Cross River Rail Project

[SteelPan]

1. Whilst some POSSIBLE movement re the on again/off again CRR/BAT/Who Cares What's Called - Just Build it, corridor is welcome - the construction of "BAT/CRR" is not a destination within itself, it's simply THE vital piece of infrastructure, so necessary to allow for the further growth of the SE Qld rail network!

2. Let's keep the pollies focused on:

North Coast improvements
South Coast expansion to Coolangatta/Tweed
Ripley and surrounds [ie, expansion from Springfield]
Electrification and modernization of Rosewood to Toowoomba < critical for taking pressure off the rest of SE Qld housing demand.

BAT/CRR - critical but it opens the door to the projects we really need to embrace!

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

23rd September 2015

BaT versus Cross River Rail

Greetings,

This is why we do not support the BaT project.  Here are the reasons, free from spin and bull.

Cross River Rail (CRR):
Net Present Value (2012)
$2.3 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.42 rising to 1.63 if wider economic benefits were included.

Bus and Train Tunnel (BaT):
Net Present Value (2014) $0.64 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.16

The numbers speak for themselves. The BaT project is vastly inferior to Cross River Rail.

The cost-benefit ratio of BaT is worse, and it also has a lower quantum of public benefits. Why does Lord Mayor Graham Quirk prefer a project that provides roughly three times lower public benefits for the City of Brisbane?

Deputy Premier Jackie Trad should compel the Lord Mayor and Brisbane City Council to do the right thing: fix up its own inefficient and deficient bus network with bus reform.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

BaT project Chapter 14, Page 14-48: Socio-economic assessment
http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Underground%20Bus%20and%20Train/EIS/Volume%201%20Chapters/14_Socio-economic_impact.pdf

Cross River Rail project Coordinator-General's report on the
environmental impact statement December 2012 Page 107
http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/resources/project/cross-river-rail/crr-eis.pdf

Sent to all outlets:

22nd September 2015

Time to overhaul the Brisbane bus network

Good Morning,

We note that Lord Mayor Quirk is still supporting a bus tunnel.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's PT pledge sparks Brisbane cross-river dispute
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/prime-minister-malcolm-turnbulls-pt-pledge-sparks-brisbane-crossriver-dispute-20150921-gjrokb.html

Bus network reform for Brisbane will deliver essentially the same thing, saving many billions of dollars. We have shown how this can be achieved.

Brisbane Bus Reform: RAIL Back on Track Launches New Bus Network Proposal
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg148434#msg148434

Why is the present BCC administration allowed to run rough shod over public transport, the state Government and the good citizens of Queensland?

It is time BCC cooperated with TransLink and supported bus network reform or stood aside and let others get on with the reform process.

This is becoming an outrage.

Best wishes
Robert

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

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

23rd September 2015

Cross River Rail: Who Is The Minister for Transport?

Greetings,

It seems Deputy Premier Jackie Trad has competition for control of her Transport Portfolio. With the change of leader, Lord Mayor Graham Quirk is now pushing former Premier Campbell Newman's failed Bus and Train tunnel project. Why?

The BaT project is an inferior project, and we do not support it. The key financial indicators of project viability and public benefit, the net present value and benefit-cost ratio are inferior to that of the original Cross River Rail project. The BaT project is also deficient from an engineering perspective because it lacks an interchange at Park Road station, forcing University of Queensland students and staff to backtrack.

The imprimatur of the Lord Mayor and Brisbane City Council in the success or failure of infrastructure projects are well documented. After the Cross River Rail proposal was scrapped, Lord Mayor Graham Quirk promoted the so-called Cleveland Solution, which proposed replacing the Cleveland Line with trams. The fact that the Riverside Expressway, Goodwill Bridge, Victoria Bridge and Kurilpa Bridge would physically obstruct such a proposal did not seem to matter.

The Lord Mayor and Brisbane City Council was also instrumental in the former transport minister, Scott Emerson, spectacularly losing control of his own Transport Portfolio during the TransLink 2013 bus review. Under instruction, Brisbane City Council officers refused to meet TransLink bus network planners on six separate occasions. In addition, Brisbane City Council took on TransLink's bus review role, drawing up and altering bus routes despite Brisbane City Council formally being only a bus contractor. This is an affront to former Premier Peter Beattie's original vision of what TransLink was to be when he set it up in 2004.

Recently, Deputy Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner succinctly captured the essence of what is wrong with public transport in Queensland: "If the State Gov wants to fiddle with the system that is the backbone of SEQ PT, they have the power. Do they have the guts?"

The Lord Mayor's bus 'evolution not revolution' changes are a hands-down failure. Major proposed bus service upgrades to Yeronga, Bulimba, Albany Creek and the Centenary Suburbs were cancelled, leaving these residential areas as public transport black holes. At four bus changes per year, it would take ca. 50 years to reform the Brisbane bus network. The inefficiencies and deficiencies within the bus network have contributed to extraordinarily high fares, poor service quality, and plummeting patronage.

Rather than follow the Mayor of Auckland's (NZ) lead and hire the ex-head of Brisbane Transport to review the bus network, we are instead expected to pour billions of dollars into building a bus tunnel. The purpose of this appears to be to simply avoid engaging faster and cheaper solutions to busway congestion such basic bus network reforms.

We again call on Deputy Premier Jackie Trad to terminate Brisbane City Council's public transport functions. With both the Lord Mayor and Deputy Premier arguing for different rail projects, we are starting to wonder who actually is The Minister for Transport.

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

References:

City's Public Transport Will Never Improve While Run By Opposing Sides,
Peter Quick, The Courier Mail 11/04/2012
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg161037#msg161037

BCC Deputy Mayor Adrian Schrinner:  Does Deputy Premier Jackie Trad have "the guts?"
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg161151#msg161151

Cross River Rail (CRR)
Net Present Value (2010)
$2.3 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.42 rising to 1.63 if wider economic benefits were included.

Bus and Train Tunnel (BaT):
Net Present Value (2014) $0.64 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.16

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's PT pledge sparks Brisbane cross-river dispute
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/prime-minister-malcolm-turnbulls-pt-pledge-sparks-brisbane-crossriver-dispute-20150921-gjrokb.html

Light Rail Down Under - Three Strikes and You're Not Out !
Peter Turner, Parsons Brinckerhoff
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/15_03_Turner.pdf

"The influence of BCC and the personal imprimatur of the Lord Mayor are generally regarded as
prerequisites for project approval in the city. This is particularly the case for projects affecting
the inner-city area. "

[Stillwater]

As with most PT issues in Queensland, ugly politics inevitably gets in the way.  No doubt, Lord Mayor Quirk will be working behind the scenes to revive BAT, possibly with emissaries and delegations to Canberra to lobby the new Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, Jamie Briggs.  (Both men are Liberals.)

Ms Trad, who is also up for political mischief, should head him off.

Briggs/Trad should end the suffering of the poor SEQ commuter by cooperating to issue a joint statement along the lines of:

"Mr Briggs and Ms Trad today announced that the state and federal governments will, as a matter of priority, develop a project proposal and business case for a Brisbane Cross River Rail solution that does not include a bus tunnel component."

That heads off Mr Quirk.

Perhaps the second paragraph of the joint communique should state:

"Ms Trad said she shared the concerns of Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk about the efficiency of the Brisbane City Bus Network and announced she will reconstitute a review of the entire Brisbane Transport bus network to better coordinate with bus services in regions adjacent to Brisbane so that SEQ has a coordinated and fully-integrated public transport network."

The third paragraph should be a clear statement from Ms Trad, along the lines of: "State Labor has instigated a public transport fare review, but that is only one side of the coin.  A more efficient network will deliver additional savings and make PT more attractive, while reducing congestion on our roads.  The plan is simple -- whichever mode of transport works best in a given situation, it should be funded.  Competition between bus and rail in Brisbane must end.  The modes much complement each other, not compete."

Ms Trad needs to take charge of the situation with a plan of substance and end the sort of claptrap that gives the feds one week to assess a business case for GCLR Stage 2 in circumstances where, until last week, State Labor had not submitted even one project to IA for evaluation.

She should be a statesman, not a politician trying to score cheap victories without resolving SEQ's public transport mess.

[#Metro]

Would not be surprised if LM Graham Quirk, Shadow Transport Minister (?) is behind the scenes lobbying Briggs for BaT or a derivative of it.

This is actually not good. Trad and Briggs have already traded spars on Twitter.

Batten down peoples. Just when you think it cannot get worse, maybe it can. Maybe Quirk will have the Cleveland Solution reappear, or our satirical 'Fairfield' Solution appear.

[ozbob]

They are all wankers 1st Class ...

Nothing will be built, BaT, CRR or anything substantial, ever.  Bunch of clowns both sides of the fence ..



Quirk is dumb, he doesn't realise the BaT was going to be dumped if Newman et al got back in ... 

Personally, I think it is time they moved on to achievable things.  How about painting the water bubblers red? 

[colinw]

Cheer up and have a muffin and a nice cuppa. 

If all else fails, you can always join the masses and go buy a big-a** 4x4.

FWIW, I don't for one moment thing Malcolm is the messiah who will save us all and open the taps of federal funding for rail everywhere (what funds are available will most likely vanish into one mega project in either Sydney or Melbourne anyway).

What we're left with is the scraps we can afford, like building the odd bus lane or tramway.  Back to the future eh?  The most advanced bit of infrastructure likely to be built around here any time soon is a 40 mile per hour tram line.  Just like 1895.

Actually, come to think of it, that goes nicely with our state of the art copper wire NBN.  "Mr Watson - come here - I want to see you".

Ok, I feel better now.  Back to coding fixes for an obsolete safeworking system that should have been retired 20 years ago.

[ozbob]

Good advice Colin.  I have the kettle on.  Just got back from the gym.  Pumping iron is relaxing - I pretend I am a tunnel boring machine >> WWAAHHHAAA

PS.  The gym at Goodna overlooks the ' car park ' and rail line - watch trains ..   

[James]

There is a solution here.

Ms Trad walks into a bank. She says "Mr Banker, I'd like to borrow $6bn to re-resume the Yeerongpilly properties and build CRR V1. The original one - no changes, no buses, no flying pigs, just the way it should have been done the first time."
"With pleasure!" says the banker.
And so, the Qld government coffers are transferred $6bn at record-low interest rates, and so, construction begins one of the most vital rail infrastructure pieces in the country.

Not hard is it hey?

[ozbob]

That is the only way it can proceed James agreed.  There is no money pot - Malcolm's or otherwise.

(see > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5705.msg161748#msg161748 )

[colinw]

James is 100% correct.  Lock in record low interest, as cost of doing nothing is inflation of project costs at higher rate than the interest we pay by doing it now.

We, as a country, need to get over this fixation that "all debt is bad", because it will condemn us to a crumbling infrastructure for ever more.  Very few, if any projects can be built with "cash in the bank", just as few homes are purchased without a mortgage.

SMH -> How Malcolm Turnbull can dissect our debt aversion to get cities moving again

[hU0N]

The problem is, of course, that any infrastructure project requires three things in order to have a chance of success.

1. A plan developed enough to know it is at least technically feasible.
2. A political champion who will invest some political capital in it.
3. An adequate and committed source of funding. (It doesn't need to be actually appropriated, as long as there is an intent to make it available for the given project at the given time).

CRR 1 only ever had the first of these three. CRR lite had none, and CRR 2 also had none. BAT had all three.  (LNP insiders have since claimed that there was internal opposition to BAT inside the LNP, but I doubt this would have had much effect on Campbell's pet project if he had led the former government to a come from behind victory).

Despite any other weaknesses in the project, the fact that BAT was in the unusual position (in Queensland) of having the three prerequisites of success makes its cancellation such a missed opportunity.

[SurfRail]

I cry no tears - it was rubbish and should never have been conceived of at all.

[Derwan]

Personally, I think it is time they moved on to achievable things.  How about painting the water bubblers red?

Oh my!  You've just given several senior executives at TMR a heart attack - and made a heap of junior officers get their hopes up that they'll be able to higher duties on the 6-month project that will inevitably be extended.  There will be consultation with user groups to ensure that the red colour still meets all requirements including accessibility issues for those who are hard of sight or colour-blind.  There will have to be a change management process to ensure that people aren't looking for the wrong colour when they're thirsty.  Imagine the potential lawsuits if someone becomes dehydrated because they couldn't find the bubbler after it changed colour!

The job of actually painting them will have to go out to tender, which will then have to go through a rigorous assessment process to ensure that the Queensland Government is getting value for money.

Now... what were we trying to say was achievable? 

[Derwan]

The problem is, of course, that any infrastructure project requires three things in order to have a chance of success.
CRR 1 only ever had the first of these three. CRR lite had none, and CRR 2 also had none. BAT had all three.

I disagree.  Both CRR and BAT had "all three" depending on how you look at it.  BAT would have only proceeded if the LNP won the state election and sold enough assets.  Let's go back a bit.  Kevin Rudd promised federal funding for CRR if Labor won the federal election.

So both had funding "commitments" that were dependent on elections.

CRR was also far more advanced in the planning - and it's the far better solution.  BAT is an illogical thought bubble that never should've seen the light of day.

I really don't get your second point.  As far as I can see there was political support for both (i.e. Labor for CRR, LNP for BAT).  This is the issue.  It's far too political.  We should be looking for the best solution, not the one that was created by the political party we support.

[ozbob]

[^ Derwan.  Not wishing to derail Cross River Rail thread any more than it has been derailed .. but Gailes has a yellow bubbler!

> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=8309.msg120604#msg120604 ]

[v6hilux]

The way things look to me is the "shovel ready" CRR was in the magnitude of the First Gateway Bridge. The BaT is like building another Eleanor Schonell Bridge!

[Stillwater]

The question must be asked: Is CRR a bridge too far?



Seriously though, the Queensland Government (of whatever political persuasion) through its handling of CRR (various versions)/Cleveland Solution/BaT/Whatever is sending a signal nationally that we can't manage a big state-operated infrastructure project.  There must be people in Canberra and IA asking themselves 'should we give a billion dollars or five to these people?'  At last count, Ms Trad seriously believes Canberra will send about $30 billion our way ... and probably wants an answer in seven days!

[ozbob]

Couriermail -->User-pays approach to fund Cross River Rail 'would add $3000 a year to fares'

[ozbob]

Couriermail -->User-pays approach to fund Cross River Rail 'would add $3000 a year to fares'

^ Ignores the external economic benefits.  Road journeys actually cost a lot more than public transport journeys properly costed.

The reason large cities have well developed public transport systems is simple.  They cannot afford not to.

[dancingmongoose]

Couriermail -->User-pays approach to fund Cross River Rail 'would add $3000 a year to fares'

Premium article, and the news.com.au bypass doesn't seem to work

[verbatim9]

Ed: Removed article.  Please do not post articles behind firewalls.

[ozbob]

Couriermail -->User-pays approach to fund Cross River Rail 'would add $3000 a year to fares'

Premium article, and the news.com.au bypass doesn't seem to work

I think Courier Mail has wisened up to that, hence the change.

[hU0N]

The problem is, of course, that any infrastructure project requires three things in order to have a chance of success.
CRR 1 only ever had the first of these three. CRR lite had none, and CRR 2 also had none. BAT had all three.

I disagree.  Both CRR and BAT had "all three" depending on how you look at it.  BAT would have only proceeded if the LNP won the state election and sold enough assets.  Let's go back a bit.  Kevin Rudd promised federal funding for CRR if Labor won the federal election.

So both had funding "commitments" that were dependent on elections.

CRR was also far more advanced in the planning - and it's the far better solution.  BAT is an illogical thought bubble that never should've seen the light of day.

I really don't get your second point.  As far as I can see there was political support for both (i.e. Labor for CRR, LNP for BAT).  This is the issue.  It's far too political.  We should be looking for the best solution, not the one that was created by the political party we support.

There was quite a difference between the "funding package" for CRR and the funding package for BAT.  The CRR "funding package" was for a total of 15% of the cost, to be delivered after 2020 from revenue streams that were to be identified sometime after 2017.  And it was conditional on the state government raising the remaining 85% of the cost (either directly or via PPP, an offer the state government had already refused).  Essentially, it was an excuse to have a big politicised project launch that would embarrass the state government, but it had so many conditions and caveats and get out clauses as to mean that the money was never likely to ever be available.  You can't reasonably call this committed funding, it was little better than a promise to build CRR if the government ever happened to win the lotto.

BAT's funding package involved council contributions (in lieu of the money council was talking about spending on Suburbs2City - although I more than half suspect that this would never have materialised) plus a share of the money forecast to be raised from asset sales and money from the Federal Asset Recycling Scheme.  In short, an couple of actual revenue streams were identified and committed to fund a particular project within a particular timeframe that was within the current budget planning horizon.  Sure the money wasn't yet "in the bank", and was conditional on an election win, but it was much, much more substantial than the funding thought bubble that CRR1 had.  That's what I mean by committed funding.

As regards political champions, there is a vast difference between political support for an idea, and an idea finding a political champion.  CRR1 had political support from the ALP, but nobody who mattered (not Peter Beattie, not Anna Bligh, not Paul Lucas, not anyone) had nailed CRR1 to their own political mast in quite the same way that Campbell Newman staked his political life on BAT.  If Newman had been re-elected, it's hard to see him letting this particular project go.  Even though (as has been revealed since) not everyone else in his party was as supportive of the idea as Newman was.  That's the difference, if a politician is just vaguely supportive of an idea they happen to like, they'll only push it forwards so far.  Once the political cost of pursuing the project rises (and it always does as opposition to the idea crystallises), a politician who is only vaguely in support will drop the idea faster than kryptonite drops superman.  But if a politician is heavily invested (politically), the political cost of abandoning an idea makes the prospect of doing so unthinkable.

Finally, I agree that the planning for CRR1 was vastly more advanced than BAT.  But that really is quite irrelevant.  BAT was developed enough to be vaguely feasible and that is all it needed to progress.  If the only thing required to get an infrastructure project built was a great plan, well I think there's a whole thread on here about that..

In all this, I'm not saying BAT was better than CRR, simply that it was genuinely, truly about to be built (save the outcome of a state election), and for a bunch of reasons, CRR1 never ever got even remotely close.

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/cross-river-rail-roundabout-of-fail.html
Cross River Rail - the roundabout of fail

[Stillwater]

I wonder whether there would be a sigh of relief at both ends of George Street if IA commissioned its own cross-river rail study and, based on the findings/recommendations, put a funding offer to Queensland?  It would circumvent the political row and overcome the situation in this state where big infrastructure projects are in permanent evaluation phase because pollies want to be seen to be doing something short of actually funding and building something.

[v6hilux]

I'm sure the Cross River Fail team are on the case right now! What happened to the "good old days", when these sorts of projects just happened and employment was created and everyone was happy?

Reality is, if the CRF CRR is built, no one will say it's was a bad idea.

[Stillwater]

The whole cross-river rail fiasco demonstrates that Queensland just can't think on a large scale.  The pollie intervention doesn't help, nor does the bureaucratic bunfight behind the scenes about who is in charge -- Department of State Development and Planning/Infrastructure Queensland or Transport and Main Roads/Queensland Rail.

Successive Queensland governments have run this project around the track to get back to the resting paddock, not even the starting gate.  That is eight years of planning for nothing.  Yes, the politics have cruelled this project, but we must recognise that the public service has failed also.  Bureaucrats should be able to navigate the political minefield.

[verbatim9]

Brisbane's future: Lord Mayor Graham Quirk pushes for ways to forge ahead with the best river city

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/birsbanes-future-lord-mayor-graham-quirk-pushes-for-best-city/6812384

[ozbob]

^
Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 17s18 seconds ago

. @Team_Quirk Why waste billions $ on a bus tunnel, just reform the bus network  > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.0 ... #qldpol @jackietrad  @Rod4Bris

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

29th September 2015

Bus Reform: Lord Mayor Graham Quirk Still Not Listening

Greetings.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk is still not listening when it comes to bus reforms. The inclusion of the bus tunnel in BaT significantly worsens the public benefits of the project (see below).

Why does the Lord Mayor continue to back a project that has approximately three times lower public benefits than the original Cross River Rail project?

The Lord Mayor continues to cite high bus volumes into the Brisbane CBD as 'proof' that Brisbane needs a bus tunnel, when both the Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report 2007 and the TransLink bus review 2013 identify Brisbane City Council's inefficient bus operations as the reason why the Brisbane CBD is flooded with buses.

"We have 230 buses in the peak one-hour period in the morning of the cultural precinct and that is one every 15 seconds," he said.

"If the Cross River Rail project was to go ahead it needs to cater for both forms of transport — buses and rail."

The real problem for the Lord Mayor is that his council's bus network carries enormous volumes of air into the Brisbane CBD - around 50% air in peak hour. Also, buses are placed exactly where they are least required in the network, flooding the Brisbane CBD. Our analysis of Coronation Drive, for example, shows this process very clearly.

Coronation Drive Bus Analysis


We call on Deputy Premier Jackie Trad to stop this circus, step in, and terminate Brisbane City Council's transport functions.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

Brisbane's future: Lord Mayor Graham Quirk pushes for ways to forge ahead with the best river city
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/birsbanes-future-lord-mayor-graham-quirk-pushes-for-best-city/6812384

BaT versus Cross River Rail
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg161721#msg161721

Cross River Rail (CRR):
Net Present Value (2012) $2.3 Billion in benefits;
Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.42 rising to 1.63 if wider economic benefits were included.

Bus and Train Tunnel (BaT):
Net Present Value (2014) $0.64 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.16

The numbers speak for themselves. The BaT project is vastly inferior to Cross River Rail.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Turnbull Government should co-fund rail tunnel in return for power sector reform

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Lord Mayor Graham Quirk to lobby federal government for BaT Tunnel funds

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

^

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 3m

. @CameronAtfield @Team_Quirk @TurnbullMalcolm Why waste billions when basic bus network reform will deliver the improvements? Lazy #qldpol

[ozbob]

^

twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow now

. @CameronAtfield @Team_Quirk @TurnbullMalcolm @jackietrad

>> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg160952#msg160952 ... #qldpol

ping @Rod4Bris

[ozbob]

^

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 4m

Bus Reform: Lord Mayor Graham Quirk Still Not Listening

> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg162033#msg162033 ...

#qldpol #auspol

Ping @TurnbullMalcolm no brainer stuff ..

[ozbob]

^

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 4m

Senior LNP figures say BaT Tunnel was former premier impossible dream
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/senior-lnp-figures-say-bat-tunnel-was-former-premier-campbell-newmans-impossible-dream/story-fnn8dlfs-1227373555703 ... #qldpol

ping @TurnbullMalcolm @Team_Quirk O_o

[verbatim9]

We still need an upgraded Roma St Transit centre in the mix. Is this going to be rebuilt with CRR Mark 3?

[#Metro]

Good to see you are on to this Ozbob. Jamie Briggs, the minister for cities should be pinged also. Perhaps put up the Coronation Drive bus analysis for all to see. Waste!!

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

12th October 2015

The State Government of Brisbane City Council?

Greetings,

Deputy Premier Jackie Trad appears to be on the cusp of having her Transport Portfolio functions taken over by Lord Mayor Graham Quirk.

Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk will bypass the state government and directly lobby Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to provide federal funding for the city's abandoned Bus and Train Tunnel.

(Source: BrisbaneTimes http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/lord-mayor-graham-quirk-to-lobby-federal-government-for-bat-tunnel-funds-20151012-gk71zs.html)

This is not the first time a minister of transport has lost control of their own portfolio functions to Brisbane City Council. The previous transport minister lost control of the bus review, and what should have been a TransLink State Government project ended up being done poorly by the contracted bus operator. This is not how it is supposed to work. Agencies are supposed to plan the network, contracted suppliers are supposed to deliver it. Not the other way around.

Now it is happening again. Brisbane City Council is a bus operator, not the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

This is not the first time The Lord Mayor and Brisbane City Council have simply decided to 'ram through' a project. They did it also with the Maroon CityGlider, giving little notice.

The financials of the BaT tunnel do not stack up. The project has around three times lower public benefit than the original Cross River Rail (compare Net Present Values, higher NPV is better).

Cross River Rail (CRR): Net Present Value (2012) $2.3 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.42 rising to 1.63 if wider economic benefits were included.

Bus and Train Tunnel (BaT): Net Present Value (2014) $0.64 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.16

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk is fully aware that Brisbane needs bus reforms.

We again call on Deputy Premier Jackie Trad to terminate all of Brisbane City Council's public transport functions, before she too finds her transport portfolio functions usurped.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

References:

Brisbane's future: Lord Mayor Graham Quirk pushes for ways to forge ahead with the best river city
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/birsbanes-future-lord-mayor-graham-quirk-pushes-for-best-city/6812384

BaT versus Cross River Rail
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg161721#msg161721

Cross River Rail (CRR):
Net Present Value (2012) $2.3 Billion in benefits;
Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.42 rising to 1.63 if wider economic benefits were included.

Bus and Train Tunnel (BaT):
Net Present Value (2014) $0.64 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.16

The numbers speak for themselves. The BaT project is vastly inferior to Cross River Rail.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Latest media: 'The State Govt of Brisbane CC?'

> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg162544#msg162544

#qldpol #auspol

@jackietrad @TMRQld @TurnbullMalcolm @BriggsJamie