Cross River Rail Project

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just a FYI, its very very very rare to have a freighter coming from Normanby accessing the subs directly.

[somebody]

Just a FYI, its very very very rare to have a freighter coming from Normanby accessing the subs directly.

That's probably because it's a very odd thing to do.  Passing Central #5 would be more reasonable.

[Fares_Fair]

I noted from the last media statement that the former titled Cross River Rail (Labor government version) reduced version is now called the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/C/Cross-River-Rail/Brisbane-Inner-Rail-Solution.aspx

[Stillwater]

Seems to be not just CRR, but a series of capacity improvements first, then CRR.  Trying to buy time ahead of having to implement the inevitable.

[Stillwater]

It is very interesting FF, that the LNP uses this terminology.  At first glance, you think it is the  "Inner-City Rail Capacity Study" which is a different document.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/C/Cross%20river%20rail/Pdf_inner_city_rail_capacity_study_pre_feasibility_report.pdf

Here are some interesting findings from the Inner City Rail Capacity Study, October 2008:

Bugger me, if this doesn't relate to the SCL – "Given the length of trips (up to 60 minutes or longer) there is a desire (and policy) to provide a reasonable amenity, including speed and directness of services and low levels of crowding."

"The system is not a mass transit system like Hong Kong or London, and this will not change over the next 20 years as the existing and planned distribution of population and jobs will maintain strong demand for an excellent suburban rail network to meet continued long journey demand."

Hellooooooooooooo – "By 2026, faced with trains at capacity at their nearest station (customers) will travel some distance to find the next station with available capacity. This may be caused by serious congestion on the road network at that time."

Here are some overall findings:

The purpose of the Inner City Rail Capacity Study (ICRCS) is to develop an Inner City Rail
Master Plan that specifies the projects, estimated costs, staging and timing for the future
development options for Brisbane's inner city rail network.

Citytrain shares its network with other services, including regional and interstate freight and
passengers services. Typically, 54 freight services and around 10 regional and interstate
passenger services operate each day.

A key challenge for the rail network is to accommodate the anticipated significant growth in
passenger demand driven by population growth in south-east Queensland (SEQ) over the next 20 years and beyond, while also supporting growth in freight traffic.

The inner city rail network is the backbone of the Citytrain rail network for SEQ. The capacity of this section of the network constrains the number of services that can be run across the
network. A number of previous studies have indicated that continued growth in demand for rail services means that the inner city rail network will reach capacity in 2016.

The demand modelling and the rail operations analysis confirmed that two additional
corridors/river crossings (or four additional tracks) are required by 2026. These include one
corridor (or two additional tracks) from the south by 2016, and another corridor (or two
additional tracks) from the west by 2026.

Detailed demand model and rail capacity analysis showed that four new tracks in two new
corridors are required to meet the approximate 170% forecast growth in AM peak hour rail
capacity demand to 2026 (from 52 trains in 2006 to 141 trains forecast for 2026).

ESPECIALLY NOTE THE FOLLOWING

Freight services are expected to double by 2020, and its efficient movement is
essential for economic growth. Increasing freight services will increase conflicts
with other rail traffic. Operating freight services amongst the peak passenger
services would have a severe impact on the passenger operation and would in
most cases result in significant additional infrastructure requirements.

Infrastructure requirements and impacts on passenger operation depend such
elements as the number of services, running times, train lengths and routes.
A key challenge for the inner city rail capacity study is to cater for freight and
passenger demand in the future.

Increasing freight services will increase conflicts with other rail traffic. Operating freight services amongst the peak passenger services would have a severe impact on the passenger operation and would in most cases result in significant additional infrastructure requirements.

Infrastructure requirements and impacts on the passenger operation depend on the number of services, running times, consists and routes. A freight curfew during peak hours would reduce the need for more infrastructure but could have a negative economic effect. Longer freight trains are possible, but not for coal due to the layout of port facilities.

A fundamental objective of the concept development was to meet future rail demand, alleviating current network capacity constraints wherever possible.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Cross River Rail project under a cloud because of state's 'city-country divisions'

Cross River Rail project under a cloud because of state's 'city-country divisions'

    by: Robyn Ironside
    From: The Courier-Mail
    January 28, 2013 12:00AM

THE Federal Government has blamed city-country divisions in the Newman Government for threatening to sink the Cross River Rail project.

Sources have told The Courier-Mail the project is not getting the same support from Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney as Transport Minister Scott Emerson.

"It's pretty clear that Mr Seeney is pushing projects of most importance to regional Queensland, while Mr Emerson is lobbying for Cross River Rail," said the source.

A Federal Government spokesman said the only submission received for Cross River Rail from the Newman Government was for $300 million worth of measures to increase capacity on the Citytrain network - not the full $4.4 billion needed for the project.

The submission says a $300 million early capacity works package will extend the life of the inner-city rail to 2020 - before a longer term solution was needed.

Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said there were mixed messages from the State Government.

"We're happy to work constructively with the Queensland Government but the government has to sort out what its priority area is, then engage constructively with the Commonwealth," said Mr Albanese.

"They can't argue different priorities to different media outlets. There needs to be a consistent approach."

Queensland Transport Minister Scott Emerson said the Government's top priorities, as listed in its National Building Fund submission, clearly set out what was required and the Cross River Rail was one.

"(Cross River Rail) along with the Bruce Highway Action Plan and Toowoomba Second Range Crossing were all listed as priorities in the Government's submission to Infrastructure Australia in August and again as part of our submission for Nation Building 2 in October," Mr Emerson said.

"The Newman Government is fully committed to securing funding to deliver the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution.

"It's time for the Commonwealth to make a similar commitment."

Despite The Courier-Mail's request, Mr Emerson's office would not provide a copy of its Cross River Rail submission saying it was "commercial-in-confidence".

Mr Emerson said claims by Federal Government sources that his department was playing "catch-up with its funding submissions" late last week, were inaccurate.

The Courier-Mail understands Transport and Main Roads' acting Director-General Neil Scales contacted the secretary of Transport in Canberra to discuss the submission on Friday.

But Mr Emerson said senior departmental staff were in regular contact with their Federal counterparts.

"I've asked that (senior staff) provide every assistance to the Federal Government to ensure the right decision is made for Queensland," he said.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Will funding Brisbane's Cross River Rail project become a federal election issue?

Will funding Brisbane's Cross River Rail project become a federal election issue?

    by: Robert MacDonald
    From: The Courier-Mail
    January 28, 2013 12:00AM

WILL this year's federal election help solve Brisbane's biggest transport bottleneck even if it means Federal Labor gives Campbell Newman an enormous free kick?

We've known for at least the past five years that the city's sole Brisbane River rail crossing, the Merivale Bridge, is likely to reach capacity by 2016.

Anna Bligh's answer was to spend around $74 million of state and federal money planning the Cross River Rail project (pictured), an 18km-long, mainly underground line linking Brisbane's northern and southern suburbs via a mid-city tunnel under the river and making some initial property acquisitions.

The Federal Government's advisory body, Infrastructure Australia, loved the scheme so much it last year listed it as one of a handful of "ready-to-proceed" projects on its national infrastructure priority list.

All that was missing was the funding for a project then costed at $6.4 billion. Both the state and federal governments cried poor. Nothing's changed since then except that now we have a looming federal poll and a national Labor Government deeply unpopular in Queensland.

We shouldn't underestimate the motivating power of an election year for a government behind in the polls.

Three years ago, in 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, scrambling to hold on to seats in southeast Queensland announced it was committing $742 million to the long-mooted rail link to Redcliffe, much to the surprise of the Bligh government, which didn't even have the project on its to-do list.

The need for the Cross River Rail project is far more pressing than the Redcliffe line, which was first discussed more than a century ago and is clearly a high priority for Transport minister Scott Emerson if not for Newman and his deputy Jeff Seeney, who seem more focused on the Toowoomba second range crossing.

What happens next is in the hands of the Gillard Government, which has had its job made slightly easier thanks to the Newman administration's recalculation of the scope and cost of the project to a lower figure of $4.4 billion.

The State would like the Commonwealth to contribute 80 per cent of the project's total cost, which seems unlikely even if the funds were available, given that previous federal contributions to other big Queensland transport schemes, such as the Gold Coast light rail line and the Redcliffe rail link, have been at substantially lower levels.

But the state has provided another helpful funding option for the Federal Government to consider, a package of short-term measures aimed at increasing peak-hour passenger rail capacity by up to 40 per cent, at an estimated cost of between $200 million to $300 million.

The aim of these stop-gap measures, which include removing some seats from trains to provide more standing room for commuters, rescheduling interstate services out of peak periods and new signalling, is to extend the Merivale Bridge's full-capacity crunch date from 2016, to at least 2020, which is the Newman Government's current target date for completion of its pared-down version of Bligh's cross-river project.

All of which presents the Gillard Government with an exquisite dilemma. Its own expert advice says Brisbane Cross River Rail project is one of the most important, ready-to-go-now nation-building projects in the country and, even if it can't find all the money straight away, it can start the process by supporting the Queensland Government's temporary fix.

But to do so would enormously boost Newman's can-do credentials, who would rightly be able to claim success where Bligh's Labor administration had failed. And is that really what Gillard wants in the lead-up to the election?

Whatever happens next, Newman is in the box seat. Either Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan agree to start funding the project or else they refuse, giving the conservatives ammunition to damn federal Labor's neglect of Queensland.

Alternatively, Newman can negotiate a funding agreement with federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

When Bligh announced her Cross River Rail plan in 2009 - then estimated to cost around $14 billion - it all seemed like so much wishful thinking.

But now, the chances of it happening are growing by the day, particularly if Newman embraces Emerson's sense of urgency to present a united front to the Feds.

Bligh however won't be around to take any of the credit when it finally becomes reality. Politics is a cruel profession.

[SurfRail]

If they fail to secure funding for it, they deserve to be put in the stocks.  Muffins all round.

[somebody]

If they fail to secure funding for it, they deserve to be put in the stocks.  Muffins all round.

Who is they?

[SurfRail]

On further consideration, both the State and Federal parties responsible (but moreso the State).

The only way I think it will happen by 2020 is if Julia stumps up enough of the funding that they will play ball, which is definitely not going to happen - and it would require her to retain government, which might not happen anyway.

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> War of words over Brisbane rail projects

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Governments clash over Cross River Rail

Governments clash over Cross River Rail
February 9, 2013 - 12:01AM  Bridie Jabour

The Queensland and federal governments are squabbling again, this time over Brisbane's crucial Cross River Rail project.

On Friday Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said Infrastructure Australia was still waiting for the Newman government to submit its revised plan for the rail infrastructure so it could approve up to $4.5 billion in funding.

He told reporters in Brisbane the only submission it had received so far was a request for $300 million, which would be used on "stop-gap measures" to increase the capacity of the Citytrain network.

The submission reportedly states the changes would extend the life of the rail system to 2020, when a longer term solution would be needed.

Yet the city's sole Brisbane River rail crossing, the Merivale Bridge, has been forecast to reach capacity by 2016.

"The Queensland government [has] to provide the information [about Cross River Rail] to Infrastructure Australia in detail [and] to my department," Mr Albanese said.

However, Queensland's Transport Minister Scott Emerson insisted it had fulfilled all its requirements.

"The Department of Transport and Main Roads sent Infrastructure Australia and the federal government a full business case on which our Brisbane Inner Rail solution is based," he said.

Mr Emerson said the LNP's proposal for a second rail river crossing, included in the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution, formed part of two separate submissions already made to Infrastructure Australia and the Nation Building Program.

"I've asked that my department provide every assistance to the federal government to ensure the right decision is made for Queensland," Mr Emerson said.

"Our solution is a staged approach so we can deliver the core benefits of the project."

The Cross River Rail project, as first touted by the former state Labor government, was designed to deal with Brisbane's looming rail capacity woes.

But a three-person expert panel, employed by the LNP to review the previous government's plans, found the original project was "beyond the scope required to address the immediate rail capacity problem from the southern side of the river".

Under its "leaner" Cross-River Rail project, the LNP said it would build two rail tunnels between Yeerongpilly and Victoria Park Golf Complex and four new underground stations at Woolloongabba, Boggo Road, Albert Street and Roma Street.

But it would not construct additional above-ground tracks south of Yeerongpilly or north of Victoria Park, nor upgrade existing stations as Labor had intended.

In the past week, the Queensland government has clashed over disaster relief funds and HECS-style loans for TAFE students.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/governments-clash-over-cross-river-rail-20130208-2e3sy.html

[Stillwater]

It really is time we got to the bottom of this.  The suspicion is on the Queensland Government and in favour of Anthony Albanese's version of events - and the evidence lies in Mr Emerson's carefully worded statements.

The state government position is spelled out on this website:
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/C/Cross-River-Rail/Brisbane-Inner-Rail-Solution.aspx

The website contains these words: "The Queensland Government has submitted the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution (both Early Capacity Works and the core Cross River Rail project), as part its 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia."

The Brisbane Times reports: On Friday Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said Infrastructure Australia was still waiting for the Newman government to submit its revised plan for the rail infrastructure so it could approve up to $4.5 billion in funding.  He told reporters in Brisbane the only submission it had received so far was a request for $300 million, which would be used on "stop-gap measures" to increase the capacity of the Citytrain network.
"The Queensland government [has] to provide the information [about Cross River Rail] to Infrastructure Australia in detail [and] to my department," Mr Albanese said.

Questions:

While the state government has submitted information about the Early Capital Works and what is termed the 'core' Cross River Rail Project as part of its 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia, which aspect of the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution (Early Capital Works and/or CRR Lite) has the state RECOMMENDED for funding?

If the state has just said 'here is a list of things we want funded, but we recommend funding initially for the Early Capital Works' but has NOT made a formal request for the next stage (CRR Lite), is that the justification for Mr Albanese's remarks?

Infrastructure Australia requires that submissions for funding from the states conform with a strict template and that a full business case be prepared for each infrastructure element.  We know that the submission requirements were adhered to for CRR Heavy, but has the altered LNP proposal for CRR Lite met the IA requirements such that it is a document not recognised by Mr Albanese and his IA colleagues as complying fully with the requirements of a legal submission?  As the CRR Lite proposal is not detailed and a new BCR calculation made, is it the case that the Queensland Government's CRR Lite submission is, as a consequence, deemed 'informal' and not having met threshold status for appropriate funding consideration?

The Brisbane Times article goes on to say: However, Queensland's Transport Minister Scott Emerson insisted it (the state) had fulfilled all its requirements.  "The Department of Transport and Main Roads sent Infrastructure Australia and the federal government a full business case on which our Brisbane Inner Rail solution is based," he said.

Questions:

Why won't you say: "The Department of Transport and Main Roads sent Infrastructure Australia and the federal government a FULL BUSINESS CASE on which our CORE AND REVISED Cross River Rail solution is based."  Does a full business case for CRR Lite, in the form required by IA for its proper consideration, exist?

Mr Emerson goes on to say: "I've asked that my department to provide every assistance to the federal government to ensure the right decision is made for Queensland," Mr Emerson said.

Questions:

Mr Emerson, you will not bring yourself to say that the state government is offering every assistance to the federal government to ensure that CRR Lite is built.  You continue to use the words 'Brisbane Inner Rail Solution' and the 'right decision'.  Are you playing politics again, Mr Emerson, attempting to orchestrate a situation whereby the federal government rejects an inadequate CRR Lite funding request in circumstances where your government deliberately has not provided all the valid material and information so that a proper assessment can be made of the CRR Lite proposal?

Won't such a scenario play into your hands – getting from the federal government the $300 million needed for the Early Capital Works, which is all that your government promised in the election campaign?  The LNP never got round to that Transport Infrastructure Plan that was promised.

In the lead-up to a federal election in September, are you trying to manufacture a false political crisis in which the federal government rejects a poorly-prepared CRR Lite submission (not to the same standard as the accepted CRR Heavy Business Case) so that LNP members and candidates can campaign on the basis that federal Labor has 'abandoned Brisbane'?

Or is it a case that your governments wants to be SEEN to be supporting worthwhile public transport solutions for Brisbane while bringing about the circumstances whereby federal Labor, not the state LNP government, rejects a proven game-changer, thereby allowing you to say 'since the feds have rejected CRR Lite, we must now focus on road solutions'?

Will you confirm that your colleague, Mr Seeney is not in favour of CRR Heavy or Lite and that your government is going through the motions of seeking IA funding for CRR Lite while secretly hoping this will fail in order to bring forward a submission to IA for a Second Range Crossing and Toowoomba Bypass that would benefit the development of the coal industry in the Surat Basin?

[Golliwog]

I'm thinking that they (State gov.) haven't got a revised business case for CRR Lite. As I understand it, the end plan is still to eventually do the surface works, so in a way the original business case is still valid, but what the Fed's want is something that will say what the benefits of the pared back version are compared to it's cost. Which to some extent is fair enough as while I understand that there were discussions of staging construction while the ALP was still in control of the state, my take on these was that it wasn't going to be staged as in "lets build the tunnel now, then when it opens we can chill for 5-10 years then do the surface works" (which seems to be what the LNP is saying they're going to do) but more of a build the tunnel and get that operational (or surface works first, whatever), then start building the next bit.

Cynical me thinks this is so they (fed ALP) can politically skewer the State LNP and indirectly the Lib's at a Federal level. Having the State produce a document that says in black and white that its cheaper project (that it has been selling as therefore 'better' than Labor's) actually produces fewer benefits (and may even have a worse cost-benefit ratio) that they can then wave around saying this is what the Liberals will do with everything: slash budgets and deliver less benefits.

[Golliwog]

Feds can play all the games they want, in 8mths time they won't be there.

In which case there's little chance of this happening anytime close to when it's going to be needed. The State is already crying poor and blames 'Labors debt' whenever it can, Federal Libs have already stated that their main concern is bringing the budget back to surplus. I can see lots of "We support the CRR project, however in our current budgetary situation we can't afford it right now." Meanwhile they're throwing $1B at the northern section of the Gateway and $700M towards the Toowoomba Range bypass (btw, the new business case for that was released on Friday: http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/mayor-opens-historic-bypass-forum/1748197/)

[ozbob]

Some interesting blog comments --> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/governments-clash-over-cross-river-rail-20130208-2e3sy.html

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

10th February 2013

Cross River Rail - Clarification needed

Greetings,

Seems a lot of confusion as to the status of the Cross River Rail project.  There has been a number of media reports suggesting that the federal government is implying that the state government has not submitted revised plans to Infrastructure Australia.

For example:

1.  Governments clash over Cross River Rail   http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/governments-clash-over-cross-river-rail-20130208-2e3sy.html

2.  Will funding Brisbane's Cross River Rail project become a federal election issue? http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/rail-funding-a-bridge-too-far-for-pm/story-e6frerdf-1226563025513

Mr Albanese has been reported as stating that the only submission received has been for the stop gap measures, the Brisbane Inner Rail solution ( http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9322.0 ).

Mr Emerson has been reported as stating the LNP's proposal for a second rail river crossing, included in the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution, formed part of two separate submissions already made to Infrastructure Australia and the Nation Building Program.

What then is the truth?  Has the state government actually submitted a revised business cases and plan for Cross River Rail?  According to the federal government the answer is no.

South East Queensland, particularly in and around Brisbane has already experienced a worsening of road congestion and mayhem in 2013.   It is time for some real action to address our transport woes, not political games.

A clear clarification of the true situation is needed.

Best wishes
Robert

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

[Stillwater]

Carefully note Mr Emerson's comments in the Courier-Mail article.

When asked about his government's commitment to CRR, he says: "The Newman Government is fully committed to securing funding to deliver the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution."

Not the words 'Cross River Rail Project', but a 'Brisbane Inner Rail Solution'. The Newman government is committed to a 'Brisbane Inner Rail Solution' and that solution is not CRR.

Clearly, Mr Emerson has been rolled by Mr Seeney. Mr Emerson can't man up and admit it, but is using clever words to disguise his defeat: "I've asked that (senior staff) provide every assistance to the Federal Government to ensure the right decision is made for Queensland," he said. (Again note, Mr Emerson is using wording that does not say 'Cross River Rail'.)

An internal battle is going on here.  Mr Emerson would like CRR to get up for federal funding, but Mr Seeney, the Infrastructure Minister, is pushing for a Warrego Highway upgrade around Toowoomba (Second Range Crossing) to proceed using federal government money in support of the Surat Basin miners.  The Warrego Highway project has also gone forward for IA funding.  (Remember CRR is 'shovel ready', according to IA.)

Here is the state government 'pitch' for the Warrego Highway:  http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/mayor-opens-historic-bypass-forum/1748197/

That is why Mr Emerson is saying that he hopes the 'right decision' will be made.
By 'right', he means 'correct'.

The Brisbane Times article quotes Mr Emerson as saying:

"The Department of Transport and Main Roads sent Infrastructure Australia and the federal government a full business case on which our Brisbane Inner Rail solution is based," he said.
Again the use of the term 'Brisbane Inner Rail Solution', but not specifically 'Cross River Rail' project.

The Brisbane Times article goes on ....

"Mr Emerson said the LNP's proposal for a second rail river crossing, included in the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution, formed part of two separate submissions already made to Infrastructure Australia and the Nation Building Program."

Two submissions?  Two competing submissions?  Which of the submissions does the Queensland Government support, or give priority to?

The article continues ....

"I've asked that my department provide every assistance to the federal government to ensure the right decision is made for Queensland," Mr Emerson said.

Again, there's the use of the term 'right solution'.

Now, Mr Emerson adds: "Our solution is a staged approach so we can deliver the core benefits of the project."

The first stage is capacity enhancement works for the rail network that pushes a decision on CRR much further down the road, to around 2020.  It would seem that Mr Seeney, with the support of 'Can Do Roads' Newman, is scheduling a start on the Warrego Highway works ahead of CRR.

That's why Mr Emerson is hoping against hope that the 'right decision' is made.  Mr Emerson has all but given the game away by saying that the Queensland approach to what is now called the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution (a government term that surplants the term 'Cross River Rail') is a 'staged approach', for which the first stage is the capacity enhancement works only.

That's why Mr Albanese can say the state has asked IA and him for money to complete only the initial capacity enhancement works.  Let's hope Mr Emerson makes the 'right decision' and comes clean about what's going on.

What does all of this say for 'open and transparent' government touted by Mr Newman?  What does this say about the power play between Mr Seeney and Mr Emerson?  And the lobbying of 'big mining' interests?

The Brisbane Times portrays the issue as a squabble between the federal and state governments over CRR, but the real story is the squabble within the Queensland state Cabinet.  It is an untold story that, hopefully, will see the light of day.

[Derwan]

Feds can play all the games they want, in 8mths time they won't be there.

And 18 months after the federal election, the LNP won't be in QLD, creating the different party clash once again.

This needs to be an election issue - however if QLD hasn't submitted the paperwork, the Australian Government cannot commit to funding it.  Perhaps the delay is a political strategy?  But do you think politicians would be so low as to risk our future to score political points?

[petey3801]

But do you think politicians would be so low as to risk our future to score political points?

I have little doubt that they're that low, to be honest.

The other point that keeps catching my eye is Mr Emerson continually saying they've sent the business case in that CRR/BIRS is based on. To me, that says they're just using the old business case for CRR Heavy, or else wouldn't he say they've sent the CRRLite/BIRS business case in? None of this "based on" crap?

[somebody]

But do you think politicians would be so low as to risk our future to score political points?

I have little doubt that they're that low, to be honest.

The other point that keeps catching my eye is Mr Emerson continually saying they've sent the business case in that CRR/BIRS is based on. To me, that says they're just using the old business case for CRR Heavy, or else wouldn't he say they've sent the CRRLite/BIRS business case in? None of this "based on" cr%p?

I agree.

Feds can play all the games they want, in 8mths time they won't be there.

And 18 months after the federal election, the LNP won't be in QLD, creating the different party clash once again.

How can you guys be so confident about the result of a future election?  Ballieu in Vic recently, Hewson in 1993, Latham in 2005 all went against expectations.  Bligh 2008, Iemma in NSW in 2007, Gillard 2010 went against what those governments deserved.  I'm particularly surprised about the prediction of LNP being turfed out next election.

A week's a long time in politics.

[Jonno]

Feds can play all the games they want, in 8mths time they won't be there.

And 18 months after the federal election, the LNP won't be in QLD, creating the different party clash once again.

This needs to be an election issue - however if QLD hasn't submitted the paperwork, the Australian Government cannot commit to funding it.  Perhaps the delay is a political strategy?  But do you think politicians would be so low as to risk our future to score political points?

If the Feds can only react to a funding request then the system is broken. They should be leading the way and deciding themselves in conjunction with States what they find. 

[somebody]

The 3 elections which I said went against expectations absolutely did go against expectations as they were 6 months out from the election.

[Derwan]

How can you guys be so confident about the result of a future election? 

I think it's a case of wishful thinking.  I actually hope that Labor will win the federal election - not that I like Julia Gilliard.  I'm just worried that Abbott and his goonies will put an axe to the NBN, which is another critical piece of infrastructure.

The other point in my post is the main one.  This IS an election issue.  This is when we must be pushing for a commitment to funding - not that a politician's commitment actually means anything... "Public servants have nothing to fear from an LNP Government."  "There will be no forced redundancies."  (Sorry - I digress.)

Going by the comments on the news stories, Brisbane voters realise how important this piece of infrastructure is.  (And if they don't, they soon get corrected by other commenters.)  Committing to funding it will be very attractive to Brisbane voters.

[somebody]

Fair enough.  Abolishing the carbon tax and funding a bag of roads is another thing to be worried about with the Fed Libs

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Boring idea to save $500m and two years

Boring idea to save $500m and two years
March 1, 2013 - 12:01AM
Tony Moore

Brisbane tunnel engineers believe they have come up with a plan to save $500 million on the $4.5 billion underground rail project and deliver it by 2018, two years early.

The plan was first presented in December at the eleventh Australian Tunnelling Conference in Brisbane.

The plan would mean diverting one of the two tunnel boring machines now digging Brisbane City Council's $1.5 billion Legacy Way tunnel, which runs from Toowong to the Inner City Bypass.

The boring machine, which is 12.5 metre is diameter and known as Annabelle, would have to "turn right" under Waterworks Road at the Normanby Fiveways.
Advertisement

It could then dig 700 metres to reach the proposed Cross River Rail route and then dig out the large underground tunnel by 2014.

A decision to go ahead with the money and time saving strategy would need to be made within months because Annabelle is nearing the closest point between the Legacy Way and Cross River Rail tunnels.

Under the plan, the unfinished section of one of the two Legacy Way tunnels would be dug by "road header machines" still in Brisbane after last year's completion of the Airport Link tunnel.

Legacy Way is due to open in 2015, but "could be" delayed by 10 to 12 months under the proposal.

However the Cross River Rail – from Yeerongpilly across to Victoria Park at Herston – could be finished by 2018, not 2020, if federal funding can be found.

A senior tunnel engineer, a member of the Australasian Tunnelling Society and a managing director of an underground tunnel consultancy, said southeast Queensland had a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to speed up the project, now accepted by both sides of politics.

"It could bring it forwards to 2018, no question," the experienced tunnel engineer said.

He proposed a new public private partnership - based on public funds, not funds raised from private investors as was done with Airport Link and Clem7 - to finance the tunnel fit-out and stations.

He said the New South Wales government was using such a scheme to fund two 15 kilometre tunnels for the multi-billion dollar North West Rail Link in northern Sydney.

"That is why I think it is worthy of consideration," he said.

Under the current scheme a number of short-term fixes, including signal and timetable upgrades, incentives to catch offpeak trains and removing seating so more passengers on the Gold Coast line can stand, would have to be made

That is because Brisbane has only one bridge - the Merivale Bridge at South Brisbane - that lets trains cross from the southside to the northside in the inner city, and it will be choked by 2016.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-trains-facing-crisis-year-in-2016-20110831-1jm5g.html

The Cross River Rail project was originally conceived in 2010 to solve this problem.

"The state (Queensland) is considering spending $300 million on these short-term capacity fixes because they have to, because the problem is real, but the opportunity is there for the state to examine this and go straight to the end result and bypass these short-term capacity measures," the engineer said.

Under the engineer's proposal the state government would "compensate" Brisbane City Council for the loss of toll revenue from Legacy Way for its first year, instead of funding the "short-term" fixes.

Infrastructure Australia's national infrastructure co-ordinator Michael Deegan said the idea was very interesting and worth investigating.

"Infrastructure Australia would be interested in any sensible proposals to bring forward the Cross River Rail project," he said.

Transport Minister Scott Emerson said the concept still depended on finding funding.

"While I am aware of the proposal, it is only one of a number of options that will be considered if the project is funded," Mr Emerson said.

"My priority at the moment is to work with the federal government to secure funding for the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution and the core Cross River Rail section."

Brisbane's deputy mayor and Finance Committee chairman Cr Adrian Schrinner said Brisbane City Council was concentrating on finishing Legacy Way by 2015.

"However we'd be happy to listen to any proposals for the future use of the record-breaking tunnel boring machines," he said.

Cross River Rail's current environmental impact study includes two smaller tunnels in some cross-sections, but leaves final options to the market to explore.

The engineer said the Cross River Rail's two rail "tubes" could fit inside the single tunnel dug by Annabelle.

"The ultimate, permanent operating case for the rail is identical," he said.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

1st March 2013

Cross River Rail - a rare opportunity

Greetings,

The Brisbanetimes today has highlighted a rare opportunity to progress Cross River Rail and save 500 million dollars on project costs.

--> Boring idea to save $500m and two years  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/boring-idea-to-save-500m-and-two-years-20130228-2f9ff.html

The concept of making better use of tunnel boring machines is not a new one.  For example, we raised the possibility of doing a similar thing in 2009.

See  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2222.msg10580#msg10580

The proposal outlined for Cross River Rail  is very sound, and needs very serious consideration.  Savings of such magnitude cannot be ignored.

Best wishes
Robert

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

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

Media Release 2 May 2009

SEQ: Let's keep digging tunnels - rail tunnels

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has suggested that the tunnel machines being used for the Clem Jones tunnel could be used to build the Inner City Underground rail extensions.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The tunnel machines being used to bore the Clem Jones tunnel will soon have completed their tasks.

"The diameter of these machines bore is 12. 4 metres. (1) A size which is more than adequate for a standard QR double railway line with overhead electrification.

"The Inner City Inner City Rail Upgrade Project (2) is now urgently needed to provide capacity on the rail network.

"Wouldn't it make sense to use the tunnel machines already in Brisbane? Construction of the rail tunnels could be started this year. Why wait till 2012?"

References:

1. http://www.rivercitymotorway.com.au/content/2039/Construction
2. http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Inner_city_rail_upgrade/

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

[verbatim9]

Its a good idea I hope this one gets off the ground

[SurfRail]

^ Absolutely.  Amen.

[Stillwater]

There goes Mr Emerson again: "My priority at the moment is to work with the federal government to secure funding for the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution and the core Cross River Rail section."

Brisbane Inner Rail Solution (first), CRR Lite (secondary priority).   Priority 1 does not have all the ticks and crosses.  By pushing this project ahead of CRR Lite, a project that will be required anyway, CRR gets trapped in the works, forcing feds to bring forward 'shovel ready' projects in other states.

The $500m saving for CRR tunnel boring is a godsend.  The state government should sieze it with both hands, but will its ideology to differential itself with a CRR Lite version, as opposed to Labor's fullblown CRR, get in the way?

Maybe the $500m saving could be redirected to reinstating CRR Heavy, and bringing it on much sooner.  Or maybe we have just found the money for Beerburrum-Landsborough duplication.  We live in hope.

[petey3801]

There goes Mr Emerson again: "My priority at the moment is to work with the federal government to secure funding for the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution and the core Cross River Rail section."

Brisbane Inner Rail Solution (first), CRR Lite (secondary priority).   Priority 1 does not have all the ticks and crosses.  By pushing this project ahead of CRR Lite, a project that will be required anyway, CRR gets trapped in the works, forcing feds to bring forward 'shovel ready' projects in other states.

The $500m saving for CRR tunnel boring is a godsend.  The state government should sieze it with both hands, but will its ideology to differential itself with a CRR Lite version, as opposed to Labor's fullblown CRR, get in the way?

Maybe the $500m saving could be redirected to reinstating CRR Heavy, and bringing it on much sooner.  Or maybe we have just found the money for Beerburrum-Landsborough duplication.  We live in hope.

The problem is, diverting the TBM will delay a ROAD tunnel project, and we can't have that! My bet is the QLD Government will keep stalling and putting it off until after the last day possible for the TBM to change course, then blame the Feds for not coming up with the money 

[somebody]

Emerson is investing zero political capital in this, exactly as I would if I was Transport Minister I'd have to say.  It is very unlikely to be within his power to make the decision so why look silly for failing to do something you knew you couldn't do?  Probably the council would need to be compensated for the delay in Legacy Way opening, but that's probably small beer.  The big problem is that it will also bring forward the expenditure for the rest of CRRlite or it would be a silly looking empty tunnel for a number of years.

[BrizCommuter]

The Legacy Way boring machine would only dig a single, twin track tunnel (requiring side platforms). All of the design work has been around twin, single track tunnels (with centre platforms). Whilst this foam of diverting the tunnel would save $500m, it would have issues with increased redesign work $$$, and very limited time to perform the redesign work.

[somebody]

The Legacy Way boring machine would only dig a single, twin track tunnel (requiring side platforms). All of the design work has been around twin, single track tunnels (with centre platforms). Whilst this foam of diverting the tunnel would save $500m, it would have issues with increased redesign work $$$, and very limited time to perform the redesign work.

Not sure why this idea is "foam" though.

[Golliwog]

The Legacy Way boring machine would only dig a single, twin track tunnel (requiring side platforms). All of the design work has been around twin, single track tunnels (with centre platforms). Whilst this foam of diverting the tunnel would save $500m, it would have issues with increased redesign work $$$, and very limited time to perform the redesign work.

If they're still doing station caverns then platform arrangements can still be for islands, you might just have to have a bigger cavern to allow the tracks to move apart from each other and fit the island in the middle.

In terms of redesign, as I understand it, the detailed design hasn't been done yet, and the wider tunnel should just be following one of the planned tunnels. I'd be more concerned about delays due to having to complete that detailed design and procurement phase. You can be digging the tunnel while doing some of that, but you then run the risk of having to redo parts of the tunnel if you need to change it after that detailed design is complete.

[somebody]

If nothing else just do the tunnels while the oppurtunity is there. Same happened over the ECRL, the contractor offered to keep tunneling west while they were mobilised with TBM's. The basic tunneling works could have been done for a few hundred million etc. ie bore the hole and line if required. Then leave the completed works for when the state is cashed up enough to finish the project. Yes R-P is probably not the most deserving needs for HR in the state, but sometimes when the price can be reduced enough by an existing project, it probably was worth doing.

My memory was that they wanted $30m to tunnel from Epping to Parramatta.  I actually think there is more potential for mode shift in the PERL + ramped up M2 bus services than there is in the NWRL but Sydneysiders just don't think in that way.

Responded to your flood comments in the flood thread: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5234.960

[BrizCommuter]

The BrizCommuter word on the boring diversion.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-boring-diversion.html

[Golliwog]

The BrizCommuter word on the boring diversion.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-boring-diversion.html

The unfortunate reality, is that with the multiple layers of government, bureaucracy, and a "half-baked" attitude towards infrastructure projects in Queensland, this potentially good idea is highly unlikely to happen.

I think you're right on that point. If this had been raised earlier, then it might have been a possibility but I think at this stage there's not enough time to get all 3 levels of government involved to sit down and work it out.

[Stillwater]

We will have to wait a while before being able to read Peter Costello's full Commission of Audit report, but it is interesting to consider its direction and intent.  These two elements are telling:

-   The commission found government decisions in Queensland had long-term consequences but were traditionally made with a short-term focus.
-   Asset planning is being undertaken to varying degrees by agencies, but often on a piecemeal, fragmented and uncoordinated basis, both within agencies and at a consolidated whole-of-government level

Some questions arise in respect of the government's plan to undertake rail capacity enhancement works as part of the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution, the plan you have when you are not building CRR.

Are the early capacity enhancement works a 'short term focus' with long-term consequences (presumably around wasting money while dithering)?

Could the Brisbane Inner Rail Solution early capacity enhancement works be an example of asset planning being undertaken to varying degrees by agencies, often on a piecemeal, fragmented and un-coordinated basis, both within agencies and at a consolidated, whole-of-government level?

[The Reaper]

The Legacy Way boring machine would only dig a single, twin track tunnel (requiring side platforms). All of the design work has been around twin, single track tunnels (with centre platforms).

Is your issue with the change to the platform arrangements, the redesign costs, or both?