Cross River Rail Project

[colinw]

Would frieght trains be able to operate down to Yatala with the current track arrangments and passenger frequencies?

No, would have to be after hours movements.

The Yatala idea has all gone very quiet now, replaced with the new yard at the Bromelton State Development Area plus a proposal for a better road link from Bromelton to the Gold Coast.

Click here for background

Mind you, the Bromelton idea also appears to be stalling with no apparent progress on the dual gauge to Bromelton for a year now. It just sits there half completed, a monument to Government waste & inefficiency.

We're wandering way off topic now, suggest we pull this back to CRR.

[ozbob]

Cross River Rail

   The submission period on the environmental impact statement (EIS) for Cross River Rail, the project that would almost double the capacity of the rail network,
      closes 5pm this Friday 21 October 2011.

   The EIS outlines the project's benefits, the potential impacts of construction and operation, and measures to avoid, mitigate or manage these impacts.

   The EIS and information about how to make a submission to the Coordinator-General are available on the Cross River Rail website.

   For more information visit the Cross River Rail website or call 1800 462 730*.

   Kind regards

   Cross River Rail

   Department of Transport and Main Roads
   _________________________________

   Phone 1800 462 730*
   info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au
   www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au
   GPO Box 213 Brisbane QLD 4001
   * Free call from fixed lines in Australia. Charges may apply from pay phones and mobile phones.

[ozbob]

For information:

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/qld/library/QNO151111.pdf

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail 28th October 2011 page 44

Viewpoint

Get on board Cross River Rail project to give city a brighter future

Get on board Cross River Rail project to give city a brighter future
Chris Hale

IF WE were to believe some of the planning rhetoric, Brisbane has already arrived on the world stage.

But spin-free observation of transport, sustainability and housing issues suggests that plenty of work is still needed to keep our city moving forward. During the previous 10 years, much effort and expenditure have been put into road construction and suburban development.

However, sprawling development patterns disadvantage new home buyers seeking to access jobs and services. Equally, road infrastructure does not provide a transport solution. Although massive effort has been expended in the implementation and marketing of tunnels, people have realised this is a dead end for 21st century infrastructure needs and travel patterns.

What if there were a way out of the car-dependent quagmire? What if there were a major sustainable city solution within reach?

I recommend that people look - and look again - at the Cross River Rail project. It is a concept that offers a major step forward from being a great big suburb, toward a future as a genuine world-class city with ease of movement and urban design quality. Cross River is quite simply the best option we have to create 21st century networks of metropolitan movement from the legacy of a 19th century rail system.

The project's environmental impact statement, which recently closed for initial public feedback, is well worth a read because, in addition to pure environmental issues, it also summarises the economic, transport and design advantages of the biggest single addition to our transit network ever conceived.

Although there has been debate about the primary rationale for Cross River, it seems to me that the two new stations in Albert Street and Woolloongabba are justification enough.

The speed and reach provided by high-performance rail infrastructure implies much better connections into innercity jobs for people living to north and south of the city.

The project also offers a genuine platform for shifting large numbers of trips from roads into public transport. Cross River provides the infrastructure needed to take sustainability talk from rhetoric into reality.

Current project plans, detailed in the EIS, indicate a series of urban renewal opportunities at inner and middle-ring destinations. This will go some way to providing new housing in formats and locations that the market demands. New sprawl, by contrast, is most often proposed for out of-the way locations with no access to rail. This is usually purely because major developers control cheap, empty paddocks out there.

We then scramble over several generations at great public cost to make up for the lack of sensible initial locational decision making Cross River is quite simply the best option we have to create 21st century networks of metropolitan movement decision-making.

The developers' windfall gain becomes the community's long-term pain. But ultimately, from out of the messy and sometimes leaderless planning and infrastructure discussion of recent years, we are truly lucky that at least one genuine city-building option has been put forward for consideration.

Those who genuinely care about Brisbane's medium-term future need to develop a deeper understanding of Cross River as a vitally important project, and we should support its timely implementation. Good planning and enlightened design have produced a concept of lasting value in Cross River but implementation is largely dependent on broad-based community and industry support.

Friends of Brisbane should now become friends of the Cross River concept.

Chris Hale is a Brisbane-based urban economist.

[ozbob]

Well put Chris Hale.  I think we are all good friends of CRR here, enlist your friends, family, colleagues and enemies!

[Gazza]

Although there has been debate about the primary rationale for Cross River, it seems to me that the two new stations in Albert Street and Woolloongabba are justification enough.

I don't think that statement is quite correct though.

[dwb]

From the Couriermail 28th October 2011 page 44

Viewpoint

Get on board Cross River Rail project to give city a brighter future

Get on board Cross River Rail project to give city a brighter future
Chris Hale

Broadly I agree, still he seems to not realise/know/remember that in fact CRR is the contemporary incarnation of OPTION A from the Brisbane Region Wilbur Smith Transportation Study... instead we got option B that is now limiting the whole system.

[O_128]

Although there has been debate about the primary rationale for Cross River, it seems to me that the two new stations in Albert Street and Woolloongabba are justification enough.

I don't think that statement is quite correct though.

I assume he means that the fact that albert st and woolongabba are going to get station is massive, the fact that it also reduces congestion and allows more trains is almost secondary.

[dwb]

Although there has been debate about the primary rationale for Cross River, it seems to me that the two new stations in Albert Street and Woolloongabba are justification enough.

I don't think that statement is quite correct though.

I assume he means that the fact that albert st and woolongabba are going to get station is massive, the fact that it also reduces congestion and allows more trains is almost secondary.

I think he's refering to the changing land use and the impact that could have on the city.

[Stillwater]

On Tuesday the 15th November, the Property Council of Australia is holding an information breakfast concerning Cross River Rail.  The guest speakers include Stephen Alchin, Executive Director (Planning) of Infrastructure Australia and Luke Franzmann, the project director for CRR.  Phone 32253000 for details.

Alarm bells continue to ring about this project and the state government's state of preparedness in developing it.

Some of the issues are raised in the IA assessment, but it remains unclear whether all of the issues raised by IA have been covered off in the latest batch of documentation the State Government has put out.
Assessment: http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/Cross_River_Rail_Brief2011.pdf

CRR is now estimated to be an $8 billion project, yet the state asked for only $5.7 billion in Commonwealth funding, and said only $3.8 billion is required for Stage 1.  So where is the additional money to come from?  Will the state contribute money?

IA makes some interesting points:

(1) The project contends that the effectiveness of complementary revenue options is limited. Further evidence is required to justify the rejection of options such as congestion charging and parking levies, and of rejecting fare increases over the Consumer Price Index.
(2) Further development of risk assessment is required before confidence could be assumed in the cost estimate. Potential revenue sources should also be explored further before assuming public/Commonwealth bearing costs.
(3) Further development of risk assessment is required before confidence could be assumed in the cost estimate. Potential revenue sources should also be explored further before assuming public/Commonwealth bearing costs.

What has happened?  The estimated construction costs have gone up.  The state has assumed the Commonwealth will be bearing costs.  (See Connecting SEQ 2031 document.)  Contrary to IA advice, this state government is not exploring options such as a congestion tax and parking levies.

Until it does take CRR seriously and addresses the issues IA has put forward as impediments to 'construction ready' status, will the state government continue to place this project in danger of being rejected for Commonwealth construction funding?

Completion of the CRR Business Case remains a matter for speculation, as does the false signals the Queensland Government is sending out regarding costs and its expectation of federal financial involvement.  Maybe Tuesday's meeting will shed some light on the matter and reveal the state government's level of smoke and mirrors around this very important transport infrastructure for Brisbane.  

It is too important to become a political football as the election approaches.  We have already seen the LNP trying to demonstrate some difference by saying CRR is the product of 'Labor dreamers and schemers' and putting forward a holding pattern planning that would delay CRR until other alternatives are explored.

Let's hope no-one chokes on the bacon on Tuesday when the guest speakers get up to talk.

[Set in train]

On Tuesday the 15th November, the Property Council of Australia is holding an information breakfast concerning Cross River Rail.  The guest speakers include Stephen Alchin, Executive Director (Planning) of Infrastructure Australia and Luke Franzmann, the project director for CRR.  Phone 32253000 for details.

Alarm bells continue to ring about this project and the state government's state of preparedness in developing it.

Some of the issues are raised in the IA assessment, but it remains unclear whether all of the issues raised by IA have been covered off in the latest batch of documentation the State Government has put out.
Assessment: http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/Cross_River_Rail_Brief2011.pdf

Very good questions you ask Stillwater, the very questions journalists should be asking but have no idea to ask in the first place. RBOT forum would be first place I check to background a transport story.

[colinw]

The Courier Mail -> Massive new skyscrapers planned for Brisbane CBD site left vacant by failed Vision project

Quite close to the proposed site of the downtown CRR station.

[shiftyphil]

Quite close to the proposed site of the downtown CRR station.

Bang on top of the (planned) station itself from what I could tell.

[O_128]

Quite close to the proposed site of the downtown CRR station.

Bang on top of the (planned) station itself from what I could tell.

no but very very close. Billbergia will have no troubles leasing the entire office tower out if CRR goes ahead.

[Cam]

It seems logical to me to fund the first stage of the Salisbury to Flagstone line with CRR. The upgrade to Salisbury Railway Station to accommodate the line to Flagstone could be completed as part of the CRR project rather than costing significantly more at a later date. The line may not be warranted all the way to Flagstone when CRR is completed so perhaps the first stage could be built to Parkinson, Hillcrest or Boronia Heights. Because the rail corridor is already there, it would provide such a significant benefit for a relatively moderate expenditure.

I'm not a regular user of Beaudsert Road but I've found the traffic seems to be getting more heavily congested in various places on Beaudesert Rd between Rocklea & Calamvale every time I use it in peak periods. There is no bus priority either. 

[somebody]

It seems logical to me to fund the first stage of the Salisbury to Flagstone line with CRR. The upgrade to Salisbury Railway Station to accommodate the line to Flagstone could be completed as part of the CRR project rather than costing significantly more at a later date. The line may not be warranted all the way to Flagstone when CRR is completed so perhaps the first stage could be built to Parkinson, Hillcrest or Boronia Heights. Because the rail corridor is already there, it would provide such a significant benefit for a relatively moderate expenditure.

I'm not a regular user of Beaudsert Road but I've found the traffic seems to be getting more heavily congested in various places on Beaudesert Rd between Rocklea & Calamvale every time I use it in peak periods. There is no bus priority either. 

Agree about Salisbury station.  The plans there are    Spending $8bn to get only half it's capacity usable in PM?  And with a conflicting move?

Beaudesert Rd buses normally run via Mains Rd, so this probably isn't a big problem.

[Cam]

Beaudesert Rd buses normally run via Mains Rd, so this probably isn't a big problem.

I should have been more clear. I was referring to the section of Beaudesert Rd through Calamvale which does not have bus priority.

[colinw]

A line to Greenbank would be running at comparable passenger levels to any other Brisbane line from day 1, just as has been seen with Richlands and will be seen with Springfield.  IMHO CRR should include a full "Flagstone" ready upgrade as far as Salisbury, but any extension down the interstate line beyond Salisbury should NOT be included in the project as it will need a separate business case, etc.

Re-orienting the buses from Browns Plains, Algester, Calamvale, etc. to feed a new Browns Plains / Greenbank line would also free up a bit of Busway capacity, although some of those services would need to remain for over all system connectivity.

[Cam]

any extension down the interstate line beyond Salisbury should NOT be included in the project as it will need a separate business case, etc.

I shall choose my words more carefully next time. I should have said "It seems logical to me to ensure funding for the first stage of the Salisbury to Flagstone line is provided in time so that the upgrade to Salisbury Railway Station to accommodate the line to Flagstone can be completed concurrently with the CRR project rather than costing significantly more at a later date."

[colinw]

Ah, ok - got you.

Agree 100%.

[somebody]

I haven't been able to locate any info on the proposed Salisbury station upgrade.  Had a look on the tmr site and didn't find anything.  Do you have a link?

[Cam]

I haven't been able to locate any info on the proposed Salisbury station upgrade.  Had a look on the tmr site and didn't find anything.  Do you have a link?

I don;t think that there is a design yet for the upgrade that includes the Flagstone Line. It is shown as an interchange station between the Gold Coast, Beenleigh & Flagstone lines in one of the recent releases from the Queensland Governemnt.

[Stillwater]

On 11 November 2011 Queensland Government submitted its latest bid for CRR and other projects it wants funded by IA.  Does anyone know what is in the submission?

CRR construction phase (assuming money is forthcoming) is 2015-2020.

[O_128]

On 11 November 2011 Queensland Government submitted its latest bid for CRR and other projects it wants funded by IA.  Does anyone know what is in the submission?

CRR construction phase (assuming money is forthcoming) is 2015-2020.

every time a new press realease comes out it seems to have been pushed back another year

[Stillwater]

It depends what you are measuring, going by the strange names that government officials use.  The 'procurement' phase starts in 2013.  This is when you start to ramp up the project during the 'pre-construction' phase (ie no construction, lots of planning and intricate design [as opposed to 'concept' design], and land purchase, financing, calling of tenders and tender evaluation stage etc.  Construction -- levelling of ground and stockpiling of construction materials starts in 2015, with completion in 2020.  That's four years after saturation/capacity is reached on the Merivale Bridge.  Oh, and there is the money to fund it -- we don't have that yet, although suggestion is that business case will be ready by the end of the year.

[Jonno]

Every cent for CRR is available it is just current in Main Road budget. An immediate halt to freeway and motorway construction across the Statevwould fund CRR in the same time it would take to build it.

[ozbob]

Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State
The Honourable Paul Lucas
17/11/2011

Warrego Highway, Cross River Rail new additions in Infrastructure Australia submission

Key road upgrades serving the resource rich Surat Basin area of Queensland are new inclusions in the State Government's Infrastructure Australia submission.

Local Government Minister Paul Lucas said with the CSG and LNG industry being largely driven by areas like the Surat Basin, it was important appropriate infrastructure was in place to support the industry's growth.

"The CSG and LNG industry alone is set to support 18,000 jobs for Queenslanders so we needs the roads in place to make sure the Queensland economy can meet its full potential," Mr Lucas said.

"That's why we've included the three stage upgrade of the Warrego Highway between Helidon at the base of the Toowoomba Range and Morven near Charleville.

"This upgrade of the Warrego represents a $1 billion investment in what will be a very important 549km of road linking the resource rich parts of Western Queensland to the coast.

"The Queensland Government has already committed $134 million towards five priority projects in the program as part of our commitment to regional Queensland.

"However, as funding of a national highway is clearly a federal responsibility, we're asking the Commonwealth to help out with the remaining projects."

Mr Lucas said the new request came on top of a resubmitted bid for help with funding a second range crossing for Toowoomba.

He also said Cross River Rail remained at the top of the priority list and the project's status in the submission had been upgraded from "threshold" to "ready to proceed".

"We're now confident this project, which is expected to support 5900 construction jobs during construction, ticks all the boxes Infrastructure Australia needs it to," Mr Lucas said.

"The Federal Government has already recognised the national significance of Cross River Rail by investing $20 million in the planning and feasibility assessment stage."

Other priority projects in the submission include:

·Bruce Highway Upgrade between Cooroy and Curra

·Yeppen Flood Plain

·Mackay ring road

·Eastern Busway

The submission to Infrastructure Australia represents priority projects the Queensland Government believes deserve funding from the Federal Government.

The projects are then assessed by the Federal Government through Infrastructure Australia to determine which projects will receive funding.

=====================



Early Stage: Initiatives in this category address a nationally significant issue or problem, but the identification or development of the right solution is at an early stage.

Real Potential: Initiatives in this category clearly address a nationally significant issue or problem and there has been a considerable amount of analysis of potential solutions.

Threshold: Initiatives in this category have strong strategic and economic merit and are only not ready to proceed due to a small number of outstanding issues.

Ready to Proceed: Initiatives in this category meet all of Infrastructure Australia's criteria.
==============================================================

[colinw]

Hmmm ... do we see the beginning of positioning an IA funding bid for Gold Coast rail to Coolangatta?  Doubt that will get up in time for the 2018 games.

[colinw]

Interesting:

Early Stage: Initiatives in this category address a nationally significant issue or problem, but the identification or development ofthe right solution is at an early stage.

So getting the Gold Coast Line to Coolangatta is seen by the QLD Government as a "nationally significant issue or problem", but the NCL / Sunshine Coast line is not, nor is the antique crossing of the main range to Toowoomba.  Some very strange priorities there.  Could it have something to do with the tendency of both the Sunshine Coast and Lockyer Valley / Toowoomba voters to support the "blue team"?

[ozbob]

Don't you worry about that! 

I am fairly confident that both Cairns and Townsville could well have light rail the way Queensland polyticks is heading ... lol

[Stillwater]

IA should say that Gold Coast Heavy Rail Extension is a matter for funding by the Queensland Government.  After all, it was the Queensland Government that bid for the Commonwealth Games.  It's can't go around running up projects on the federal government's credit card.  Gold Coast line does not carry one kilo of freight to Acacia Ridge or the Port of Brisbane.  SCL has a greater call for funding of project that address national economic and trade/commerce objectives promulgated by IA.

[colinw]

+1.  Exactly what I mean Stillwater.  The QLD Government says the Gold Coast Airport line is of "national significance", but ignores the Sunshine Coast / NCL and the huge coal haul that is developing on the main line via Toowoomba? (The latter is going to be a serious dampener on any kind of service improvements to Ipswich).

Brisbane is getting to the point where it needs dedicated freight trackage from both Ipswich and Caboolture right through to the port & Acacia Ridge.  That would probably do more for our service frequencies than building all these other pie in the sky projects.

[dwb]

Gold Coast line does not carry one kilo of freight to Acacia Ridge or the Port of Brisbane.  SCL has a greater call for funding of prokect that address national economic and trade/commerce objectives promulgated by IA.

Are you implying that carrying passengers is not a nationally significant issue to the economy? I mean really!

[ozbob]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=86.msg1278#msg1278

Letter to the editor. Published Courier Mail December 15 (2007)

The derailment at Petrie has again highlighted the increasing congestion problems of mixing freight and suburban passenger rail services.  As Citytrain services are ramped up it will become very difficult to provide around the clock access for freight trains on the present railway network through Brisbane.

Consideration should be given to building a western rail loop which could be used for freight trains, essentially independent of the suburban network.

A possible general route would be Caboolture, Dayboro, Fernvale, Ipswich, Bromelton.  Bromelton is ideally situated for a major freight interchange distribution centre as it is on the standard gauge railway from the south.  It is interesting to note that both Dayboro and Fernvale were once serviced by Queensland Railway branch lines.

Now is the time for the real big rail decisions and investment.

[SurfRail]

I wouldn't read too much into the Coolangatta submission.  This has been on the imminently-going-to-be-submitted-to-IA list for a while now, quite apart from the Games.

Ongoing failure to develop a business case for the NCL is shameful though.

[#Metro]

I wouldn't read too much into the Coolangatta submission.  This has been on the imminently-going-to-be-submitted-to-IA list for a while now, quite apart from the Games.

Ongoing failure to develop a business case for the NCL is shameful though.

Rail to Coolangatta is not needed anytime soon. There are already buses and the distance/time it takes is not anywhere as bad as the SCL.

[colinw]

A possible general route would be Caboolture, Dayboro, Fernvale, Ipswich, Bromelton.  Bromelton is ideally situated for a major freight interchange distribution centre as it is on the standard gauge railway from the south.  It is interesting to note that both Dayboro and Fernvale were once serviced by Queensland Railway branch lines.

Dayboro to Fernvale!  That would have to be in tunnel nearly the whole way!

[somebody]

I wouldn't read too much into the Coolangatta submission.  This has been on the imminently-going-to-be-submitted-to-IA list for a while now, quite apart from the Games.

Ongoing failure to develop a business case for the NCL is shameful though.

Rail to Coolangatta is not needed anytime soon. There are already buses and the distance/time it takes is not anywhere as bad as the SCL.

Indeed.  Fixing up the 761 is needed though.

[colinw]

Rail to Coolangatta is not needed anytime soon.

I would qualify that as HEAVY Rail to Coolangatta is not needed anytime soon.

Light rail to Coolangatta is a different story, and would do much to create a better public transport culture in the Gold Coast.

[ozbob]

A possible general route would be Caboolture, Dayboro, Fernvale, Ipswich, Bromelton.  Bromelton is ideally situated for a major freight interchange distribution centre as it is on the standard gauge railway from the south.  It is interesting to note that both Dayboro and Fernvale were once serviced by Queensland Railway branch lines.

Dayboro to Fernvale!  That would have to be in tunnel nearly the whole way!

Yes it would.  What is your plan?