Cross River Rail Project

[Gazza]

I think it would be mixing up RBoTs position a bit, which is that
-a double deck tunnel is overwhelmingly not supported based on the snap poll
-most of the comments are that CRR by itself is a strong enough project, and that bus reform is enough to relieve the pressure on the busway.
https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/photos/a.653209831359874.1073741825.160527347294794/1250814064932778/?type=3&theater

[#Metro]

I'm not afraid of criticism or being wrong. One could just attach a note saying that it is for feedback purposes and as such is not official RBOT policy.

And as you yourself have pointed out, twin tunneling could also be a possibility.

I'm interested in seeing what the comments say.

[Gazza]

And as you yourself have pointed out, twin tunneling could also be a possibility.

It already is/was going to be twin tunnels (one northbound tunnel, one southbound), based on the tecnical drawings that were released under the previous ALP government.

[tazzer9]

I support having a double decked tunnel but simply having two heavy rail decks.  No bus or metro nonsense.  Although it may seem excessive now, it certainly will not be excessive in 20 years time once we have a few more rail lines going through on the southside and with proper bus - train interchanges. 

Top deck could be exhibition to dutton park and the bottom tunnel could be trouts rd through to salisbury.

[Gazza]

No bus or metro nonsense.  Although it may seem excessive now, it certainly will not be excessive in 20 years time once we have a few more rail lines going through on the southside and with proper bus - train interchanges. 

Top deck could be exhibition to dutton park and the bottom tunnel could be trouts rd through to salisbury

I get what you are saying, but there's a bit of a line to draw in terms of how much you can front load a project before it becomes too expensive and doesn't happen all together, or gets delayed.

The example I have used in the past is G:Link. It would have been better if it has connected to Helensvale from day 1, but if the money isn't there then what can you do?

Just so long as they dont try and do something inadequate on day one (Eg the GC line opening as single track!)

[BrizCommuter]

I'm not afraid of criticism or being wrong. One could just attach a note saying that it is for feedback purposes and as such is not official RBOT policy.

And as you yourself have pointed out, twin tunneling could also be a possibility.

I'm interested in seeing what the comments say.

It is better to build any future lines (post-CRR) on new alignments to serve more trip opportunities. We are having enough problems just getting CRR built. Please kindly stop this double deck tunnel nonsense.

[#Metro]

The Lord Mayor has already ruled out funding Cross River Rail because, unlike BaT, it does nothing for him. It is there in two

videos in black and white. He even said it while standing next to the Transport Minister. LM Quirk was elected recently and

promised to go full term. This refusal to fund is an important piece of information.


He is not going to fund it. If the project needs all three levels of government to co-operate, then I can't

see how it is going to work. Maybe one day we will need metros on new alignments, but that will be after the SE busway

is converted.


The SE Busway operating 100% super buses still leaves a bus every 45 seconds, and space for 2.8 buses per platform when at

stations. It is not much room for future growth. If growth continues as it is, something will still need to be done.

[James]

It is better to build any future lines (post-CRR) on new alignments to serve more trip opportunities. We are having enough problems just getting CRR built. Please kindly stop this double deck tunnel nonsense.

^^^

The reason double-deck tunnels were discussed here was because it was to become a reality under the BaT project - in which case it is better to campaign to make a plan workable (if possible) vs. all-out opposition and ending up with an even worse outcome. The CRR team will have no interest in discussing a plan which means altering most of the work they've done so far.

We are better off focusing our efforts on things like the tunnel stubs which are realistic policies vs. delving into foam and ending up discredited.

The Lord Mayor has already ruled out funding Cross River Rail because, unlike BaT, it does nothing for him. It is there in two videos in black and white. He even said it while standing next to the Transport Minister. LM Quirk was elected recently and promised to go full term.

Quite frankly, the LM can go jump in the lake and fund his foamy metro himself. CRR will do plenty for him if he starts to understand the value of a "connected bus network" - yes, one which involves transferring. CRR will be a boon for Brisbane once running.

[#Metro]

The CRR team will have no interest in discussing a plan which means altering most of the work they've done so far.

That is going to get the CRR team nowhere. It is unworkable to make a plan and then force someone else to pay for it when

they have had no say in the design and it does nothing for them. It's like asking your neighbour to renovate your house at

their expense because it "has benefits for the whole neighbourhood".


I'm not saying LM Quirk is right, I am saying this idea  of BCC funding CRR is currently unworkable, and that will sink this

latest version of the project. The cheapest changes are in the concept stage of a project, with expenses rising the further down

the track.


Look at history if you want a guide. It is very clear. We have been through all this with the LRT cases.

People can disagree about it, but this is historical fact. It is in play here as well.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/15_03_Turner.pdf

Lessons Learned

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. In the case of the Brisbane LRT proposal, neither the state government nor
the Lord Mayor were able to provide the necessary funds. Irrespective of the project's merits or
the level of private sector support for the proposal, the lack of mayoral and Treasury support
meant it was effectively buried from the beginning. Council's support for the eventually
successful busways concept continued without the distraction of a possible inner-city light rail
proposal.

Strike 1 – and the project failed to make an impact.

The only recent case where I am aware of a large project proceeding without council support is the Springfield Line extensions. MBRL and GCLRT all had council backing.

[#Metro]

The example I have used in the past is G:Link. It would have been better if it has connected to Helensvale from day 1, but if the money isn't there then what can you do?

There was quite a lot of skepticism about the GC LRT and many were opposed. I think the staging was more to do with limiting

that risk than lacking funds. In any case, much of the funding situation is artificial. Interest rates are at record lows, there is land

tax that has not been reformed, and there is $30+ billion locked up in Queensland Government assets that the Government

does not want to release (sale, lease or borrow against future profit stream), but expect other levels of Government to

contribute while they hold these 'golden eggs'. That is enough to do CRR deluxe three times over!


Powerlink is Queensland government's golden goose
http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/powerlink-is-queensland-governments-golden-goose-20160403-gnx4aq?

Moreover, the price recently achieved by Mike Baird's government for the sale of NSW transmission asset Transgrid was a heady 1.65 times book value (regulated asset base – RAB). If Queensland can get the same price, it would achieve a cool $33 billion in spending money for the Queensland government (after paying off the network's debt).

So, there is NO lack of funds. There IS a lack of good governance and leadership.

[Stillwater]

Consideration of a double-deck option for CRR Mk III, in effect, sends this project back to the drawing board, perhaps for another few years and even beyond the tripping point where the network will become hopelessly congested.  It will result in CRR Mk IV -- i.e. more delays.  A double-deck option would add costs beyond the level where the project can be reasonably funded.  It would result in a negative BCR -- triggering a situation whereby the benefits to the travelling public and the economy would be less than the cost of construction.  Other projects in other states would have higher BCRs, meaning they would be funded ahead of CRR with double decks.  BrizCommuter's observations above are correct.  Let's build CRR Mk III and look to new tunnels and alignments to other destinations in future.

[ozbob]

" The only recent case where I am aware of a large project proceeding without council support is the Springfield Line extensions. MBRL and GCLRT all had council backing. "

LD, Ipswich City Council was heavily involved with Springfield railway even though there was  not a direct financial committment.  Busways were state funded.

[ozbob]

CRR will get up regardless of BCC.  I have no doubt about that.

Time to move on ...

[kram0]

CRR will get up regardless of BCC.  I have no doubt about that.

Time to move on ...

I wish I was as confident as you, I cannot see anything more then a promotional video thus far. I think there will be a change of governemnt before this gets the green light.

[tazzer9]

CCR has massive improvements for council.  why would they fund metro but not CCR.   CCR will improve the value of properties and there the rates. 

[#Metro]

CCR has massive improvements for council.  why would they fund metro but not CCR.   CCR will improve the value of properties and there the rates.

You are correct that BCC will capture some of the value of CRR through rates (as rates are based on land values).

However, the Lord Mayor has stood next to the Transport Minister and flatly refused to fund it. Brisbane City Council is

more concerned with their bus network than they are with the State rail network. BCC has had no say in the design of CRR

and it does not solve BCC's bus issues over the long term and so they are not interested in it.

[#Metro]

Consideration of a double-deck option for CRR Mk III, in effect, sends this project back to the drawing board, perhaps for another few years and even beyond the tripping point where the network will become hopelessly congested. 

Well, DTMR already has the plans for a double deck tunnel sitting in their office from BaT?

It would require tweaking those plans for Rail / Rail.

A double-deck option would add costs beyond the level where the project can be reasonably funded.  It would result in a negative BCR -- triggering a situation whereby the benefits to the travelling public and the economy would be less than the cost of construction.  Other projects in other states would have higher BCRs, meaning they would be funded ahead of CRR with double decks.  BrizCommuter's observations above are correct.  Let's build CRR Mk III and look to new tunnels and alignments to other destinations in future.

Even if the costs were more, the benefits would also be different because it solves two problems at  once.

Would it be unreasonable? Compare against: Melbourne Metro is $9-11 billion and the Sydney Metro is also $9-11 billion also. By contrast the CRR is half this cost.

[ozbob]

Sunday Mail --> Developers building stations could help fund the Cross River Rail

DEVELOPERS could be asked to build train stations to help fund Brisbane's city-shaping Cross River Rail project.

In return, they would be able to build shopping centres, offices, hotels or apartments above or next to the stations.

The approach could help save the State and Federal Governments hundreds of millions of dollars from the estimated $5.2 billion cost of the congestion-busting rail route, which will include a 5.9km tunnel under the river and CBD.

Stations will be built at Boggo Rd, Woolloongabba, Albert St and the RNA Showgrounds as well as a major revamp of Roma St.

All would offer attractive locations to developers.

It worked in London where Canary Wharf Corporation spent about $300 million building a station — with an associated retail, dining and entertainment hub — on a route through the city.

Another option is for the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority which is being established to become a developer itself. That has similarities to Hong Kong, where the Mass Transit Railway Corporation operates a huge property wing to fund its transport network.

The Government sees ''value capture'' from the private sector as crucial to funding Cross River Rail and has asked consultants KPMG to advise on possible models.

The Sunday Mail understands all options are on the table, but the Government favours a direct contribution model rather than extra taxes or levies on businesses along the route.

Another version, used successfully by US cities, is tax increment financing. Under that model, governments borrow money to build the infrastructure — against the additional income expected to be generated from local businesses through land and payroll taxes, stamp duty and rates over a 25 to 30 years period.

Cross River Rail is expected to be the first major project in Australia with a key ''value capture'' element and authorities want it to be a benchmark for other initiatives.

[#Metro]

This is what gets trotted out when the government wants to make an impression someone will magically swoop in and pay a large part of a $5 BN project.

The reality is that development potential is limited because of the sites. Some homes could go in around Exhibition, none are possible at Roma Street or Albert Street (unless directly on top of the station as a tower).

Park Road would be difficult, if not impossible above the tracks and really only Wooloongabba is where a large TOD could go.

To reach 1% of project costs, the amount the 'private sector' would have to put in is $50 000 000 ($50 million).

It is a drop in the ocean and a distraction. By all means, build TODs etc, but lets be under no illusion that this project will and is

government financed. They should either sort out their 'golden goose eggs' issue (borrow, lease or sell) or fix up land tax by

broadening it. The power assets are apparently valued at around $30 billion, 6x CRR costs, and this is before any Federal Gov

bonuses are applied.

[Stillwater]

Now I have you sorted, LD Transit

[James]

That is going to get the CRR team nowhere. It is unworkable to make a plan and then force someone else to pay for it when they have had no say in the design and it does nothing for them. It's like asking your neighbour to renovate your house at their expense because it "has benefits for the whole neighbourhood".

Terrible analogy. It is like asking your neighbour to pay a share to renovate your house when they occupy a third of your house. If BCC operated its network correctly, it would stand to benefit significantly from CRR. The only reason it won't "benefit" is because of the anti-rail mentality that pervades BT.

However, the Lord Mayor has stood next to the Transport Minister and flatly refused to fund it. Brisbane City Council is more concerned with their bus network than they are with the State rail network. BCC has had no say in the design of CRR and it does not solve BCC's bus issues over the long term and so they are not interested in it.

Time to carry on without them then, quite frankly. Just because BCC is holding its bus commuters back with a sub-par network, doesn't mean the State Government should hold back rail commuters with a similarly sub-par network (particularly with respect to frequency).

[#Metro]

Terrible analogy. It is like asking your neighbour to pay a share to renovate your house when they occupy a third of your house. If BCC operated its network correctly, it would stand to benefit significantly from CRR. The only reason it won't "benefit" is because of the anti-rail mentality that pervades BT.

BCC / State Government appear to have a silo mentality when it comes to transport. Peter Quick, a Sunshine Coast transport writer wrote extensively about it in a Courier Mail article years ago. It is an institutional thing. City Hall has its pet projects and the Queensland Government has its own pet projects and in between that there is no co-ordination. I mean, they cannot even fix up the bus network, and that is 100x easier to do than these larger projects.

Here it is:

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

As for protesting or analysing the reasons why BCC 'should' fund it - It is not going anywhere. They have already said no to it because it is not their project and they had no say in the design. Rightly or wrongly, Quirk was elected on his metro platform with large majority in City Hall, and so has to be seen to deliver on that.

Time to carry on without them then, quite frankly. Just because BCC is holding its bus commuters back with a sub-par network, doesn't mean the State Government should hold back rail commuters with a similarly sub-par network (particularly with respect to frequency).

This is of course an option. In the old days the government would just issue bonds and advertise that to people and pension funds etc. The gov would collect up all the money and build it, repay the money over time. More difficult to do that because 'debt and deficit' politics. There is money locked up in the 'assets' but that too has political posturing problems - although no sale is required to unlock, one can borrow against the future profit stream.

[ozbob]

The fact is PT is bigger than Brisbane.  The sooner ALL public transport planning/operation is removed from BCC the sooner SEQ can get a lot better public transport network overall.

BCC is just making themselves irrelevant.  The bus network is going to collapse.  It would not surprise me if they lose contracts because of poor performance.  The State will have the ultimate responsibility of sorting it all out.

The metro as proposed is rubbish.  WE DO NOT SUPPORT IT.  CRR will deliver the goods, time to get cracking.  BCC didn't fund the busways either.   The thought occurred to me last night, I don't think BCC actually understands what an accredited rail operator means.  They haven't a clue.  A rubber tyre metro will need the same safety accreditation operator standards as heavy rail.  BCC is not in the hunt ...

The other thing worth noting is that Quirk is not against CRR at all, he in fact supports it as do all SEQ Mayors.  He just believes he shouldn't tip in any funding.  That's fine.  I don't think anyone will tip in anything for a flawed metro either.  Such is life hey?

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Labor, LNP lock horns over cross-river rail funding

Labor has defended a potential funding plan for its Cross River Rail project, despite not being able to confirm how it will pay for the $5 billion project, while the LNP has confirmed it supports public-private partnerships – but not the one Labor could potentially use.

In a confusing circular argument that began when Labor announced its new alignment for a CBD second river train crossing on Thursday, but not much else regarding the project, the government and opposition have been fighting over what could potentially happen.

Acting Premier Jackie Trad and Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe unveiled the third incarnation of the project, which has spanned three different governments, with the latest plan borrowing heavily from the Newman Government's proposed route but changing the proposed George Street station to Albert Street.

Mr Hinchliffe said that was largely to service the financial and business district of the city, but also hinted at development issues with the Queen's Wharf casino and resort taking up much of that end of George Street.

A business case is not due until mid-year. In the meantime, the government has not ruled in or out any particular funding models, including raising the state's borrowings, or "innovative funding models" such as "value capture", which was used in London to help pay for a similar project

Ms Trad, who had been sent on a trade mission to study alternative funding models for Queensland infrastructure, told the ABC "value capture" was the term used when businesses that were set to profit from the value uplift the improved infrastructure brought, helped to pay for it.

It's not set in stone, but the LNP is not having it.

"The LNP does support public-private partnerships," shadow Transport Minister Scott Emerson said.

"We have to make sure it works for a city like Brisbane, or for a state like Queensland.

"We support public-private partnerships, but you have to make sure it functions, it works, and it stacks up. What, clearly, we see from the government is it making something new up each day."

Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe defended the model the government may not use.

"Clearly Cross River Rail will involve the re-development, and the development of brand new stations as part of the network, it will see the redevelopment and resurgence and renewal of significant precincts of our city with brand new stations at their core," he said.

"That provides plenty of opportunity for private investment and plenty of opportunities for development that supports the activation of those precincts of our city.

"It is only wise that as part of this process and as part of an innovative delivery model, something that the Federal LNP Government and indeed, very specifically the Prime Minister has been calling on and has welcomed, it is only fitting and appropriate that we look at a range of those options and that we work with potential private investors."

^ Hinchliffe is shaping up as voice of reason ..

[ozbob]

For interest ..

London's Crossrail: A Case Study in Transit Investment

>> http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/londons-crossrail-a-case-study-in-transit-investment/

[Gazza]

What I find funny about the council/state funding battlw is that the state has very little political capital to lose and have the upper hand.

Quirk has said they want funding from other levels of government for their metro, and on top of that need to be gifted the busways and depot site by the state.

If the state goes "haha FU, if you won't help fund CRR, we won't help fund your metro" then so what?

They've got their own proposal in CRR, that is technically superior, and has been their long term policy anyway.
And of course if they are smart, they can say "CRR can do the same job as a metro, but better".

If they choose not to help fund the metro, all BCC can do is sook and complain how mean the state is.

But it'll be BCC that will look bad for proposing a project they couldn't deliver.

And if the state successfully gets CRR happening, they'll be the ones who'll look competent.

The napkin metro proposal is so laugably bad (like the Cleveland solution, like BaT etc) that it would be dead simple for the state to rip into it.

They could always play the card too that " finances are tight, we only have money for CRR, regional qld needs the metro funds for other projects blah blah.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

11th April 2016

Alternative Funding Models for Cross River Rail Are On the Right Track

Greetings,

Alternative financing methods such as value capture or station development for Cross River Rail are welcomed. All stations on the Queensland Rail network and TransLink busway network should be systematically assessed for transit oriented development and value capture potential.

However, private sector contributions are not an absolute panacea. Deputy Premier Jackie Trad should explain what proportion of total costs the 'private sector' is likely to contribute. To achieve 1% of project costs, the private sector would have to contribute $50 million.

In London, around 1/4 of their GBP 15.9 billion (AUD $30 BN) Crossrail project is being funded by a rates levy on commercial properties in the areas served by the new line. New rail lines bring in more customers and widens access to workers. The levy ensures that commercial properties which benefit from the new line also help fund it.

The remainder of funds must come from government.

This means selling, leasing or borrowing against the future income stream of the Queensland Government's assets. Approximately $30 billion plus is locked up in assets, enough to pay for Cross River Rail six times over. Broadening land value tax to residential land should also be looked at.

Brisbane City Council should contribute to Cross River Rail. The reason is simple - BCC rates are based on land values. Land values will increase with Cross River Rail, and thus BCC's budget will get a free revenue boost courtesy of the Queensland and Australian Governments for zero effort.

Harnessing private development cannot work if planning rules ban or restrict development and density within the 800m walk up zone around busway and railway stations. If development around stations is to be a revenue source, then planning rules need to permit that. Mandatory car parking provision could be relaxed or eliminated to maximise the transit and community benefits.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References

1. Labor, LNP lock horns over cross-river rail funding
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/labor-lnp-lock-horns-over-crossriver-rail-funding-20160410-go313p.html

2. Powerlink is Queensland government's golden goose
http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/powerlink-is-queensland-governments-golden-goose-20160403-gnx4aq.html

"Moreover, the price recently achieved by Mike Baird's government for the sale of NSW transmission asset Transgrid was a heady 1.65 times book value... If Queensland can get the same price, it would achieve a cool $33 billion in spending money for the Queensland government (after paying off the network's debt)."

3. CrossRail Business Supplement
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/promoting-london/paying-crossrail-business-rate-supplement

4. London's Crossrail: A Case Study in Transit Investment
http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/londons-crossrail-a-case-study-in-transit-investment/

Sent to all outlets:

8th April 2016

Funding Cross River Rail

Greetings,

RAIL Back on Track welcomes the third incarnation of Cross River Rail. After seven years, Queensland badly needs this project.

Four-year terms will stabilise the political environment around Cross River Rail. But it is not enough. This project needs to be funded.

All parties need to work together at the negotiating table to ensure that the project is built right the first time and can accommodate future demands.  Platform lengths, train lengths and connections to the rail network north and south of Brisbane are of particular interest to our members.

The Australian Government, Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council must sit together at the negotiating table and work out how to jointly fund the project. The community also needs to have a say on the design.

The private sector is not going to come in and simply fund Cross River Rail. Superannuation funds and the like want a commercial return on their investment and that is usually in the form of government payments over many decades. Projects such as this are directly or indirectly financed from government revenue, whether or not the private sector is involved. Revenues from value capture will only ever be a small fraction of the total project cost.

The Queensland Government has many options for contributing its fair share of costs. It can sell or lease state assets (estimated at $30 billion dollars), or borrow against these assets and use the future profit stream to pay the debt back. Alternatively, it can look at broadening the state's land tax base to include residential land (but not buildings) to raise revenues. We have no preference among these options, ultimately we just want to see CRR funded and constructed.  It has been far too long already.

At this point in time, Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's proposal for a separate metro would compete for money against Cross River Rail. The Lord Mayor's metro proposal would not save any time for passengers (due to mass interchange) and would not increase busway capacity. Bus network reform can and will save billions of dollars.  It is an outrage that this is not happening.

That's not just our opinion that the Quirk Metro as proposed is nonsense - it is also basic arithmetic that anyone can verify for themselves with a cheap calculator.

We call for all parties from this point forward to support the delivery of Cross River Rail, and also bus reform. After waiting seven years, we have been waiting far too long.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

Cross River Rail MkI Approvals
http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/cross-river-rail-project.html

Quirk Metro Capacity Calculation:
300 pax/train x 40 trains/hour = 12 000 passengers/hour, the same as the current busway already does. Thus, even if trains ran every 90 seconds using state-of-the-art signalling, no increase in passenger capacity over the current busway operations would be achieved. Doubling train capacity from 300 pax / train to 600 pax / train still has capacity fall well short of the 30 000 passengers/hour touted in election vote bait material.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Cross River Rail 2016: Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe has not ruled out funding project with extra taxes

[ozbob]

Attention Scott Emerson ..

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

7 News --> PM tipped to back new rail funding method

The prime minister is reportedly preparing to take to voters a new funding approach to national projects including plans for high-speed rail links on the east coast to boost regional centres and ease capital city congestion.

To fund the rail projects, and potentially a Melbourne Metro, the government will promote value capture financing, which leverages the increase in land value resulting from new transport infrastructure to contribute to its cost, The Australian reported on Monday.

Another option under consideration is to levy a so-called betterment tax on property owners, who would receive a substantial financial boost from the new transport infrastructure.

The Australian says Malcolm Turnbull is set to unveil a sweeping cities policy ahead of next month's budget that will also transform the funding of Australian infrastructure projects.

A key plank of the new policy will be to use high-speed rail developments to encourage population growth in regional centres and ease growth pressures in Sydney and Melbourne.

PM tipped to back new rail funding method. https://t.co/WHQIsimK8L #7News https://t.co/Czh4LEE8Rz

— 7 News Queensland (@7NewsQueensland) April 10, 2016

[SurfRail]

We really need to be careful in claiming things like there are $30bn of capital locked up in the electricity distribution chain.

If I sell a property for $1,000,000 and my mortgage has $700,000 left on it, I don't get $1,000,000 on settlement.  Remember that the State has instructed Powerlink etc to increase their borrowings so as to take on some of the State's existing financial burden.

There is no magic pudding here.

[ozbob]

We really need to be careful in claiming things like there are $30bn of capital locked up in the electricity distribution chain.

If I sell a property for $1,000,000 and my mortgage has $700,000 left on it, I don't get $1,000,000 on settlement.  Remember that the State has instructed Powerlink etc to increase their borrowings so as to take on some of the State's existing financial burden.

There is no magic pudding here.

We're not.  The business columnist of the SMH is ...

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Broad welcomes statutory body on Cross River Rail

While the creation of a statutory body for Brisbane's Cross River Rail doesn't guarantee the project's certainty, Australasian Railway Association boss Danny Broad has welcomed the recent Palaszczuk Government announcement.

Queensland infrastructure minister Jackie Trad late last week welcomed the release of details on the project, which would build a rail tunnel bisecting the centre of Brisbane, adding significant operational capacity to south east Queensland's passenger network.

Trad said the federal release was a "positive sign".

"We want every level of government to have a seat at the table to support the delivery of this vital transport infrastructure and ensure the Cross River Rail project is no longer hostage to political point scoring," Trad said.

"I welcome the support of the need for Cross River Rail given today by Federal Minister for Major Projects Paul Fletcher and the Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and hope that this will translate into funding commitments down the track when the business case is finalised and the model for the authority announced."

Queensland transport minister Stirling Hinchliffe said support from both sides of politics for Cross River Rail is welcome relief for Queenslanders.

The establishment of a delivery authority was an important first step towards actually making the Cross River Rail happen, he added.

"It means both sides of politics at a federal level back the project and hopefully bipartisanship and positivity will extend to state politics as well," Hinchliffe said.

"The business case is being finalised by Building Queensland by mid-year and I want to see that work done as soon as possible, so all parties can make prompt funding decisions.

"The delivery authority model announced today will mean all levels of Government can partner together with private investment to truly reshape Brisbane and share in the value of that redevelopment.

"This project needs to be bipartisan and I strongly welcome the comments made from federal colleagues today."

Also welcoming the news was ARA boss Danny Broad.

"The Cross River Rail project will provide the much-needed second rail crossing of the Brisbane River," Broad said last week.

"With Brisbane's population expected to approach five million people within twenty years, the Cross River Rail project will increase the capacity of Brisbane's rail network, allowing additional trains to run through Brisbane's CBD, thereby meeting the forecast demands of the city's population."

While Broad was wary that the creation of a statutory authority for the project was a long way off the project being final, he said the move was commendable.

Broad said the use of innovative funding to deliver the project has the full support of the ARA.

The governments' proposition to utilise value-capture along the route, to supplement a Federal, State and Local government co-investment, has the ARA's support, Broad said.

"The ARA looks forward to the finalisation of the business case and the subsequent investment decision," he said.

"We urge the Palaszczuk Government to work hard towards a 2016 investment decision that facilitates construction beginning in 2018.

"The ARA has been a long-time advocate for a Cross River Rail project in Brisbane and the significant economic, social and urban benefits the project will provide."

[ozbob]

http://www.propertycouncil.com.au/Web/News/Articles/News_listing/Web/Content/Media_Release/QLD/2016/On_the_right_track__Industry_backs_Minister_s_CRR_financing_position.aspx

On the right track: Industry backs Minister's CRR financing position

11 Apr 2016 Property Council of Australia

Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe's aversion to utilising new levies and taxes to pay for the Cross River Rail project has received the strong endorsement of Queensland's property industry.

Property Council Queensland Executive Director, Chris Mountford, said the Minster's preferred method of financing would encourage economic growth and ensure the project achieves the maximum benefit for Brisbane.

"The Cross River Rail project will not only alleviate the rail network's looming capacity problems and greatly increase Brisbane's economic productivity, but also potentially increase land values along parts of the project corridor," Mr Mountford said.

"If property values do increase, as expected by the State Government, then the government will receive a financial windfall from this increase through land tax and stamp duty receipts. It is also likely that the council will receive an increase in rates revenue as well through higher property values."

Minister Hinchliffe has outlined a preference for the Government to borrow against this future revenue to assist in funding the project's construction, instead of introducing new charges.

"Although the Government has outlined that all funding options are still being considered, the Minister's aversion to new charges demonstrates an understanding that taxing growth is unlikely to encourage growth.

"The property industry is encouraged by the Minister's desire to make smarter use of existing taxation to fund these types of game-changing projects."

The Federal Government has today announced that their impending 'cities policy' will promote the use of innovative financing models for major projects.

"With the State Government committing to seek Commonwealth funding for Cross River Rail by mid-year, their funding proposal will need to align with the Federal Government policy."

"The Federal Government has made it clear that financing models cannot just be new taxes but should be "win-win" propositions."

"By adopting Minister Hinchliffe's preferred financing method, the State Government stands the best chance of making this project a reality."

[#Metro]

Minister Hinchliffe has outlined a preference for the Government to borrow against this future revenue to assist in funding the project's construction, instead of introducing new charges.

Bit puzzled here. Of course, the risk is that the stations don't boost land values as much as predicted and you have a hole in the State Budget...

Perhaps the Queensland Government should add another level to the land tax rates to capture high value CBD properties.

Ultimately, at this stage a broadening of land tax to residential is probably fairest (remove stamp duties). This is because

CRR is likely to have effects all over SEQ.

[ozbob]

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/4/11/all-board-cross-river-rail-but-lnp-off-track

Media Statements

Minister for Transport and the Commonwealth Games
The Honourable Stirling Hinchliffe

Monday, April 11, 2016

All board Cross River Rail, but LNP off track

Minister for Transport Stirling Hinchliffe today called on the Queensland LNP to follow the lead of their federal colleagues and get behind Queensland's number one priority infrastructure project, Cross River Rail.

"The Australian Government and Federal Opposition have reiterated their support for Cross River Rail, and both support the use of innovative funding and financing to deliver this critical infrastructure project," Mr Hinchliffe said.

"It is only the Queensland LNP and Scott Emerson who refuse to get on board.

"Support is building for Cross River Rail because everyone acknowledges this is a time critical project that must be delivered to address capacity constraints identified in the Australian Infrastructure Audit.

"Scott Emerson and the Queensland LNP are the only ones who are out of the loop when it comes to support for a second river rail crossing."

The Australian Government are supportive of the project and delivery authority and Minister for Major Projects Paul Fletcher has confirmed the Turnbull Government will work with Queensland on the project:

"The Turnbull Government stands ready to work with the Queensland Government in relation to the Cross River Rail project... As part of [the business case] assessment, the Turnbull Government will be particularly interested in seeing if there are options for innovative funding and financing."

[Transcript of doorstop (external site), 7 April]

The Prime Minister today also endorsed investigating innovative funding models to deliver major infrastructure projects like Cross River Rail.

"Obviously, there will always be a big role for the Government to make grants, to make direct investments, but there's also the opportunity to capture some of the considerable value that is created in land by the construction of transport infrastructure."

[Transcript of doorstop, 11 April]

Leader of the Federal Opposition, Bill Shorten, has also confirmed Cross River Rail is at the top of his priority list for Queensland:

"Labor's number one infrastructure project for Brisbane is Cross River Rail... Labor announced at the Queensland Media Club in October of last year, that the way in which we are going to break the deadlock in terms of funding for important public infrastructure, roads and rail, is that we would create what we called a concrete bank. A $10 billion loan facility which would see the Government balance sheet being used to incentivise private investment. We would also be prepared to make grant funding."

[Transcript of doorstop (external site), 7 April]

The Property Council of Queensland has also welcomed the progress from the Palaszczuk Government to deliver a second heavy rail river crossing:

"The Government's announcement of the project alignment, a delivery authority, and their commitment to undertake the necessary planning work to seek Federal funding by mid-year is an important step in realising this key project... Important long-term infrastructure projects simply cannot get off the ground  when there is the level of politicization we have seen in the past on this project. We certainly hope that the proposed delivery authority will be the catalyst that takes the politics out of this project into the future. Now is the time for everyone to support this critical piece of infrastructure for Queensland."

[Media release (external site), 7 April]

Mr Hinchliffe said it was clear the Queensland LNP are the only group still seeking to score cheap political points with Cross River Rail.

"It's easy to oppose, wreck and sledge, but I encourage the LNP to put the interest of the state first and support the delivery of this critical project," Mr Hinchliffe said.

"When they were in Government, Scott Emerson and the LNP turned down $715 million on Cross River Rail. If they had not decided to walk away from this funding, there would be tunnelling under Brisbane today.

"There are 715 million reasons to blame Scott Emerson and the LNP for not delivering Cross River Rail, but instead of doing the right thing he's now building on this mistake by rejecting the innovative funding models backed by the Prime Minister, Bill Shorten and the Palaszczuk Government."

[#Metro]

Here is a pointy question: What exactly is Scott Emerson's alternative project proposal?

Does he have one?

It is all good to recline in the armchair and criticise, but what is his own plan?

How much would it cost?

How long would it take?

[ozbob]

^    

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> OPINION: Cross River Rail quango talk is right off track

DEEP in the bowels of Parliament House there may be a training school for new and aspirant ministers. This "School for Spin" would be staffed by grizzled ex-premiers and ministers who have been there, done that in administrations long forgotten. They teach the new bunch the dark arts of political communications; how to talk the talk without walking the walk, and dress up old, worn-out policies in new clothes to look like sparkly, fresh new ideas.

The passing out test is to stand by a colourful map of Brisbane crisscrossed by squiggly lines and pretty pictures of hi-tech trains and flashy stations. They must sound convincing, spruiking the latest regurgitation of tunnels, light rails, metros or some other glitzy transport project as a new innovative concept which will cure our looming traffic and public transport congestion problems at a stroke.

So I watched with some cynicism as Deputy Premier Jackie Trad and Minister for Transport Stirling Hinchliffe stood in front of a map of yet another Cross River Rail proposal. Then they said that such was the importance of the project it would be handled by a new statutory authority.

I was gobsmacked! We already have three separate government entities involved in public transport planning and delivery – Queensland Rail, TransLink and Brisbane City Council. And they propose a fourth to deliver an extension to the existing rail network. Yet another board of corporate worthies with attendant bureaucrats and admin staff housed in palatial offices in George St.

Their explanation is that "international experience demonstrates that delivery authorities support wider economic and social outcomes and enable federal, state and local government to co-invest and partner with private sector for funding, financing and delivery". Have the federal government and Brisbane City Council agreed to invest in the project? No business case has been put so it's difficult to believe they would have committed millions of dollars to a couple of lines on a map.

At around $5 billion the project is relatively small beer by international standards. For example, CrossRail in London is estimated to come in at some $30 billion, from whence, I suspect, this idea has sprung. Infrastructure projects of similar scale and cost have been executed without setting up new project delivery entities – take the Airport Link, Clem 7 and Legacy Way tunnels with a combined cost of some $10 billion, not to mention a busway network successfully delivered over the last 20 years.

At around $5 billion the project is relatively small beer by international standards.

Let's consider some alternatives. Queensland Rail has been building railways for years. Could we not beef up the board and management with some property expertise and tweak their charter to include land development opportunities? Or to possibly invite private sector consortia to submit expressions of interest to finance, build, own and lease back the tunnel and exploit associated land development opportunities?

Surely an alternative can be found to a brand new quango which, in my view, would just exacerbate the already fractious turf wars between our current public transport bodies.

Peter Quick is a Sunshine Coast-based transport professional

[kram0]

Typical labor, yet more talk, public servants and committees and no action. Let QR deliver the project, as it might have a chance of getting from brochure to construction under them.

[#Metro]

Typical labor, yet more talk, public servants and committees and no action. Let QR deliver the project, as it might have a

chance of getting from brochure to construction under them.

It is political theatre. Peter Quick is (as always) on the mark. I do hope he reads what goes on here at RBOT.

Yes, make a committee/commission/authority/agency/office/unit/subdepartment/section/division/corporation/board/quango,

release a video animation, draw lines on maps, blah blah blah.


Plenty of material for the producers Working Dog Productions who make ABC Utopia to work with here.

Perhaps they should have a state version also!


Isn't Queensland Rail already a statutory body? https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/aboutus/governance

I have never seen any organisation undergo more corporate restructuring, rebranding and renaming as Queensland Rail / QR /

QueenslandRail (note: no space) /Queensland Rail Ltd/QR Network et al./Queensland Rail 'Statuatory Authority' has.


The only thing QueenslandRail hasn't been is a tribunal or a Royal Commission.


It just goes to show how unstable the politics around the organisation are. Rather than supply decent service etc, let's just

re-re-rewrite constitute the charter and name. In stable and well-run organisations there is no need for name changes and

weird paper restructurings.