Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

Just call it BUTT - Brisbane Underground Train Tunnel, so if the project changes name again, we can still refer to it.

I think some tweaks to the CRR concept are in order - dive down closer to Park road, maybe skip the Exhibition station (still don't get why so many are obsessed with that station, it is like Tennyson. Just walk to the busway at RBWH).

Other tweak could be looking at a turnback terminus designed to extend into Trouts Rd. 

[#Metro]

Remember this madness?!?

[Jonno]

Just call it BUTT - Brisbane Underground Train Tunnel, so if the project changes name again, we can still refer to it.

I think some tweaks to the CRR concept are in order - dive down closer to Park road, maybe skip the Exhibition station (still don't get why so many are obsessed with that station, it is like Tennyson. Just walk to the busway at RBWH).

Other tweak could be looking at a turnback terminus designed to extend into Trouts Rd. 

Exhibition will soon be in the middle of an medium-high density urban village. 

[#Metro]

How many people?

[v6hilux]

As Annastasia says it's "shovel ready"!!!

The original CRR (not that light rail cr%p) is desperately needed. It's ready to go and sorry for the people that will be dislocated with the resumption, but it's for the GOOD of the greater community.

This is the one that will enable the go-ahead of the Salisbury to Beaudesert line - allowing Beaudesert Road to breath properly again and bring better travel and employment options to the youth in the area southern regions, like Beaudesert, Jimboomba and Greenbank.

All we have to do now is get rid of Abbott (Newman's mate), as it didn't suit their corporate futures, they were dead set against it!

[ozbob]

Welcome v6hilux!

Yes, CRR essential for the entire rail network in SEQ.  It's back!

[red dragin]

How many people?

http://www.rna.org.au/redevelopment.aspx

15,000 according to that link.

[colinw]

What is the status of the resumed properties around Yeerongpilly?

[v6hilux]

What is the status of the resumed properties around Yeerongpilly?

I was told by the owner of the wrecking yard "Salisbury Wrecking" was closing in preparation for the widening of Salisbury Railway station to six lines and realign Dollis St over a bit before the LNP shelved the CRR. Subsequently, the empty yard was put up for lease again, but that is all I know.

[dancingmongoose]

The last state budget allocated $1B to BaT. What happens to these funds, can they just be transferred over to CRR?

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 2 minutes ago

2011 Cross River Rail reference design .. might be handy after all .. #qldpol

[SurfRail]

The last state budget allocated $1B to BaT. What happens to these funds, can they just be transferred over to CRR?

Was it actually allocated or was it just in the forward estimates?

[hU0N]

Be interesting to see where this goes. One would assume council money is off the table if buses are, and the State Government share (regardless of whether was already budgeted or just in forward estimates) was to be funded by asset leases. Together, these have collectively blown a $5b hole in the funding package. For all it's faults, at least BaT had a funding arrangements well advanced.

I know I'm being cynical, but the last time round the government spent five years making CRR a priority, and even with a friendly federal government, all this priority making didn't turn into dollars. It'll be interesting to see if, given the new funding realities, priority making is any more successful this time round. Forgive me if I say, I'll believe it when I ride it.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

17th February 2015

Terminal gridlock around the corner ...

Greetings,

The BaT is gone.  Cross River Rail is a much better project for future transport needs.

The Brisbane bus network does need urgent reform.  Reform will mean more buses more often for more people.  It does not mean cuts and job losses.  The scare campaigns that have been run promoting 'cuts' are very unfortunate.

It will be many many years before we get another rail crossing for Brisbane.  What happens in the meanwhile? Terminal bus and road gridlock?  Clearly reform has to be undertaken so that existing assets can be utilised properly in a truly connected network.

The present policy of the Federal Government of not funding urban rail or public transport has to be changed. I would suggest if it isn't, there will be a change of Federal Government to one that does.

We have put forward some very sensible proposals for Brisbane bus network reform, and will continue to do so.
See Bus reform - our proposal media releases grouped --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11099.0

Cross River Rail is the correct project to move on with.  Have a read here in our Newsletter, Public Transport Matters Special Election Edition as to why that is the case --> http://backontrack.org/docs/ptm/PTM0115.pdf 
More background here --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9972.msg150602#msg150602

Plenty for the new Government to move on with hey?

Best wishes
Robert

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

Media release 25 August 2013



SEQ: Cross River Rail - A tunnel, for trains, how about it Mr Abbott?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers again highlights the importance of Cross River Rail (1, 2, 3).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Cross River Rail is one of the state's largest and most important state-building projects. The name of the project is perhaps unfortunate as it merely suggests that the project will cross the Brisbane River and is rail. It is so much more than this - the benefits of this project are wide and dispersed across South East Queensland, reaching as far away as Beenleigh, Yarrabilba, Cleveland, Nambour and the Gold Coast for example. It enables rail to become the backbone of the public transport network with the ability to carry large number of passengers."

"By way of analogy, sending cars all to the city on the road system in peak hour will result in congestion as cars queue and get in the way of each other. A similar situation occurs on the rail system - sending trains all to the city on the train system in peak hour will also result in congestion as trains wait to cross the Merivale Bridge into the CBD from the south, and as trains from all lines converge on the core CBD section. The number of additional 'slots' available for trains on this restricted section will exhaust in 2016."

"Around this time, and if nothing is done, our members expect to see trains leaving people behind and a worsening of car congestion on the roads. The bus system already has capacity issues. No government wants to go down in history for deliberately bringing about an avoidable situation like that - just look at Melbourne, Perth or Sydney for examples of transport issues deciding election outcomes."

"The time is right Mr Abbott to accept that a roads only solution is not going to solve any of the transport woes in the major capitals of Australia.  Infrastructure Australia has Cross River Rail as the top priority. Are you a future leader for all of Australia Mr Abbott or just the road lobby?  Now is the hour ..."

"At around $5 billion dollars Cross River Rail is costly, but so is lost business productivity and congestion. The benefits of this project also exceed the costs of the project. Multi-billion dollar car tunnels are also costly, both to construct and also to drive through. Indeed they are the highest toll, highest pollution, lowest capacity solution to deal with transport and urban mobility problems, and yet this hasn't prevented them being constructed."

"Cross River Rail decentralises the central part of the rail network, which means increased capacity and reliability. Currently, if there is an incident between Roma Street, Central, Brunswick Street or Bowen Hills, the entire network is plunged into chaos as all trains must currently travel through this 'core' section. Cross River Rail will provide an alternate core rail route through the CBD and give some much needed redundancy to this critical part of the network."

"RAIL Back On Track is confident that Cross River Rail will be seen for the opportunity that it is - a chance for a state to take on a large, important state-building project and important piece of infrastructure, and a chance for government to get it right. Indeed the construction of the Merivale Bridge and electrification of the QR train system are projects that Queenslanders can be proud of. Cross River Rail will allow future generations to come into the Brisbane CBD from the suburbs and afar for work, study and play, rather than sit in congestion on the roads.

"Cross River Rail - think of it as TransApex (4), for trains!"

"Leader or follower Mr Abbott?"

References:

1. http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/

2. Brisbane Cross River Rail's future hangs by thread http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/rail-fixs-future-hangs-by-thread/comments-fnbwr276-1226315918783

3. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/kevin-rudd-says-brisbane8217s-cross-river-rail-road-funding-in-doubt-if-he-loses-the-election/story-fnihsrf2-1226691670658

4. TransApex is the car toll tunnel bypass system purported to relieve congestion on roads.  http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/roads-infrastructure-bikeways/tunnels-bridges-major-roads/TransApex/index.htm

Contact:

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

[petey3801]

I think some tweaks to the CRR concept are in order - dive down closer to Park road, maybe skip the Exhibition station (still don't get why so many are obsessed with that station, it is like Tennyson. Just walk to the busway at RBWH).

Other tweak could be looking at a turnback terminus designed to extend into Trouts Rd.

Why would you dive closer to Park Road? Yeerongpilly area has plenty of room for the dive, while allowing a new Yeerongpilly station and adding a lot of extra capacity to the inner section of the Beenleigh line. Diving down at Dutton Park like the BaT was going to be pointless, as trains would still be stuck in the massive bottle neck that is the Dutton Park to Yeerongpilly/Salisbury section. CRR added extra capacity from Yeerongpilly to Salisbury by adding an extra track (or two?) between those. It also allows the Dual Gauge track to be left for freight north of Yeerongpilly (and south, with the extra track/s). In the short term, adding platforms on the dual where needed south of Yeerongpilly is better than having to add platforms along the entire DG line. Also, diving down at Yeerongpilly saves more time for trains, avoiding the slower surface alignment between there and Park Road.

Also, having the northern side as a turnback terminus was another major failure of BaT. Why on earth would anyone want to screw up CRR as well by doing that?? Sure, have stubs to continue on to Trouts Rd when it happens, but through-routing of CRR from the north from the start is a major positive. Remember, it's not just the Maryvale bridge that is at capacity during morning peak, the City is as well! No real point in giving extra capacity to the south while still having lines from the north at capacity through the City and not being able to access CRR!

[v6hilux]

I think some tweaks to the CRR concept are in order - dive down closer to Park road, maybe skip the Exhibition station (still don't get why so many are obsessed with that station, it is like Tennyson. Just walk to the busway at RBWH).

Other tweak could be looking at a turnback terminus designed to extend into Trouts Rd.

Why would you dive closer to Park Road? Yeerongpilly area has plenty of room for the dive, while allowing a new Yeerongpilly station and adding a lot of extra capacity to the inner section of the Beenleigh line. Diving down at Dutton Park like the BaT was going to be pointless, as trains would still be stuck in the massive bottle neck that is the Dutton Park to Yeerongpilly/Salisbury section. CRR added extra capacity from Yeerongpilly to Salisbury by adding an extra track (or two?) between those. It also allows the Dual Gauge track to be left for freight north of Yeerongpilly (and south, with the extra track/s). In the short term, adding platforms on the dual where needed south of Yeerongpilly is better than having to add platforms along the entire DG line. Also, diving down at Yeerongpilly saves more time for trains, avoiding the slower surface alignment between there and Park Road.

Also, having the northern side as a turnback terminus was another major failure of BaT. Why on earth would anyone want to screw up CRR as well by doing that?? Sure, have stubs to continue on to Trouts Rd when it happens, but through-routing of CRR from the north from the start is a major positive. Remember, it's not just the Maryvale bridge that is at capacity during morning peak, the City is as well! No real point in giving extra capacity to the south while still having lines from the north at capacity through the City and not being able to access CRR!

^^
This guy must have some Operational "Insider info"! How could any elected polly be able to state the truth, common sense, facts and reality the way this guy has done?

[dancingmongoose]

Also, having the northern side as a turnback terminus was another major failure of BaT. Why on earth would anyone want to screw up CRR as well by doing that?? Sure, have stubs to continue on to Trouts Rd when it happens, but through-routing of CRR from the north from the start is a major positive. Remember, it's not just the Maryvale bridge that is at capacity during morning peak, the City is as well! No real point in giving extra capacity to the south while still having lines from the north at capacity through the City and not being able to access CRR!

Agreed, CRR is set up to allow direct access from Ekka to Mayne so what's the point of pointing a turnback in?

I do feel there should be a review at least though, for example if it's cheaper to build through George St instead of Albert St it might just be better to compromise a little to try to save some money. Also having platforms to still allow access to Tennyson at Yeerongpilly (so just leaving the current ones maybe and ensuring proper integration) should be included, don't think that was the plan originally.

Just in case we need a refresher, the CRR reference design: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/36018794/CRRreferencedesignoverviewcompletedocument.pdf

[SurfRail]

They should seriously reconsider a route potentially commencing as far back as Runcorn in the event that it would now be feasible.

Dives maybe just after Nursery Road.  Basically follow Mains Rd to Sunnybank Plaza precinct, then make a beeline for Park Road via Griffith Uni Nathan.

If you could somehow engineer a service which ran more or less non stop from Fruitgrove to Park Road / Boggo Road stopping only at McCullough St / Sunybank Plaza and the Nathan Campus (maybe Annerley Junction if feasible), you have suddenly found a way to free up a LOT of capacity on the busway and potentially reduce the need to do anything apart from bi-artics. 

130s and 140s just empty out at the Sunnybank express stop and people go downstairs to the trains, one route continues to Mt Gravatt Campus and terminates while the other goes to Garden City and terminates.  Same with 150s, feed people in at Fruitgrove and have a separate run doing Fruitgrove to Garden City only, feeding into bi-artics.  No need for any rockets on these corridors whatsoever, just run the basic route more often.

[petey3801]

Wouldn't be a bad idea, depends on the $$ value though and whether it can be afforded! Would certainly be nice though!

[SurfRail]

^ It's certainly something they were looking at.  Tunnelling is getting cheaper, and with effectively 3 years pause it might now be time to revisit the concept.

There's a few factors which I think favour it:

- There isn't room for 2 separate track pairs on the surface for most of the corridor without resumptions, and we will need 2 pairs
- Even if there was room the alignment is bad and slow, especially from Coopers Plains to Runcorn
- Money spent on the tunnel is money which potentially does not have to be spent grade-sepping level crossings south of Rocklea because the traffic volume would come down in the short term and it would be less of an issue
- A realistic way of significantly speeding up the trip to the Mains Rd corridor without jamming up the busway with even more services
- Nathan becomes an "on line" station
- Build stubs at Nathan and you preserve the ability to run trains to Upper Mt Gravatt or further south

On the other hand:
- It will be more expensive in an absolute sense, even though there are potentially good economies of scale
- Difficult to stage, you would need to do the whole project in one go.  Only way to break it up would be to have dives maybe north of Fairfield where they were planned at an earlier stage, and install stubs allowing you to go further south

Also raises the issue of where trains from Flagstone might go - under this model it seems probably via South Brisbane as part of a shared sector with Cleveland and Kuraby trains, whereas under CRR it could go through the tunnel.

[v6hilux]

Also raises the issue of where trains from Flagstone might go - under this model it seems probably via South Brisbane as part of a shared sector with Cleveland and Kuraby trains, whereas under CRR it could go through the tunnel.

I disagree about sharing Cleavland and GC lines, as they already have a train service and there is congestion - so for the Beaudesert, Flagstone/Jimboomba, Greenbank Pass rail service, geographically, the existing Interstate line to Salisbury, then via the CRR is the best option, however, some investigation to decrease costs and possibly eliminate the CRR, is to link Greenbank to Springfield Central via Goodna Rd! NO tunnels would be required, just a few deep cuttings and Viaducts are required. Plenty of unused Military land there to cater for the alignment that would cost nothing with little or no resumptions.

[#Metro]

In CRR2, will it be possible to send ALL GC and ALL beenleigh trains via the tunnel? Provided there was an interchange at Park Road, the South Bank - Cleveland line could be used exclusively for Cleveland trains.

This would further separate the network and allow frequency increases, both peak and off peak on the Cleveland line. It would also decongest the network at Roma St and in the core. FG line trains could start and end at Roma Street.

[BrizCommuter]

In CRR2, will it be possible to send ALL GC and ALL beenleigh trains via the tunnel? Provided there was an interchange at Park Road, the South Bank - Cleveland line could be used exclusively for Cleveland trains.

This would further separate the network and allow frequency increases, both peak and off peak on the Cleveland line. It would also decongest the network at Roma St and in the core. FG line trains could start and end at Roma Street.

There still needs to be a connection maintained between the current Beenleigh/Gold Coast corridor and South Brisbane corridor, to allow for a 3 tier service in the future e.g Gold Coast/Beenleigh trains via new tunnel, Flagstone trains via South Brisbane.

Also, it needs to be remembered that South Brisbane requires quite a high peak frequency in both directions (currently more than 10tph), and the Cleveland Line is currently at maximum capacity for some of the peaks (8th).

[v6hilux]

In CRR2, will it be possible to send ALL GC and ALL beenleigh trains via the tunnel? Provided there was an interchange at Park Road, the South Bank - Cleveland line could be used exclusively for Cleveland trains.

With the CRR, it depends on what the plans are for between Salisbury and where the tunnel dives at Y-pilly. There is a lot of room for trains to cross over and go in all directions from Salibury, including Clevo line and return.

The CRR Line will be underground at the Park Road area.

[Old Northern Road]

They should seriously reconsider a route potentially commencing as far back as Runcorn in the event that it would now be feasible.

Dives maybe just after Nursery Road.  Basically follow Mains Rd to Sunnybank Plaza precinct, then make a beeline for Park Road via Griffith Uni Nathan.

If you could somehow engineer a service which ran more or less non stop from Fruitgrove to Park Road / Boggo Road stopping only at McCullough St / Sunybank Plaza and the Nathan Campus (maybe Annerley Junction if feasible), you have suddenly found a way to free up a LOT of capacity on the busway and potentially reduce the need to do anything apart from bi-artics. 

130s and 140s just empty out at the Sunnybank express stop and people go downstairs to the trains, one route continues to Mt Gravatt Campus and terminates while the other goes to Garden City and terminates.  Same with 150s, feed people in at Fruitgrove and have a separate run doing Fruitgrove to Garden City only, feeding into bi-artics.  No need for any rockets on these corridors whatsoever, just run the basic route more often.

If you were starting the tunnel that far south wouldn't it be better to start it at Kuraby so you could have a station at Upper Mount Gravatt? I was under the impression that the only place where adding extra tracks would be difficult would be between Yeerongpilly and Park Rd so I think the chances of starting the tunnel any further south than Yeerongpilly is unlikely. Remember you can always build a 4th track to Kuraby at a later date but you'd have to build the tunnel all in one go. It's a crappy alignment but I think we are stuck with it. Perhaps when they add extra tracks south of Kuraby they could look at straightening some of the line around the Woodridge area to help speed up the trip and Gold Coast trains probably don't need to stop at Loganlea. My proposal would be to build a proper bus interchange at Atlandi and have inner Beenleigh trains terminate there and have Gold Coast trains stop there. I don't think we'll ever see a train line to Flagstone but if we did I guess that would serve the inner Beenleigh stations.

[v6hilux]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the previous state government sold off the land at Yeerongpilly reserved for CRR? That would mean we can't have CRR dive at Yeerongpilly anymore.

There should be a Royal Commission into that!

LNP Queensland
L = Loot
N = 'n
P = Pillage
Queensland

Anyway, no person or business (Except in the interest of the LNP and it's membership) can own land in QLD. (lol) Now it's back to the people it's just a Lease for the use of and the Buildings that are owned. Resumptions can happen at any time to make it happen, after the LNP members are duly compensated!

[SurfRail]

Also raises the issue of where trains from Flagstone might go - under this model it seems probably via South Brisbane as part of a shared sector with Cleveland and Kuraby trains, whereas under CRR it could go through the tunnel.

I disagree about sharing Cleavland and GC lines, as they already have a train service and there is congestion - so for the Beaudesert, Flagstone/Jimboomba, Greenbank Pass rail service, geographically, the existing Interstate line to Salisbury, then via the CRR is the best option, however, some investigation to decrease costs and possibly eliminate the CRR, is to link Greenbank to Springfield Central via Goodna Rd! NO tunnels would be required, just a few deep cuttings and Viaducts are required. Plenty of unused Military land there to cater for the alignment that would cost nothing with little or no resumptions.

It depends on what form the project takes.

If the project starts at say Yeerongpilly, then I would definitely suggest trains from the Mt Lindesay area would go through the tunnel.  If the tunnel in fact starts further south than Salisbury and heads north rather than mirroring the Beenleigh alignment, then there would be no chance, but the traffic would be able to be accommodated on the existing surface tracks with no worries.

If you staged it with dives at Fairfield then Flagstone trains could still possible use the tunnel inbound of here.  This would be the option with maximum flexibility.

[colinw]

... We should consider dive at Moorooka/clapham. Idk what clapham rail yards are used for these days but if you could take some of that area, you could start the tunnel with less disruption to the existing passenger network, and have access from both flagstone and Helensvale/Coolongatta.

Northern end of Clapham would be ideal, and IMHO is what should always have been planned, because:

1. It is a far less space constrained site than Yeerongpilly.
2. It untangles the tunnel dive works from the busy freight junction at Yeerongpilly.
3. It preserves availability of the CRR route for future services via Browns Plains/Greenbank to Flagstone/Beaudesert.
4. It gives CRR direct access to the future stabling site  at Clapham
5. It could act as stimulus for a TOD to be built at Clapham OVER THE TOP of the new stabling and upgraded station.
6. It removes resumptions and uncertainty for the people around Yeerongpilly
7. It is only an incremental increase in tunnel length over Yeerongpilly, whereas options from further south are likely to be much more expensive.

Downsides that I can see:

1.  No CRR access to the route to Corinda via Tennyson.  So what says I - if we ever run PAX services that way again, let 'em go via South Brisbane and the now far less constrained surface route.
2.  Clapham and between Yeerongpilly and Moorooka is somewhat flood prone, and thus tunnel dives in that area are likely to need expensive flood mitigation works.
3. Removes potential interchange between CRR trains and trains across to Corinda, but if Park Road underground station is built that is acceptable.

I'm not sure what Clapham is used for these days, although from what I can see it is mostly "departmental" traffic - ballast wagons, rail trains, and storage of the odd rake of cattle wagons.

IMHO, Yeerongpilly is the NORTHERN MOST place the CRR could viably start from.  Anywhere further south would be better, with the focus on somewhere between northern end of Moolabin and Salisbury.  That has the advantage of making resumptions more likely to be industrial land than residential properties, i.e. less chance of vocal NIMBY/BANANA groups.

I'd be quite contented to see the interchange station between CRR and surface trains at either of Moorooka or Salisbury, then a long tunnel section with the next station at Park Road.

[HappyTrainGuy]

A lot would have to be done to make it a TOD considering what the area was prior. Zoning would also be another potential issue.

[colinw]

A lot would have to be done to make it a TOD considering what the area was prior. Zoning would also be another potential issue.

Same could be said for Roma St yards, and yet those now host high rise apartments and a beautiful parkland.

Zoning, yes, agreed.  But not insurmountable.

Looking outside QLD, Tasmania is now now contemplating re-development of a similarly contaminated old rail yard in Hobart.

Flip side of the coin, after decades of proposals and re-announcements, development and "roofing over" the now rationalised former Jolimont Yard in Melbourne is yet to occur, so these types of projects can and do go pear shaped.  Given that Moorooka is hardly a prime area and some way out of the city, it is likely that such a proposal there would struggle to gain commercial backers.

The point I was trying, and failed to make, is that mega expensive projects like CRR MUST be coupled with supporting developments that constitute some form of "value capture".

[v6hilux]

expensive projects like CRR MUST be coupled with supporting developments that constitute some form of "value capture".

That value will come from the Beaudesert passenger service being constructed that is waiting for the CRR. Once both projects are complete, it will open-up the whole Hillcrest to Beaudesrt area to go ahead much faster than it is now, creating home construction, employment and business development and reducing cars on the roads which will be better for the environment and businesses transporting goods to or from the south area.

[pandmaster]

Twitter

ABC Radio Brisbane @612brisbane  ·  29m 29 minutes ago

.@jackietrad: we can't stick with BAT tunnel, it was solely based on asset sales. We will make Cross River Rail a priority #qldpol #on612now

That is the best Trad could do? I am glad she axed it but perhaps the fundamental flaws would have been better justification?

[Stillwater]

Perhaps RailBOT should call upon the new Labor state government to sell off QR land surplus to requirements to help pay for CRR -- or would that be considered an asset sale?  For instance, I doesn't make a lot of sense to retail state ownership of the Yeppoon railway station on a track that hasn't seen a train in years.  It has probably suffered a bit of rain damage in the past few days, yet some little bureaucrat will be going through the motions of collecting quotes and preparing a maintenance budget.  Don't these people learn the lessons of Monty Python?  The parrot is dead!

The Capricorn Coast Line is dead.  It has ceased to exist.  So has the line to Pialba.  Around Yeppoon and Pialba stations a lot of urban renewal could take place if developers got their hands on old goods yards and railway precincts.  Places like Esk and Woodford are growing lifestyle towns where some urban renewal could occur if QR gave up under-utilised railway land and sold it off for re-development.  Across the state, what is the situation around stations that are lo longer used, but remain a liability to the state taxpayer?

[SurfRail]

I don't think we will get anywhere asking the government to renege on its promises (even tangentially). 

[#Metro]

I'm surprised they don't consider selling paper tickets to customers 'privatisation'.

Perhaps RailBOT should call upon the new Labor state government to sell off QR land surplus to requirements to help pay for CRR

WHOAAH!!!??!!?

Asset sales?!


http://blog.healthkismet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/hysteria.jpg

[ozbob]

This is your life Brisbane and evirons ..  enjoy! 

[aldonius]

And in another 10 years for places like Woodford we're going to want that corridor.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> No money up front for Gold Coast light-rail extension: Tom Tate

....

Meanwhile, Premier Palaszczuk said Labor's new infrastructure body, Building Queensland, would assess the merits of Brisbane's Cross River Rail tunnel, the Bus and Train Tunnel, or neither.

"That is something I am going to give some serious consideration to," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"The deputy premier is already looking at that and they are things we are going to have to talk about," she said.

Ms Palaszczuk said the previous Labor Government's $7.5 billion Cross River Rail was judged "shovel ready" by Infrastructure Australia, but no agreement could be reached over the funding.

The LNP's cheaper and single-tunnel $5 billion Bus and Train tunnel never reached business-case stage before the election was called but is now part of the Queens Wharf/George Street redevelopment.

"The BaT tunnel now incorporates the Queens Wharf development, so I will be seeking some further briefings in relation to that," Ms Palaszczuk said.

Earlier this week, Treasurer Curtis Pitt said he and other ministers were receiving departmental briefs about the "intricacies of that proposal".

"The whole proposal around integrated resort development is something that is of great interest to us, because some of these projects do come to fruition, we will be very clear about maximising local opportunities, particularly for local businesses."

Meanwhile, Gold Coast City Council this week announced the first stage of its new Cultural Precinct, with a new outdoor amphitheatre on Bundall Road and arts spaces, will be ready by the 2018 Commonwealth Games.

[ozbob]

Twitter

ABC Radio Brisbane @612brisbane  29 minutes ago

.@jackietrad: we can't stick with BAT tunnel, it was solely based on asset sales. We will make Cross River Rail a priority #qldpol #on612now

CRR along the George St alignment might be the outcome.  This was the original alignment for CRR.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

23rd February 2015

Delusion underground ...

Greetings,

Interesting article in the Brisbanetimes today:

Brisbanetimes --> No money up front for Gold Coast light-rail extension: Tom Tate

Moving ahead with stage 2 of the Gold Coast Light Rail is a no-brainer.

The proposed Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel however is a different matter.  It is a very flawed project as we have pointed out constantly.
See --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9972.msg150602#msg150602

Labor's policy platform --> http://www.queenslandlabor.org/wp-content/uploads/2014QldPolicyPlatform_web.pdf

7.56
Labor will build an inner city rail solution consistent with the Cross River Rail capacity
outcome as part of a broader vision to revitalise and transform rail services. It will
increase frequency and provide more express services. It will also deliver new links,
including to Kippa-Ring, Flagstone, Ripley, Coolangatta, Maroochydore and through
the North West Rail Link along the Trouts Road corridor, consistent with the SEQ
Connecting 2031 transport strategy.

BaT delivers a very limited rail capacity outcome.  Far less than what CRR delivers.  BaT is a half-baked political solution rather than a long term sustainable transport solution. It does not enable the future transport improvements that will be needed for SEQ.

The failure of the Newman Government to deliver bus network reform was one of the key failures of the previous Government.  Spending billions of $ on something that is not necessary is far from prudent.

It will be many years before an inner city rail solution is delivered, if ever.  Improving the present rail network's capacity through improved signalling and sorting out the bus network are the real priorities for now.

Brisbane is slowly grinding to a halt.  More roads only is just making it worse.

Best wishes,
Robert

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