Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

The bottom line for SEQ 2031 is that it cannot be fully funded, and it is likely that every second project in that plan will probably not go ahead.
With funding being dependent on ATM Australia, the responsibility for delivery is neatly projected onto a third party, who will do the dirty work of cutting the projects by proxy.

"Oh we couldn't fund project X because ATM Australia didn't cough up" x 20


Yes it is nice to have a plan, I can see the value of that, but realistically don't hope for delivery of 50% of the things in there.

[#Metro]

Stillwater gets the point...

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.

125 BILLION divided by 20 years = 6.25 Billion dollars a year, each year, every year for the next 20 years (not incl inflation either).
So one Cross River Rail Project, every year for 20 years straight.

Ya! Like that is going to happen!   

You can see why I think SEQ2031 is Future Faking.

[Gazza]

If they only did the rail component it would be affordable. The major new freeways like the proposed  one to Park Ride could be done as toll roads.
And of course, the feds will chip in from time to time, as they did with Kippa Ring.

I mean, listing off the major rail projects needed
9 Bil for CRR
2.8 Bil to get to Cooloongatta and Duplicate Coomera-Helensvale (WTF at that price?!)
6 Bil for Camcos
5 Bil for Trouts Rd
2 Bil for Duplcating to Cleveland?
200mil for Doomben
30mil for Shorncliffe
2 Bil for Nambour
2 Bil for Ripley
2 Bil for triplications

And I'm inflating prices a fair bit.

Around 30 bil, 1.5 bil per year to get important rail stuff done. still 8.5 Bil left over in the 10 bil per year for other stuff.

At present, Qld spends $15 Bil on all infrastructure....But:

it intends limiting expenditure on major infrastructure projects to 10 billion annually

What qualifies though? Eg projects over a certain value (Eg $50 Mil) fall into the major category.
Something like the Indro station upgrade, for $20 Mil, or a new block at a school for $3 Mil, does that qualify as major?

[O_128]

If they only did the rail component it would be affordable. The major new freeways like the proposed  one to Park Ride could be done as toll roads.
And of course, the feds will chip in from time to time, as they did with Kippa Ring.

I mean, listing off the major rail projects needed
9 Bil for CRR
2.8 Bil to get to Cooloongatta and Duplicate Coomera-Helensvale (WTF at that price?!)
6 Bil for Camcos
5 Bil for Trouts Rd
2 Bil for Duplcating to Cleveland?
200mil for Doomben
30mil for Shorncliffe
2 Bil for Nambour
2 Bil for Ripley
2 Bil for triplications

And I'm inflating prices a fair bit.

Around 30 bil, 1.5 bil per year to get important rail stuff done. still 8.5 Bil left over in the 10 bil per year for other stuff.

At present, Qld spends $15 Bil on all infrastructure....But:

it intends limiting expenditure on major infrastructure projects to 10 billion annually

What qualifies though? Eg projects over a certain value (Eg $50 Mil) fall into the major category.
Something like the Indro station upgrade, for $20 Mil, or a new block at a school for $3 Mil, does that qualify as major?

Cooloongattas a bargain, maybe the NSW gov is paying 

Trouts road and CRR are my top 2 purely as they "unlock" the potential of the rest of the network.

[Arnz]

CRR and Beerburrum-Nambour duplication and realignment are my two picks. The former to enable increased Southern line capacity, and the later for freight revenue reasons going back into the state which will enable increased funding for network improvements/extensions in the other areas, as well as indirectly benefitting the Gympie/Nambour/Caboolture/Petrie passenger service on the NCL with increased passenger and freight capacity.

[#Metro]

If they only did the rail component it would be affordable. The major new freeways like the proposed  one to Park Ride could be done as toll roads.
And of course, the feds will chip in from time to time, as they did with Kippa Ring.

Gazza that is an amazing idea.

ANY NEW FREEWAY MUST BE A TOLLWAY

Money could be then used on bus and rail.

[Jonno]

No private company will build tollways as they are a sure way to throw money away.  Govt will now try (aka Legacy Way) and learn the hard way what private sector knows already and we will pay the price in rates and lost services.

Best option is not to build freeways at all.

[dwb]

The bottom line for SEQ 2031 is that it cannot be fully funded, and it is likely that every second project in that plan will probably not go ahead.
With funding being dependent on ATM Australia, the responsibility for delivery is neatly projected onto a third party, who will do the dirty work of cutting the projects by proxy.

"Oh we couldn't fund project X because ATM Australia didn't cough up" x 20


Yes it is nice to have a plan, I can see the value of that, but realistically don't hope for delivery of 50% of the things in there.

That is fine, every second project is a road project. Don't fund those ones and you're sorted.

[#Metro]

No private company will build tollways as they are a sure way to throw money away.  Govt will now try (aka Legacy Way) and learn the hard way what private sector knows already and we will pay the price in rates and lost services.

Best option is not to build freeways at all.

Actually I suspect that government money was used anyway via the back door on things like Clem 7. See when you (private company) invest in Infrastructure there are certain tax benefits if you make a loss. Have to suss this one out though.

Unfortunately you still need freeways to connect main urban centres. Unless you are going to built HSR lines and run freight etc on that, one does need roads.

The next best thing is to toll it. The charge gets motorists to pay for the road which means gov't money can be used elsewhere (i.e. public transport) and the toll also means that people will consider taking public transport.

A toll is effectively a road user charge restricted to a limited geographical area. So I don't see how people can be against it.

Mark my words- the first thing that is going to go out to Ripley and Yarabilla isn't going to be a rail line or public transport!
It's going to be a freeway!

May as well toll it!

[#Metro]

That is fine, every second project is a road project. Don't fund those ones and you're sorted.

Just like my position on park and ride, I don't agree that we can just "not fund it". Cars exist, there will be demand for freeways to new suburbs on the fridge. Ideally you wouldn't build those suburbs or the freeways but fact is they're going in.

The second best option is to (1) toll those roads so that billions that would be spent on it can be spent elsewhere, (2) have PT provision on those road (busways or rail alignments). Tolling is independent of who owns the roads or built it.

As hard as it may be to hear, cars exist. One can formulate policies based on pretending that they don't exist or won't exist (prescriptive planning) or you can accept that they exist and plan from there (descriptive planning).

I remember the then Transport minister Rachel Nolan explicitly saying at the November PT forum, "we can't just not build roads".

[dwb]

That is fine, every second project is a road project. Don't fund those ones and you're sorted.

Just like my position on park and ride, I don't agree that we can just "not fund it". Cars exist, there will be demand for freeways to new suburbs on the fridge. Ideally you wouldn't build those suburbs or the freeways but fact is they're going in.

The second best option is to (1) toll those roads so that billions that would be spent on it can be spent elsewhere, (2) have PT provision on those road (busways or rail alignments). Tolling is independent of who owns the roads or built it.

As hard as it may be to hear, cars exist. One can formulate policies based on pretending that they don't exist or won't exist (prescriptive planning) or you can accept that they exist and plan from there (descriptive planning).

I remember the then Transport minister Rachel Nolan explicitly saying at the November PT forum, "we can't just not build roads".

I would like to remind you of your footer:

"New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can't be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!"

Other jurisdictions in the world are learning that curbing car expenditure is probably THE most vital thing to do.

[dwb]

Besides, I haven't said don't fund roads, I've just said preference in timing should go to public projects, you know the ones that would stack up best if anyone ever did a comparative cost/benefit analysis between equal spend on two alternative projects, one road and one PT.

But yeah in practice, things like Trouts Rd are likely to be multimodal, and this is probably a good thing

[#Metro]

Other jurisdictions in the world are learning that curbing car expenditure is probably THE most vital thing to do.

Yes, and isn't that what tolling a road that would otherwise be built purely using public funds and then opened FOR FREE
actually does???

Do you think by saying that "I don't like roads" or "Road X" that's going to stop it from being built?
More luck opening it with a toll on it.

[dwb]

Other jurisdictions in the world are learning that curbing car expenditure is probably THE most vital thing to do.

Yes, and isn't that what tolling a road that would otherwise be built purely using public funds and then opened FOR FREE
actually does???

Do you think by saying that "I don't like roads" or "Road X" that's going to stop it from being built?
More luck opening it with a toll on it.

I think the current unintegrated approach of independent tolls on highly expensive routes is a dismal failure and that road use charging should occur across the network with revenue invested primarily into maintenance and public transport. A bit like London really? Where do you think all that congestion charging money has gone?! Not into expensive new road tunnels I guarantee you!

[#Metro]

There are three possibilities

(1) Don't built the road
(2) Build the road - charge the public and free for all
(3) Build the road - charge a toll on it

Step (1) often fails - the road will get built anyway regardless of how much jumping up and down one does. Are you really going to tell the people who are going to live in Yarrabilla and Ripley, "no, you can't have a freeway or roads to your development." What kind of city doesn't build roads to new towns and suburbs?

With option (1) gone you are left with options (2) and (3) and I would suggest that option (3) is the least worst out of that.

Personally I think that these new developments in la la land should NOT go ahead, better use of land around existing rail (Rosewood) and infill opportunities.

[Cam]

Mark my words- the first thing that is going to go out to Ripley and Yarabilla isn't going to be a rail line or public transport!
It's going to be a freeway!

The single lane in each direction Centenary Highway extension to Yamanto through the middle of the Ripley Valley opened two & a half years ago.

http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=64801

http://www.thesatellite.com.au/story/2009/06/29/Centenary-Highway-extension-opens/

The proposed Ripley Town Centre is to be located just north of the highway.

[#Metro]

So what is this then?

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/motorwaysandtolling/tod_tolling/index.html

Motorists can consider one of three options during time of day tolling - adjusting the time of their trip, paying the appropriate toll or changing their route.

The introduction of time of day tolling is the first time the toll has been increased on the Harbour Bridge since 2002 but only motorists travelling from 6.30am to 9.30am and from 4pm to 7pm on weekdays will face an increased toll.

Time of day tolling is expected to raise around $12 million a year which will be reinvested into buying and running 300 new buses.

12 million per year = 4 BUZ routes

[Mr X]

Isn't the Gateway part of the "interstate" and it has two tolls?

[#Metro]

Tolls are a tricky thing there is a need I believe for somesort of congestion tax on any major route such that in peak flows money is being generated to pay for the usually extremely expensive extra roadwork required as well as PT. M1, I don't believe the state can leagally place a toll on it as its part of interstate.

I think this is how the harbour bridge scheme works - the charges are higher during peak hour.

Personally I think putting new suburbs out at whoop-whoop is the WORST idea ever. But oh well, that's what they decided to do.

[somebody]

Tolls are a tricky thing there is a need I believe for somesort of congestion tax on any major route such that in peak flows money is being generated to pay for the usually extremely expensive extra roadwork required as well as PT. M1, I don't believe the state can leagally place a toll on it as its part of interstate.

I don't see how the feds could stop them tolling any road they choose.

The way it should be for once.

[Jonas Jade]

I fully support time of day tolling for major freeways. 

[Jonno]

That is fine, every second project is a road project. Don't fund those ones and you're sorted.

Just like my position on park and ride, I don't agree that we can just "not fund it". Cars exist, there will be demand for freeways to new suburbs on the fridge. Ideally you wouldn't build those suburbs or the freeways but fact is they're going in.

The second best option is to (1) toll those roads so that billions that would be spent on it can be spent elsewhere, (2) have PT provision on those road (busways or rail alignments). Tolling is independent of who owns the roads or built it.

As hard as it may be to hear, cars exist. One can formulate policies based on pretending that they don't exist or won't exist (prescriptive planning) or you can accept that they exist and plan from there (descriptive planning).

I remember the then Transport minister Rachel Nolan explicitly saying at the November PT forum, "we can't just not build roads".

I would like to remind you of your footer:

"New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can't be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!"

Other jurisdictions in the world are learning that curbing car expenditure is probably THE most vital thing to do.

Exactly.  They are learning that building a good old fashion road with lots of interestions, lights, trees, bike paths, footpaths and adjoining development with dedicated public transport right of way has better traffic flow than a freeway, encourages walking, etc that we want and does not waste money.

Many cities are also finding that moving freight by rail and even light rail is very viable as well.

If we continue with the build the freeway AND THEN build the public transport as well we will send our country broke and never fix our tansport problems.

[#Metro]

Exactly.  They are learning that building a good old fashion road with lots of interestions, lights, trees, bike paths, footpaths and adjoining development with dedicated public transport right of way has better traffic flow than a freeway, encourages walking, etc that we want and does not waste money.

Many cities are also finding that moving freight by rail and even light rail is very viable as well.

If we continue with the build the freeway AND THEN build the public transport as well we will send our country broke and never fix our tansport problems.

You'd need a mini-freight terminal plus the loading of freight on to rail in QLD is problematic because passenger and freight compete for slots on the QR network. Not all road freight is contestable either. The supply of building materials (concrete, ashphalt, steel, wood) groceries etc still needs to be transported you have an access problem - how to bridge the gap of the 'last mile'.

If you are travelling long distances, speed matters, for all modes.

Should we have had a M1 boulevarde all the way to the Gold Coast with lots of intersections and trees? A boulevarde in lieu of the Gateway Motorway?

There is one place in Brisbane where I think hasn't been touched by a freeway and would fit your model- there is no Eastern Freeway in Brisbane out to Carindale and Redlands etc. There is only Cleveland Rail (terrible), Old Cleveland Road and a busway going in.

[Jonno]

Exactly.  They are learning that building a good old fashion road with lots of interestions, lights, trees, bike paths, footpaths and adjoining development with dedicated public transport right of way has better traffic flow than a freeway, encourages walking, etc that we want and does not waste money.

Many cities are also finding that moving freight by rail and even light rail is very viable as well.

If we continue with the build the freeway AND THEN build the public transport as well we will send our country broke and never fix our tansport problems.

You'd need a mini-freight terminal plus the loading of freight on to rail in QLD is problematic because passenger and freight compete for slots on the QR network. Not all road freight is contestable either. The supply of building materials (concrete, ashphalt, steel, wood) groceries etc still needs to be transported you have an access problem - how to bridge the gap of the 'last mile'.

If you are travelling long distances, speed matters, for all modes.

Should we have had a M1 boulevarde all the way to the Gold Coast with lots of intersections and trees? A boulevarde in lieu of the Gateway Motorway?

There is one place in Brisbane where I think hasn't been touched by a freeway and would fit your model- there is no Eastern Freeway in Brisbane out to Carindale and Redlands etc. There is only Cleveland Rail (terrible), Old Cleveland Road and a busway going in.

The non-contestable is such a small % of all trips that "a good old fashion road with lots of interestions, lights, trees, bike paths, footpaths and adjoining development with dedicated public transport right of way has better traffic flow than a freeway".

The expense of a freeway to provide access is no different than that to fix the rail bottlenecks.  Thats the main point. 

[#Metro]

The non-contestable is such a small % of all trips that "a good old fashion road with lots of interestions, lights, trees, bike paths, footpaths and adjoining development with dedicated public transport right of way has better traffic flow than a freeway".

The expense of a freeway to provide access is no different than that to fix the rail bottlenecks.  Thats the main point.  

The fastest way to get from Town A to Town B is at high speed.
To get that speed you need to remove intersections and lights - effectively you take a car and place it into Class A ROW.
That's what a freeway is.

If you do that with a bus, you get a busway

If you do that with a tram, you get LRT

If you do that with a train you get commuter rail

PT will usually* be slower than a freeway simply because it must make stops to pick up and drop off passengers.

I find it difficult to imagine that if I am at Rocklea and want to get my vegetables down to Coolangatta, I am going to put it on the train.
Or that it can go down at 50 km/hour in a Class B ROW. The travel time would be 2x what it is now using the M1.

The second thing is, with all that freight on the rail network (assuming perfect contestability - which I doubt) is going to compete for slots with passengers too.

[dwb]

The non-contestable is such a small % of all trips that "a good old fashion road with lots of interestions, lights, trees, bike paths, footpaths and adjoining development with dedicated public transport right of way has better traffic flow than a freeway".

The expense of a freeway to provide access is no different than that to fix the rail bottlenecks.  Thats the main point.  

The fastest way to get from Town A to Town B is at high speed.
To get that speed you need to remove intersections and lights - effectively you take a car and place it into Class A ROW.
That's what a freeway is.

If you do that with a bus, you get a busway

If you do that with a tram, you get LRT

If you do that with a train you get commuter rail

PT will usually* be slower than a freeway simply because it must make stops to pick up and drop off passengers.

I find it difficult to imagine that if I am at Rocklea and want to get my vegetables down to Coolangatta, I am going to put it on the train.
Or that it can go down at 50 km/hour in a Class B ROW. The travel time would be 2x what it is now using the M1.

The second thing is, with all that freight on the rail network (assuming perfect contestability - which I doubt) is going to compete for slots with passengers too.

YOu miss the point entirely TT, there is an extensive road network available for such "freight" movements.

If you toll the roads, then those more valuable users can have quicker access to the existing roads. We don't need more, we just need to use what we've got better.

[somebody]

In the Aus Constitution it is illegal to toll a fed funded road which by definition is supposed to aid the transport of goods and people between the states. When Australia's first major tollway/motorway ie the Bewora to Peats Ridge road (known as F3 now in NSW) was built by the state it was a tollway right up until it became part of the federal hwy system at which point the toll was removed.

The way I remember it the toll was removed just because the loan to build it had been repaid.

I am sure there is no such provision in the constitution, but I guess if the federal funding was provided on the condition there would be no toll, that would presumably survive a High Court challenge.

Warning Bitch Session: I am sick of reading in newspaper about people complaining about paying twice to use a road, ie Gateway. What they don't realise is these toll roads fall outside normal funding and the toll itself is why the bank lent the money to build the thing. Its purely user pays and targets high demand and regular users such as Gateway, Clem 7 and Ipswich motor ways and usually cost so much per km that its a huge burdon on taxpayers to fund internally for what is mostly commuters. In most cases (Syd E-W link excepted, before mods were undertaken), there is the orginal alt route as there was for the Bewroa to Peat Ridge tollway, ie hwy 83 also known as Pacific Hwy and yes it takes longer, but suck it up! If you want to do the run faster, you pay and you are not paying twice. Like catching Citytrain and say you are paying twice, fares and taxation. Fares pay for 40%, tax the other 60%, whether you use or not. End Bitch Session

I agree.

[#Metro]

I love the "I paid rego therefore I should have FREE ACCESS ALL AREAS EVERYTHING FREE".

People are so unbelieveable, so funny.

[Gazza]

Agree too. What they don't realise is that if we could take the stupidly expensive stuff like freeways out of the equation, the rego and motoring tax rates could be reduced.

[Jonno]

Agree too. What they don't realise is that if we could take the stupidly expensive stuff like freeways out of the equation, the rego and motoring tax rates could be reduced.

... and we would see further savings in health budget from decreased road trauma costs...and the freight would still get where it needs to.

[somebody]

Yep there is, free trade between the states without tolls, taxes or levy's. I'll look up on the weekend tomorrow.

A fairly creative interpretation of the clause.  I don't believe it uses the words "tolls".

Pretty hard to argue that a toll on any road in Sydney or Brisbane would be in violation of the intent of the free trade clause.

[dwb]

Australia also has free trade agreements with other countries. we still have quarantine rules than prevent importing say apples from new zealand (actually they've just started allowing nz apples, but only in the last couple of months... you get the point).

[somebody]

Australia also has free trade agreements with other countries. we still have quarantine rules than prevent importing say apples from new zealand (actually they've just started allowing nz apples, but only in the last couple of months... you get the point).

What's the relevance of that?

State borders are very different constitutionally than national ones.

[dwb]

Australia also has free trade agreements with other countries. we still have quarantine rules than prevent importing say apples from new zealand (actually they've just started allowing nz apples, but only in the last couple of months... you get the point).

What's the relevance of that?

State borders are very different constitutionally than national ones.

AFAIK none of us are constitutional lawyers, it therefore has just as much to do with it as anything broadstroke anyone else has said too.

[somebody]

Yep there is, free trade between the states without tolls, taxes or levy's. I'll look up on the weekend tomorrow.

A fairly creative interpretation of the clause.  I don't believe it uses the words "tolls".

Pretty hard to argue that a toll on any road in Sydney or Brisbane would be in violation of the intent of the free trade clause.

Sigh,
Section 92 provides that "trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States shall be absolutely free".

Ok, so reviewing, if a road, bridge, tunnel is to receive commonwealth funding it cannot have a toll. ie the tolls, levy's and taxes (whate ever the name) on SHB, SHT, Gateway Bridge, Clem 7 etc etc are not part of Hwy 1, how practical that is or isn't in reality is subject to question but in theory you can drive around all of them. IF the M1 to GC does receive fed funding then you cannot place a congestion tax/charge/levy/toll on this road.

In short, for the Bruce and Pacific hwys to Brisbane, its unlike you can charge people to use them and hence use the cash flow to prop up PT.

Regards
Shane

Not saying you are wrong, but I still think that would be a very creative interpretation of the clause.  Surely it's intention was to stop export/import taxes between states!

[Stillwater]

While the conventional thinking is that tolls do not apply on a federally-funded road (the so-called National Highways), nonetheless tolls do apply on one section - the M7 around Sydney; the rationale being that an alternative 'free' road is available for those who don't want to pay the toll.  Brisbane's Gateway Motorway is a road that the federal government funds with the state, yet no federal money has gone into the bridge component, which is tolled, with all money going to the Queensland Government.  For purposes of funding, federal jurisdiction stops at the high water mark either side of the bridge structure.

[Mr X]

I would have thought the federal funding would finish at the point in which the freeway/motorway is no longer "free" i.e. the last offramp and onramp before the bridge structure.

[Stillwater]

Yes, you are right.  I was being lazy with my reference to high water mark.

[Mr X]

Would that then mean the "new" Gateway receives no funding as you cannot exit it after the airport turnoff southbound until after the bridge?

hmm, probably doesn't matter much now 

[SteelPan]

All the visual promo material I've seen for the long-awaited CRR, seems to indicate glass platform "walls" will be erected on the edge of the platforms of the new stations - like they've put in the inner-city bus way stations (ie, KGS and Myer Centre).

My question - why?

I've travelled "subways" here in Australia and overseas and can't readily recall, even on relatively modern systems, such platform walling.  Do the QR designers believe Queeeeenslanders have "balance issues" and regularly fall off platforms more than other people, in way larger cities do around the globe?

Also, might sound silly, but nothing adds to the "romance" or "feel", call it what you want, of the wind rush generated in undergrounds - hopefully fellow rail fans will know what I'm talking about.

Do we reaaallllyyyy have to have the platform walls???    :conf