Pearson, Deputy Director-General, Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation
Mr Matthew Longland, Deputy Director-General, Department of Transport and Main Roads

We have concerns that the Cross River Rail Board is no longer independent in our opinion, and is limited in its ability to act.

The Department of the Premier and Cabinet Roles and responsibilities state in part ( https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/policies-and-codes/handbooks/welcome-aboard/public-employee-roles/responsibilities.aspx ) where public service employees are members of Government Boards:

*** " When appointed to a Government Board in an official capacity, the public service employee should be aware of the government's policy imperatives and should not present a personal opinion or position that is contrary to either the Minister's directives or the government's policy agenda. " ***

====

RAIL Back On Track Members are also concerned that the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (CRRDA) is not subject to the Right To Information Act 2009 except for very limited community service obligations.

From https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2009-013#sch.2

Reprint current from 1 April 21 to date accessed (4 July 2021 4.35am).

Schedule 2

Entities to which this Act does not apply:

"the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority established under the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Act 2016, section 8, in relation to its functions, except so far as they relate to community service obligations under that Act"

====

We are therefore rightly concerned that activities of the CRRDA are not subject to proper public scrutiny.  We call on all political parties to consider amending legislation to remove CRRDA from Schedule 2 of the RTI legislation and make it subject to proper scrutiny, particularly for rail network operational details and how it impacts on citizens.

Consideration should also be given to replace the board with members, that are in our opinion, seen to be independent of the Government of the day, and have some operational rail and planning experience and qualifications. The changes to the Board to just a handful of token public servants to make up the board, who are effectively muzzled and are not independent in any sense is very concerning.

There has been a recent history of major problems with rail and rail related projects in SEQ, expensive to fix.

The last thing we need is another one which appears to be case with CRR because of the non-transparency with the operational details of the rail network when CRR is commissioned. There are clearly issues with CRR.  There is a vacuum when it comes to operational details, the public relations spin is all based on the construction activities etc.  which is relevant, but is only part of the story. 

There is no real mechanism for effective public scrutiny of CRR or its activities.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

References:

Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Act 2016
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2016-066
Part 3 Cross River Rail Delivery Board https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2016-066#pt.3

====

Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Act 2016 — Explanatory Note
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/bill.first.exp/bill-2016-098
PDF https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/bill.first.exp/bill-2016-098 Part 3 Board

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1412116772333887490

Sent to all outlets:

Call for Queensland Government to resubmit an improved business case for Cross River Rail to Infrastructure Australia

23 June 2021

In 2017 Cross River Rail (CRR) was evaluated by Infrastructure Australia (IA).

The published 2017 CRR business case is available at https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf
It is understood this is not full business case, certain information is redacted.

Infrastructure Australia assessed the business case in 2017 and concluded that "Infrastructure Australia has retained Cross River Rail as a High Priority Initiative on the Infrastructure Priority List. Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure Priority List at this time."

Infrastructure Australia Statement:

Evaluation of the current business case for Cross River Rail 27 July 2017
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/listing/media-release/evaluation-current-business-case-cross-river-rail

"Infrastructure Australia has concluded its independent evaluation of the Queensland Government's current business case for Cross River Rail, following a rigorous assessment process.

Chief Executive Philip Davies said: "we have reached the conclusion that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to exceed its benefits.

"Based on a thorough evidence-based analysis of the business case, we have found that the rail patronage growth projections and the estimation of project benefits are unrealistically high."

"Infrastructure Australia regularly assesses business cases for nationally significant projects as part of our role as an independent advisor to governments. The assumptions that have been used to justify the benefits in the Cross River Rail business case are well in excess of those we have seen for comparable projects.

"For example, the projected rail patronage growth in the business case is 7 times faster than actual growth in Brisbane over the last decade and 2.5 times that of comparable projects in larger Australian cities.

"Infrastructure Australia first raised concerns with the Queensland Government about the business case for Cross River Rail in July 2016. To date, the issues we raised have not been fully addressed", he said.

Infrastructure Australia has determined that Cross River Rail will remain on the Infrastructure Priority List, however the current proposal cannot be added to the list of projects with an approved business case at this time.

"We would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case from the Queensland Government addressing our concerns about the assumptions and projections used in the business case. A revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks.

"Infrastructure Australia has long supported the strategic need for improvements to public transport and additional capacity across the Brisbane River into the CBD. However, based on the assumptions and projections underpinning the current business case, the timeframe for this need remains unclear.

"We are committed to working with the Queensland Government to evaluate and prioritise proposals for nationally significant infrastructure." Mr Davies said.

Evaluation of the business case for Cross River Rail is now available on the Infrastructure Australia website."

====

Project Evaluation Summary
Cross River Rail
Proponent Queensland Government
Evaluation date 19 July 2017


https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/20170727-Cross-River-Rail-Summary.pdf

"Summary

Infrastructure Australia has retained Cross River Rail as a High Priority Initiative on the Infrastructure Priority List.
This rating recognises that the emerging problem of rail capacity into and through Brisbane's CBD is a nationally
significant infrastructure problem which will need to be addressed.

Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure
Priority List at this time. Infrastructure Australia considers that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the
business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to
exceed its benefits.

Infrastructure Australia would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case which addresses our
concerns with benefit estimation, and clarifies the estimated timeframe for the emerging capacity problem. A
revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to
result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks."

====

Comment:

Queensland rules out submitting another Cross River Rail business case 3 July 2019
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/queensland-rules-out-submitting-another-cross-river-rail-business-case-20190702-p523fq.html

" ... A Queensland government spokesman said there were no plans to submit a new business case and the government was getting on with the job of building Cross River Rail. ... "

This was a serious mistake.

====

Comment:

In the 2021-22 State Budget Cross River Rail is now costed at $6.888 billion ( was $5.4 billion).
This is an increase of 27.6% ( https://budget.qld.gov.au/files/Budget_2021-22_Capital_Statement.pdf page 6 ).
The failure to resubmit the business case is now proving to be even more costly and is starving funds for other projects.

====

Comment:

The Queensland State Government complains that there is no Federal Funding for Cross River Rail.  Well, the State Government has not put in a revised business case.  On this basis we can assume that Infrastructure Australia's assessment is valid. This is a factor no doubt in the State Governments lack of transparency with respect to the operational details of the rail network when CRR is commissioned.   The project is operationally flawed in our opinion.  If the State Government believes otherwise, show us the evidence!

Infrastructure Australia indicated that  " A revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to result from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks. .. "

We think these aspects particularly are a lot clearer now and a much better effort could be made.
The Olympics also offers a further glimmer of hope.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.  A couple of billion dollars in Federal funding, will free up funds for shortfalls with Cross River Rail and other projects.  It is not too late.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1412119016802373632

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1412791505689874437

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1412792156532531200

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1413875624763035651

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Jeffrey_Addison/status/1417435623347003403

^