Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

I agree. The same excuse with the 'we have freight on the line' blah blah.

Are we going to listen to this being trotted out for the next eternity? Yes freight is a limitation, but when it is 2020 or heaven forbid 2030
and we still have 2tph 'because of X' we are going to look ridiculous.

If it is that bad, time to take steps to separate the network, even if it is incremental.

[O_128]

Agreed, The gold plating is stupid. I challenge the planners to go and sit at a random tube station lets say oxford circus. They would not believe the amount of people and trains flowing through that station, and then trot out a 100 point list of why its impossible here.

[O_128]

It's now december 20th, Ill assume we arent seeing the business case this year?

[ozbob]

Make a wish to Santa ...   

[dwb]

Agreed, The gold plating is stupid. I challenge the planners to go and sit at a random tube station lets say oxford circus. They would not believe the amount of people and trains flowing through that station, and then trot out a 100 point list of why its impossible here.

Cross River Rail doesn't seem that gold plated to me, it seems a little future-proof... if the original recommended alignment from Wilbur Smith had been done (rather than option 2a) perhaps we wouldn't be at capacity and would have all day 15min services...

But yes, I do agree we could generally be getting more for less, with better thought out duplications/upgrades etc, even removal of the stupid extra time it takes to close the doors... But really what exactly about CRR is gold plated and how would it be done differently?

[O_128]

Agreed, The gold plating is stupid. I challenge the planners to go and sit at a random tube station lets say oxford circus. They would not believe the amount of people and trains flowing through that station, and then trot out a 100 point list of why its impossible here.

Cross River Rail doesn't seem that gold plated to me, it seems a little future-proof... if the original recommended alignment from Wilbur Smith had been done (rather than option 2a) perhaps we wouldn't be at capacity and would have all day 15min services...

But yes, I do agree we could generally be getting more for less, with better thought out duplications/upgrades etc, even removal of the stupid extra time it takes to close the doors... But really what exactly about CRR is gold plated and how would it be done differently?

Im talking about design, Those stations look ridiculously expensive, People have shown its possible to do stations on the cheap, stockholm is a great example.

Another example of gold plating is the wall paneling inside busway tunnels, Is it really necessary? Another example is the skylights in the proposed boggo road station. There is a difference between functional and excessive.

[somebody]

what exactly about CRR is gold plated and how would it be done differently?

I would say that 4 new platforms at Yeerongpilly is a waste.  We only need 2.

I'm more worried about the half baking at Salisbury though.

EDIT: Actually, connecting CRR to the mains when the suburbans would do seems silver plated to me.  Not sure if there's a huge saving to be had here though, and I like the Ipswich-Airport idea!

[dwb]

Agreed, The gold plating is stupid. I challenge the planners to go and sit at a random tube station lets say oxford circus. They would not believe the amount of people and trains flowing through that station, and then trot out a 100 point list of why its impossible here.

Cross River Rail doesn't seem that gold plated to me, it seems a little future-proof... if the original recommended alignment from Wilbur Smith had been done (rather than option 2a) perhaps we wouldn't be at capacity and would have all day 15min services...

But yes, I do agree we could generally be getting more for less, with better thought out duplications/upgrades etc, even removal of the stupid extra time it takes to close the doors... But really what exactly about CRR is gold plated and how would it be done differently?

Im talking about design, Those stations look ridiculously expensive, People have shown its possible to do stations on the cheap, stockholm is a great example.

Another example of gold plating is the wall paneling inside busway tunnels, Is it really necessary? Another example is the skylights in the proposed boggo road station. There is a difference between functional and excessive.

Good design can make a world of difference for the good... increasing passenger numbers. These spaces should be nice places to be, part of Brisbane's design legacy. And most of the time, good design doesn't really cost that much extra. Is it really worth saving .001% of a project and ending up with a dark dank concrete monstrosity?!

[#Metro]

Welcome to Brisbane
We couldn't afford paint ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/87431604@N00/4092817974/

There are enough stations that look like prison (Dutton pk for example) and just are a magnet for crime. Make it look nice, not like poo...

[Stillwater]

CRR

No business case = no money.
An optimistic, all gloss brochure and video with no validation of patronage, dollars and sense (reason for project, what it will achieve) = no money.
A bad business case = no money.
A low BCR = no money.
No explanation of strategic importance and how project fits with network-wide improvements = no money.
Business case submitted late = no big-ticket announcement for next year's election campaign.

The Queensland Government is going around like a person who has bought a ticket in a raffle and believes they have won first prize, even before the draw.

Please finalise the CRR business case, make it watertight, don't overdo the rhetoric, don't assume, don't overwork the data to the extent that credulity is stretched.  Make it work, and keep it within the parameters of the IA guidelines.  Simple.

So, where's the business case?

[Fares_Fair]

CRR

No business case = no money.
An optimistic, all gloss brochure and video with no validation of patronage, dollars and sense (reason for project, what it will achieve) = no money.
A bad business case = no money.
A low BCR = no money.
No explanation of strategic importance and how project fits with network-wide improvements = no money.
Business case submitted late = no big-ticket announcement for next year's election campaign.

The Queensland Government is going around like a person who has bought a ticket in a raffle and believes they have won first prize, even before the draw.

Please finalise the CRR business case, make it watertight, don't overdo the rhetoric, don't assume, don't overwork the data to the extent that credulity is stretched.  Make it work, and keep it within the parameters of the IA guidelines.  Simple.

So, where's the business case?

Valid points.
I just hope they didn't send it via the North Coast line ...

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Jonas Jade]

CRR

No business case = no money.
An optimistic, all gloss brochure and video with no validation of patronage, dollars and sense (reason for project, what it will achieve) = no money.
A bad business case = no money.
A low BCR = no money.
No explanation of strategic importance and how project fits with network-wide improvements = no money.
Business case submitted late = no big-ticket announcement for next year's election campaign.

The Queensland Government is going around like a person who has bought a ticket in a raffle and believes they have won first prize, even before the draw.

Please finalise the CRR business case, make it watertight, don't overdo the rhetoric, don't assume, don't overwork the data to the extent that credulity is stretched.  Make it work, and keep it within the parameters of the IA guidelines.  Simple.

So, where's the business case?

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/EIS/images/stories/EIS/tech_reports/Pdf-crr-eis-technical-report-10-economic-evaluation-complete.pdf

[Stillwater]

Thank you for posting this - it is a wonderful document and much of the contents will form part of the business case.  We probably won't even see the final business case, but need to be reasssured that it has been completed and submitted.  It will show the finances for the project, including how much the state government is willing to contribute to CRR, its expectation as to how much the state expects the federal government to contribute, and how much money could be expected from the private sector - either for the actual construction or the price for 'concessions' the private sector would receive indirectly by locating complementary projects (apartment and office blocks etc) at various nodes (i.e. Wooloongabba) along the route.

PS: If I am correct, there is a brief mention of 15-minute off-peak passenger train services running from 2016.  This is the first time I have seen this.

PPS: Figures and explanation at pages 53-54 predict healthy growth in North Coast Line freight traffic: yet more evidence for duplication of that line.

[Jonas Jade]

I tried to dig up the document that would've been submitted with IA - which I think is what everyone really wants to see - but haven't found anything yet.

Will keep you updated if I do

[Golliwog]

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/EIS/images/stories/EIS/tech_reports/Pdf-crr-eis-technical-report-10-economic-evaluation-complete.pdf

Only skimmed the executive summary, but noted the BCR of ~1.4 
Not sure how Mr Newman can keep saying that people are sick of Labor wasting their money on big projects when this is going to give back more than you spend on it. That is kind of the definition of money well spent.

[Golliwog]

Im talking about design, Those stations look ridiculously expensive, People have shown its possible to do stations on the cheap, stockholm is a great example.

Another example of gold plating is the wall paneling inside busway tunnels, Is it really necessary? Another example is the skylights in the proposed boggo road station. There is a difference between functional and excessive.

Not sure about the paneling in the busway tunnels. Does make it look nicer though instead of having all the pipes and conduits there to see.

As for the skylights in the Boggo Rd station, it makes sense. They have to dig down to there somehow, so why fill it in? And it would save on lighting costs in the longterm.

[SurfRail]

As for the skylights in the Boggo Rd station, it makes sense. They have to dig down to there somehow, so why fill it in? And it would save on lighting costs in the longterm.

Same basic principle used to good effect in the ECRL stations in Sydney, even if using the lifts does give some people the willies.

[Stillwater]

See bolded text below?  Does it mean that 15-minute frequence is planned for introduction between 2016 and 2031?  Text from Page 52 of the Deloitte CRR Feasibility Study.

7.5.2 Rail freight capacity and demand

Operational modelling undertaken by Systemwide for 2016 and 2031 which has identified the current and future rail freight capacity for the with and without project cases. Economic benefits as a result of Cross River Rail were derived for these two years. Benefits in the intervening years (including 2021, the first year of benefits in the economic evaluation) were derived by interpolation. Beyond 2031, economic benefits were assumed to be constant.

The analysis is based on a number of assumptions regarding future network operations including the following:

Peak freight curfew – freight operational hours are currently restricted by a passenger peak freight curfew, not allowing freight services access to the passenger network during the AM or PM peak hours, with restricted access during the shoulder period. It is assumed that this restriction will continue to be in place in 2016 and 2031, preventing freight operations for approximately 4 hours per day on shared track
Hours of passenger and freight operation – Passenger services are assumed to operate between 4am and 2am on weekdays and 5am and 2am on Saturdays, and between 6am and midnight on Sundays

Freight time sensitivity – The peak freight periods are 4 – 7am and 6 – 9pm. The future demand for freight services is assumed to be distributed through the day and the week as is current with intermodal services being the most time sensitive

Adjustments to the off-peak timetable – An intermediate 15 minute off-peak service strategy is proposed to be operated in 2016 and 2031.

[Golliwog]

As for the skylights in the Boggo Rd station, it makes sense. They have to dig down to there somehow, so why fill it in? And it would save on lighting costs in the longterm.

Same basic principle used to good effect in the ECRL stations in Sydney, even if using the lifts does give some people the willies.

Have you seen the fire escape stairwell on the building on the corner of Tribune and Grey Streets right next to the train line? 14 floors of nothing but glass walls on 2 sides. Awesome view from up there though.

Stillwater: No, I'd take it to mean that in the 2016 and 2031 scenarios they analysed that they assumed there would be 4tph in the offpeak, ie: that we would be getting 4tph offpeak before 2016.

[BrizCommuter]

Adjustments to the off-peak timetable – An intermediate 15 minute off-peak service strategy is proposed to be operated in 2016 and 2031.

According to the Inner City Rail Capacity Study - Rail Operations Review, and 2 preceding studies the intermediate 15 minute off-peak service (to Darra, Ferny Grove, Northgate, Manly, and Kuraby) was to be introduced in 2010.

[Set in train]

Im talking about design, Those stations look ridiculously expensive, People have shown its possible to do stations on the cheap, stockholm is a great example.

Another example of gold plating is the wall paneling inside busway tunnels, Is it really necessary? Another example is the skylights in the proposed boggo road station. There is a difference between functional and excessive.

Not sure about the paneling in the busway tunnels. Does make it look nicer though instead of having all the pipes and conduits there to see.

The panelling in the SE Busway tunnels is far superior to anything installed since. The SE Busway panelling has the distinctive dark green stripe in the centre and top and bottom, looks far more classy. All the rest are on the cheap!

[dwb]

Im talking about design, Those stations look ridiculously expensive, People have shown its possible to do stations on the cheap, stockholm is a great example.

Another example of gold plating is the wall paneling inside busway tunnels, Is it really necessary? Another example is the skylights in the proposed boggo road station. There is a difference between functional and excessive.

Not sure about the paneling in the busway tunnels. Does make it look nicer though instead of having all the pipes and conduits there to see.

The panelling in the SE Busway tunnels is far superior to anything installed since. The SE Busway panelling has the distinctive dark green stripe in the centre and top and bottom, looks far more classy. All the rest are on the cheap!

Previously I'd misread this and thought the panelling that was being referred to was the terracotta stuff at King George Square.

The reflective white panelling in tunnels is entirely necessary, it helps reduce the number of lights and lux rating of said lights which also saves electricity. Lighting is there for safety. The same panelling is also used in road projects such as Clem07 and will be in Airport Link, Northern Link and any other tunnels built here. It is not there for aesthetics, rather function. It might be nice of you to educate yourself before ranting about "gold plating".

[O_128]

Im talking about design, Those stations look ridiculously expensive, People have shown its possible to do stations on the cheap, stockholm is a great example.

Another example of gold plating is the wall paneling inside busway tunnels, Is it really necessary? Another example is the skylights in the proposed boggo road station. There is a difference between functional and excessive.

Not sure about the paneling in the busway tunnels. Does make it look nicer though instead of having all the pipes and conduits there to see.

The panelling in the SE Busway tunnels is far superior to anything installed since. The SE Busway panelling has the distinctive dark green stripe in the centre and top and bottom, looks far more classy. All the rest are on the cheap!

Previously I'd misread this and thought the panelling that was being referred to was the terracotta stuff at King George Square.

The reflective white panelling in tunnels is entirely necessary, it helps reduce the number of lights and lux rating of said lights which also saves electricity. Lighting is there for safety. The same panelling is also used in road projects such as Clem07 and will be in Airport Link, Northern Link and any other tunnels built here. It is not there for aesthetics, rather function. It might be nice of you to educate yourself before ranting about "gold plating".

I'm happy to be corrected, I always assumed it was more for aesthetics than anything.

[Stillwater]

Is there any way of knowing whether the CRR Business Case, including crucial details of the funding side of things, has been formally submitted to Infrastructure Australia?

[Jonas Jade]

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/project_assessments.aspx

EDIT: Note that the links are for last year's round of submissions, not the most recent end of 2011 submissions. But there is clear reference and questions to the business case, detailed financial queries etc in this document from the 2010 submission which shows that the government has had the "business case" etc with IA for a while.

But people who aren't at work may be able to dig out more info from the site.  

[Stillwater]

There must be a point where the business case is 'finalised' -- the point marking the end of the submission refinement stage (no more fiddling), immediately prior to the formal assessment stage.

[Jonas Jade]

Nothing on a project like this is finalised until the route opens   

[Jonas Jade]

Seriously though they have submitted it: there is also this:

http://www.dlgp.qld.gov.au/resources/infrastructure-funding/letter-transmittal-minister-albanese.pdf

http://www.dlgp.qld.gov.au/resources/infrastructure-funding/overview-strategic-alignment.pdf

The link I posted previously shows questions from IA to the Government in order to get the assessment from "Threshold" to "Ready to Proceed" which AIUI, is where the project is at now (or should be very soon).

[Stillwater]

Note that the transitional letter says:

Queensland does not intend contributing financially to CRR and that, from 2013-14, it intends limiting expenditure on major infrastructure projects to 10 billion annually.  What hope, then, for the ambitious spending program contained in the Connecting SEQ 2031 document?  Queensland's future infrastructure plans become a nonsense under such a scenario.

The government should fess up and publish a transport plan that's more realistic and in keeping with its modest expenditure projections.

[Jonas Jade]

The government should fess up and publish a transport plan that's more realistic and in keeping with its modest expenditure projections.

I completely agree with this - maybe like a "base transport plan" and an "ultimate (if we luck out and win the IA lottery) transport plan"?

[#Metro]

I hate the break it to you but

SEQ 2031 = PIE IN THE SKY

It is IMPOSSIBLE to fund all, or even 50% of the plan. That would be an unprecedented funding commitment that is just not going to happen.

So:

- City Metro - CUT
- Cross River Rail - use wilbur smith plan for bridge from w'gabba
- Eastern Busway - CUT
- New Rail spur lines - CUT
- Extensions of GC lines or LRT other than to helensvale - CUT

Whatever is left over seems more realistically fundable. (Sunshine Coast, Kippa Ring, Springfield)

What's needed is the current system needs to be fixed up with a great big iron -
- iron out crossovers, single track sections, crappy platforms, etc
- major frequency boost to create on the CFN on bus and rail
- second stage of CFN chop back most bus routes to main interchanges

[Jonas Jade]

There's a place for the SEQ2031 plan. Some of the infrastructure may be "pie in the sky" stuff, but it's always important to think ahead and make large goals no matter how impossible it may seem.

What's not good is to just throttle ahead with those things instead of "ironing out" what's already there as you suggested. A lot of what you're suggesting IS part of the 2031 plan in the form of the UrbanLink routes concept etc

[And also it's highly likely that GCLR will get extensions with the Commonwealth games - definitely should not just be cut - they will also likely be relatively cheap (compared to the set up cost of the new network, and if done properly) once the backbone is in place.]

[Stillwater]

The Queensland Government needs to decouple what is affordable and what is aspirational.  Agree, the plan should be in two parts -- this is what the Queensland Government can fund, this is what we could fund if the federal government contributed a further X, and this is what could be achieved if the federal government contributed Y.

Instead, its planning is based on a fantasy.  The Queensland Government is planning for a virtual reality and it is (and we are) disappointed by a cargo cult mentality that fails to deliver.

By all means have a transport plan, just have three columns beside each expenditure item:

What the Queensland Government will achieve using its limited, available financial resources solely
What additional outcomes that could be acheived with a modest federal government contribution
What could be acheived with a generous federal government contribution

That would take the heat out of the angst over these unbelievable transport plans and be more open and accountable about what can be acheived.  Which level of government funds what can be disclosed more clearly.  Right now, the Queensland Government says it has a $125 billion transport 'plan'.  It is a wishlist.  There is no planning to achieve the outcomes envisaged.

The government constantly refers to 'our $125 billion transport plan', when the bulk of the projects will be funded by another level of government.  Surely it becomes 'their (the fed's) plan, but IA has not agreed to the levels of funding expected of it.

Take CRR, for example.  The federal government funded the feasibility study to the tune of $20 million, and now the state government expects it to meet all of the government contribution to the construction cost.  How, then, can the state say this is its plan when, in reality, it is a federally-funded plan?

In Queensland, the planning must be chopped and changed, and compromised, continuously because the plan is not adequately funded.

This results in the strange situation where we have an 'award-winning' transport plan that sits on a shelf, and then we have the REAL plan, which is a haphazard, opportunistic and frantic cobbling together of what is possible with the limited money available at any point in time.

We now have the stuation where the state government says it has a transport plan that requires $20 billion to be spent annually on rail and bus infrastructure in circumstances where it has publicly declared it will spend only $10 billion annually across all major infrastructure (including hospitals and roads etc), with only a small proportion of that going to transport-related projects.  It doesn't add up.  Why can't the state government simply acknowledge this?

[Golliwog]

TT, sure there was the Wilbur smith plan, however, then you have to go back to the drawing board for detailed design and costings. The money spent so far on all the design for CRR would be mostly wasted with a lot of it needing to be redone at cost. Though as always, the cost with these things is time. How long did it take to get where we are now? We can't wait around for the plans to be redone.

As for the cost of Connecting SEQ 2031, I don't expect the government to fund it all itself. Private development already has to do traffic impact assessment on most decent developments (ie, bigger than a house), which requires the developer to provide payment for any road infrastructure that needs to be upgraded to cater for the extra demands generated by their development. Currently, this is car focussed, with very little input from the PT side of things, but I can see that changing in the future. Want to build an office at Chermside? Give Translink some money to improve the network in the area and reduce congestion that way (or to be put towards extending the bus way to Chermside, you get the idea though). Not everything has to be funded by the government.

[#Metro]

TT, sure there was the Wilbur smith plan, however, then you have to go back to the drawing board for detailed design and costings. The money spent so far on all the design for CRR would be mostly wasted with a lot of it needing to be redone at cost. Though as always, the cost with these things is time. How long did it take to get where we are now? We can't wait around for the plans to be redone.

This is the sunk cost fallacy. Not a valid argument IMHO.

As for the cost of Connecting SEQ 2031, I don't expect the government to fund it all itself. Private development already has to do traffic impact assessment on most decent developments (ie, bigger than a house), which requires the developer to provide payment for any road infrastructure that needs to be upgraded to cater for the extra demands generated by their development. Currently, this is car focussed, with very little input from the PT side of things, but I can see that changing in the future. Want to build an office at Chermside? Give Translink some money to improve the network in the area and reduce congestion that way (or to be put towards extending the bus way to Chermside, you get the idea though). Not everything has to be funded by the government.

There is no way that the government can fund this program on this scale. Goverment money is >>>> more than the private sector funding thus it is impossible to fund this or even half the SEQ 2031 plan. We have to let go of the fantasy and the Future Faking document that it is so we can make decisions on reality.

[Jonas Jade]

TT, sure there was the Wilbur smith plan, however, then you have to go back to the drawing board for detailed design and costings. The money spent so far on all the design for CRR would be mostly wasted with a lot of it needing to be redone at cost. Though as always, the cost with these things is time. How long did it take to get where we are now? We can't wait around for the plans to be redone.

This is the sunk cost fallacy. Not a valid argument IMHO.

Agreed that it's not a valid argument really. The millions it has taken to get here pales in comparison to the billions required of actual construction.

Don't forget also that a lot of the time taken to get here is administrative and bureaucratic red tape....

[Golliwog]

Administrative and bureaucratic red tape that will magically disappear if we were to start again? I think not. I agree the cost so far does pale in comparison to the cost of actually implementing the plan itself, but its the time that it will take that is my real concern. What is the cost of waiting in terms of extra congestion and crashes? Not to mention new construction plans to be worked out, land take either side of the river would be a big deal, depending on the rock in the cliff you may not actually be able to tunnel out of it and instead have to take a big block of already occupied land.

[#Metro]

Disagree. All options should be investigated properly.
MPs decide, public servants serve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources (loss aversion). In the above example involving a non-refundable movie ticket, many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they've passed the point of no return. This is sometimes referred to as the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": it is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad".[6]

I DO agree with you however that something needs to be done and fast. 2016 is when that will be at capacity as probably will the busway too.

[Golliwog]

And didn't they already do a lot of the alternative route investigation back in the ICRCS? Where they started off with something like 20 or so routes and narrowwed it down? I trust them to have done the route investigation thoroughly enough already. And again, I stress the time factor, we don't have time to bugger around looking at more options. They already did that! As it stands, the current design has a BCA ratio of 1.4, the definition of not being a waste of money, I think it is good enough as is.

Also, I now private funds are much less than public funds, but its still better than nothing. The upgrades that happen because of developments are not always that small. They can involve anything from upgrading an intersection, to widening a road. And sure, the private company only pays a portion of it as they only bring forward the issue, not cause it,but if the public funds combined with private funds can pay for some of the intersection and road upgrades we see, what's stopping them instead being put towards PT? Sure, some of the things in CSEQ2031 are massive new busways and the like, but some of them, like sections of transitways are not, nor is spending money to upgrade services a bad way to spend money either. It might not solve all our problems, but why would you just discount it entirely?

[#Metro]

And didn't they already do a lot of the alternative route investigation back in the ICRCS? Where they started off with something like 20 or so routes and narrowwed it down? I trust them to have done the route investigation thoroughly enough already. And again, I stress the time factor, we don't have time to bugger around looking at more options. They already did that! As it stands, the current design has a BCA ratio of 1.4, the definition of not being a waste of money, I think it is good enough as is.

1. Yes they did a lot of route investigation.
2. Time factor - yes we are running out of time, however this is still not a justification for spending $8 billion dollars without looking properly at what can be done.
3. It may well have a BCA of 1.4 but that said it is still conditional on Automatic Teller Machine Infrastructure Australia. And is the QLD Gov't going to contribute any cash towards this project?

Also, I now private funds are much less than public funds, but its still better than nothing. The upgrades that happen because of developments are not always that small. They can involve anything from upgrading an intersection, to widening a road. And sure, the private company only pays a portion of it as they only bring forward the issue, not cause it,but if the public funds combined with private funds can pay for some of the intersection and road upgrades we see, what's stopping them instead being put towards PT? Sure, some of the things in CSEQ2031 are massive new busways and the like, but some of them, like sections of transitways are not, nor is spending money to upgrade services a bad way to spend money either. It might not solve all our problems, but why would you just discount it entirely?

At $8 billion dollars and having no real commercial rate of return, one would struggle to raise even 1% of the total cost through private funding. Secondly, why be taxed twice?