Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

So what?  What a stupid comment to post .. it is borderline trolling ... 

Cross River Rail is an essential project.  Brisbane is already mess, how much more in 10 years time when maybe CRR might be nearing completion. 

Either you are with us or against us.  If you are against us time to find somewhere else to troll. 

I do not pay for this server for trolls to post nonsense.

[Stillwater]

One reason why a business case is prepared for complex and big infrastructure projects is so that all the pitfalls can be identified, the most innovative and efficient design can be devised and the costs, benefits and consequences estimated with reasonable accuracy.  CRR is one of the most closely-examined projects to go through this process.  Should it require federal funding, the business case is submitted to Infrastructure Australia for benchmark evaluation and independent scrutiny.  The tender process attracts competitive bids.  The Auditor-General can oversee and scrutinise the spending and the process.  Anything untoward can be referred to any number of independent agencies, ombudsmen and workplace health and safety authorities.  The system works well most of the time, MBRL not withstanding.

[Otto]

Redland City Bulletin
June 21, 2016, 11:51 a.m.

Cross River Rail to put Cleveland on right track

CLEVELAND rail commuters will get more frequent services during peak times
and be able to travel directly to the 'Gabba when the Cross River Rail project comes into effect.

Although the Cleveland line will not be altered and will still follow the same route,
there will be new underground stations at Park Road-Boggo Road and Woolloongabba.

http://www.redlandcitybulletin.com.au/story/3981972/cross-river-rail-to-put-cleveland-on-right-track/

[kram0]

Redland City Bulletin
June 21, 2016, 11:51 a.m.

Cross River Rail to put Cleveland on right track

CLEVELAND rail commuters will get more frequent services during peak times
and be able to travel directly to the 'Gabba when the Cross River Rail project comes into effect.

Although the Cleveland line will not be altered and will still follow the same route,
there will be new underground stations at Park Road-Boggo Road and Woolloongabba.

http://www.redlandcitybulletin.com.au/story/3981972/cross-river-rail-to-put-cleveland-on-right-track/

I'm sure the Cleveland passengers will look forward to this on opening day in 2035.

[tazzer9]

How can cleveland commuters travel directly to the gabba, are the BCC going to run buses parallel to the rail line.

[#Metro]

They are using 'directly' in a different sense of the word. They mean 'have access to' rather than have the train actually go to W'Gabba from Cleveland.

Footnote: The Wilbur Smith Plan 1965/1970 had the Cleveland line also feed into CRR.

[achiruel]

How can cleveland commuters travel directly to the gabba, are the BCC going to run buses parallel to the rail line.

Please don't give them ideas!

However, if they did, the buses could only start at Lota, because we know BT don't like to run buses outside BCC area unless they're dragged kicking and screaming by TL.

[#Metro]

Funny how in a few short years everything went from 'Bus network does not need radical overhaul' to 'Let's rip up the busway and put Quack Metro down it'.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Qualified support for Brisbane's Cross River Rail: PM in SEQ

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has given Brisbane's crucial underground rail project – the $5.4 billion underground Cross River Rail – qualified support just nine days before the July 2 federal election.

Mr Turnbull said before promising money the federal government needs to examine the project business case,hich was only given to Queensland's deputy premier Jackie Trad on Sunday.

The project proposes to build an underground rail connection from Dutton Park to Bowen Hills, providing much-needed north-south rail capacity as South Brisbane's rail bridge chokes by 2020.

"We are certainly going to look at it very closely," Mr Turnbull said Wednesday.

"We have put money into rail and mass transit around Australia, including in Queensland with the Gold Coast light rail project."

In October 2015, Mr Turnbull promised $95 million to complete the second stage of the Gold Coast light rail project before the 2018 Commonwealth Games.

Mr Turnbull said he was aware Cross River Rail's business case was close to being finished, but was unaware it had been received by the Queensland Government.

"Well, there you go," Mr Turnbull said.

"So for investments of that scale you need to have much closer examination of the business case and I look forward to looking at it.

"I am very committed to mass transit, to public transport, not simply as a commuter and as a catcher of trains.

"But we'll need to look at the business case. That's what Australians expect governments to do, to look at these things responsibly."

Labor leader Bill Shorten on Sunday promised $800 million to the project, "subject to a positive business case".

"Labor will provide $800 million towards the Cross River Rail, subject to a positive business case and finalised negotiations with the State Government and the new delivery authority," he said.

Mr Turnbull criticised Mr Shorten for promising money before examining the business case.

"What Mr Shorten has done is just opened his mouth and uttered a large sum of money without even reading the business case," Mr Turnbull said.

"That is not a business-like way of dealing with taxpayers' money."

The Queensland Government put forward  $50 million in last week's State Budget to finance a government-owned operation that would be the responsible authority to build Cross River Rail.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

23rd June 2016

Re: Cross River Rail - v3

Good Morning,

Some positive comments from the Prime Minister re Cross River Rail [ Brisbanetimes --> Qualified support for Brisbane's Cross River Rail: PM in SEQ  ]

Cross River Rail has been exhaustively evaluated a number of times and it stacks up.  Something the Quirk ' quack ' metro doesn't do, as we have conclusively demonstrated.

Cross River Rail will activate Brisbane and the CBD.  It is time Lord Mayor Quirk got behind CRR and abandoned the toy metro pipe-dream.  BCC stands to reap considerable benefit from Cross River Rail, time petty politics was pushed aside and best outcomes for the community become the priority.

The Queensland Government has been tardy with the business case for CRR, however at least wheels are starting to turn now.

Best wishes
Robert

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

[ Attached: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg175882#msg175882 ]

[ozbob]

For Mal and Bill ... 

Tip:  get the chips off the shoulders, life has its good times!   

[Stillwater]

As posted on 15 June:

Labor / LNP / Libs all have the perfect out for not putting money into the big ticket transport infrastructure projects for Queensland, including CRR and SCL.  The business cases have not been prepared, so no party knows exactly what it is buying, how much it will cost or whether the likely investment will provide value for money. 

Reporter to pollie: "Will you fund suchandsuch project?"  Pollie to reporter: "We think that project will be important for Queensland and will contribute to relieving congestion throughout the South-East.  We await keenly the finalisation of the business case so IA can evaluate it and advise government accordingly.  I guarantee that a government of which I am a part will give top priority to examination of the business case once Queensland Labor finalises that document and submits it to the Commonwealth."

It is a perfect holding position.  Labor in Queensland only has itself to blame for not doing their business case homework, constantly taking the lazy way out .... shouting SHOW US THE MONEY.  That line hasn't worked for some time.  Importantly, it does not work with the electorate any more.

As posted on 17 June:

No-one is going to commit to a project where the business case has not been completed.  Otherwise, how do you know what you are buying?  Successive Queensland governments have been caught out badly not doing the basics, such as business case analysis on crucial projects.  Other states have their bids in ahead of us, having completed all the necessary paperwork.  For some strange and unfathomable reason, caused by state politics, Queensland is always withdrawing its assignment homework, after having lodged it, and wanting to have a second and third go!  Good process leads to good outcomes.

[#Metro]

The Queensland Government / Red Team should be absolutely excoriated for what appears to be the 'gaming' of the business case timings.

Townsville stadium, a negative BCR project, has got up. But Cross River Rail appears to have been held back (despite all the very extensive previous work already around). Accidentally on purpose it just so happens to be released on election eve during the political campaigning period.

It's just rude to dump a business case like that in such a way that there is little time to properly consider it.

On the other hand, I do expect that the blue team has factored in CRR as a possibility and has budgeted for the expense up their sleeve. The Victorians don't need money for their rail tunnel now that they have sold a lease to the Melbourne Ports, and NSW has sold power assets to fund their metro, so at least one positive thing now is that it is looking much brighter for CRR actually being funded from here.

Don't get too excited though - business cases for CRR were released in the past and have come to nought, so it is not a guarantee.

[Stillwater]

Absolutely, Queensland is gaming the process.  It continues to play politics around major Infrastructure projects.  What's Trad's game? .... hand the business case to IA on the eve of the election and expect a cheque by express post the next day?  Yet expect some tosh statement along the lines of .... "The Federal Government has Queensland's business case for CRR and I call upon Malcolm Turnbull to commit vital funding for this important project for SEQ.  Voters should have his non-committal stand in mind when they vote tomorrow."

[#Metro]

Agreed Stillwater. They got lucky with the Gold Coast Light Rail Stage II. They are trying to repeat that with CRR.

In the GCLRT they had the Commonwealth Games as the pressure point. The election is supposed to be the pressure point here.

I actually think that Brisbane folk have been fed up with hearing about Cross River Rail for three times now. There is an element of 'The boy

who cried wolf' here. Even some former CRR project team people are working on rail projects in other states, that's how long it has dragged

on for.

The key problem with the blue team is that they do not have proper Government experience or a platform given that the majority of the time

over the past two decades has been red team. They spent most of their three short years dismantling the previous red team's political

changes and irritating everyone. They haven't built ANY major PT infrastructure for decades.

Does anyone know what blue team wants to build or do in the PT area? What is their alternative plan for CRR? Bus Reform? Sunshine Coast

line?  :conf


I am pleased though that the 4-year terms are coming. This will lessen the frequency this damaging politicking is having on Queensland.

[ozbob]

The Conversation --> Explainer: what is 'value capture' and what does it mean for cities?

[#Metro]

Australian local governments can also introduce special purpose levies to fund specific items through property taxes or rates. The Gold Coast light rail project for instance, was partly financed via the council's annual transport levy (now around $111). However, since the levy applies to all ratepayers, rather than confined to areas where direct value uplift occurred, this doesn't represent value capture in the strict sense of the term.

Well, I have an issue with that statement. Yes it is paid by everyone, despite the infrastructure being located along the GC Highway. However, just because it is located along the highway does not mean that the benefits only stay there. Reorganisation of the bus network has had regional benefits for all of the GC. It is not just people next to the tram who use it, tourists use it too. This would be generally similar for other places as well.

Land value tax and council rates capture improvements to properties (value increase) automatically. It also compensates people if the project damages amenity (drop in land value - drop in land tax/rates required).

My understanding of the Hong Kong situation, is that the HK Government levies land tax on land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Hong_Kong

Government rent in Hong Kong, formerly the crown rent, is levied in addition to Rates. For properties that are located in the New Territories (including New Kowloon), or located in the rest of the territory and whose land grant was recorded after 27 May 1985, government rent is levied at 3% of the rateable rental value.

In addition to this, MTR has developed properties on the land at and above railway stations with retail etc. This could be adapted to the Brisbane case, however, its application is limited as the demand for large malls or apartments is much less in Brisbane (indeed, people are talking about an apartment oversupply). We should be extremely skeptical of proposals that suggest private development is going to make anything more than a very tiny share of overall CRR costs given that an apartment glut exists within Brisbane.

Simply taking the money from a local council might actually be the safest and easiest way to do it. They are the ones who are going to capture the increased rates revenue from these projects. And you don't have to identify individual property beneficiaries either.

[tazzer9]

The only reason no one wants to live in an apartment in brisbane is because its a dead city.   Being close the the CBD or shopping/business area means nothing because everyone goes to sleep at 7pm.  Why would you want to live in an apartment over a railway station when you have a 30 minute frequency after 7pm and you can't do your shopping because the supermarket has closed for the day.

[verbatim9]

I would like to live in a Transit orientated development near a proposed CRR station, and also have supermarket hours improved to open later around those stations and apartment developments  until at least 11pm 7 days.

[Old Northern Road]

I imagine building above train stations and railway lines is very expensive and only going to happen in high density areas. What they could do is sell off the car parks at some of the inner stations. Won't help CRR but could help pay for upgrades to those stations.

[Stillwater]

Do we have the bureaucratic expertise to plan this integrated development concept?  As we have seen at MBRL, TMR builds the line and associated infrastructure, and it would appear that QR is the 'operational entity'.  TMR is staffed with engineers and financial managers/planners, and also lots of graphic artists, as we know.  The suspicion is that TMR staff is light-on when it comes to urban planners, town planners etc.  The expertise for those things would be with BCC, which says it wants nothing to do with CRR.  (Yet CRR is fundamental to the look and feel of the city for decades to come.) 

Urban planning and 'city futurists' types within state government probably are located within the departments that look after Infrastructure, Planning and Local Government.  Do they have jurisdictional responsibility for the 'above rail' and 'around rail' and 'in the sky' aspects crucial to CRR's viability?  There would appear to be a requirement for a few merchant bankers to be involved, in obtaining finance and in 'packaging up' deals with developers.  Again BCC would have to approve plans for retail centres and blocks of apartments, plazas above future CRR railway stations.  TMR's focus is on bitumen, bridges, concrete etc. not these other things.

Will the new 'delivery authority' contain this expertise?  It may, but how will the authority liaise with State Development, Infrastructure and Planning agencies within the state government, and with BCC and also the white shoe brigade?  Will new over-riding legislation be required to handle the jurisdictional complexities?

Perhaps Ms Trad and Co, should pause to take breath between shouts of SHOW IS THE MONEY, directed at the feds, to consider how best to manage, plan and deliver this very complex project.  If she and Mr Hinchliffe can do that, the state government may be able to convey the smarts that will convince the Commonwealth to put money towards CRR.  (So far, the only money on the table is from the Labor side of federal politics, and that is an election stunt.)

A lack of integration of effort and coordination across government could be the stumbling block of CRR -- MBRL writ large.   

[#Metro]

This is a mess, and it is coming from the top and filtering down is my conclusion.

After the Delivery Authority is delivered, we will have:

1. TMR
2. TransLink (a division of TMR)
3. QR
4. BCC (? If they participate, guess they will have to in some form)
5. Potentially another gov't department (public works, co-ordinator general, building queensland??)
6. AND the delivery authority

So I'm not really sure what this brings to the table, other than an additional actor and seat at the already very crowded table.
In the private sector there are strong incentives to work together because any discord is penalised through contract arrangements, possibility of legal action, and loss of profits. Not so when all the agencies are different arms of the same gov't. QR is not going to sue TMR or BCC etc. Doesn't happen.

One of the strengths of Brisbane City Council is that projects are generally executed well, notwithstanding the possibility that we might not agree with the project content itself. In other areas, such as suburban centre renewal, flood controls and ferry network infrastructure, the community consultation is quite good, design work is good, projects are generally on time and on budget.

I think this is because Brisbane City Council doesn't have to deal with turf wars, it has a very well developed community consultation and engagement process, it is more stable than the Queensland Government (4-year term, vs 3-year state term). If something goes wrong, it is difficult to blame someone else (bus network exception here - interfaces with TransLink and State Government, and again conflict exists at this interface).

It seems that the more interfaces there are, the more problems there are likely to be. I hate to say this, but it seems like each group involed doesn't really seem to know what it is supposed to be doing or the limits to their expertise (what they should not be doing). This isn't all just confined to the warring bureaucracies, but there appears to be a lack of leadership even from the top.

When MPs themselves are playing games with business cases, chopping and changing projects, politicising the funding and so forth that seems to filter down. Funding for Brisbane City Council generally isn't politicised because it is single source - rates based on land value.

[tazzer9]

BCC also make an absolute killing through paid parking. 

[SurfRail]

The expertise for those things would should be with BCC,

Fixed.  You would expect the largest local government in Australia to be a bit better at placemaking, but the reality is different.

If anything, BCC should be kept as far away from urban redevelopment and anything to do with CRR as much as possible.  They have proved time and time again they are utterly incompetent at urban renewal.

The only nice part of inner Brisbane these days is South Bank, which BCC was forbidden from having anything to do with for over 2 decades - and god only knows how it will end up now they have their mitts on it.  Compare any other part of South Brisbane (especially north of Melbourne St) outside South Bank with what BCC was banned from touching and it becomes obvious how much of a bullet South Bank dodged.

[Stillwater]

In some respects, the money side of things is the least problematic.  The state expects everyone else to pay for CRR.  It has got to focus on the quality of the item for sale (CRR).  If it is a high quality item and will be well-used (thereby generating money for the investors), the bidders will flock with their wallets.  They will stay away in droves if they see complexity, hidden unknowns, bunfights over who has jurisdiction over what, politics, state Labor versus LNP council etc.  Message to Ms Trad and Co: SHOW US COMPETENCY IN DELIVERING THE CRR VISION.

[#Metro]

The state expects everyone else to pay for CRR.  It has got to focus on the quality of the item for sale (CRR).  If it is a high-quality item and will be well-used (thereby generating money for the investors), the bidders will flock with their wallets.

The private and public sector calculates BCRs and NPVs for identical projects differently. Private sector organisations are only interested in benefits and costs within the boundary of the firm, whereas governments are interested in benefits and costs within the boundary of the state.

If a superannuation fund puts in $5 BN, then they will want at bare minimum $5BN back over the life of the infrastructure PLUS a profit margin.

Cross River Rail is very likely to be unprofitable from a commercial point of view. Are trains going to be tolled each time they go through the tunnel? Or a surcharge levied on passengers as per AirTrain? My point is that it is practically unavoidable that the majority of the funding must come from the Queensland Government. Whether that be upfront as a loan, or over time as a stream of taxpayer-funded 'availability' payments. The sum of these availability payments are often far above the costs of simply taking out a government loan.

[Stillwater]

The 'private sector' profit in CRR won't be in the rail operation, which will RUN at a cost, but which will cost whatever the rail components cost to build.  The private sector will pay for stations in exchange for the rights to build apartments and shopping centres on top or adjacent.  If a private company can build and hand to the state government a $100m railway station for QR/TransLink to operate, and then make $300m profit on whatever it builds on top and operates on commercial terms (ie a shopping centre over 20 years), it is $200m in front.  Can TMR and QR swing such a deal?

[#Metro]

The 'private sector' profit in CRR won't be in the rail operation, which will RUN at a cost, but which will cost whatever the rail components cost to build.  The private sector will pay for stations in exchange for the rights to build apartments and shopping centres on top or adjacent.  If a private company can build and hand to the state government a $100m railway station for QR/TransLink to operate, and then make $300m profit on whatever it builds on top and operates on commercial terms (ie a shopping centre over 20 years), it is $200m in front.  Can TMR and QR swing such a deal?

My main point is that most of the cost must be paid using government financing. Politicians' mention of the private sector is to give people the wrong impression that a funding partner will appear and fund it themselves at little or no cost to the state.

In the 1960s and before that, most of the shopping was in the Brisbane CBD. The opening of Chermside Shopping Centre in 1957, Garden City in 1972, Carindale in 1979 saw much of the shopping leave the CBD. You are right that the location is excellent, but I guess we will have to see if investors put a large Toowong-style shopping centre there, or in the suburbs (which have recently all had major expansions or plans to do so).

There are apartments galore in Brisbane and thus I think any apartment development at Woolloongabba will be measured and make a small contribution to the overall project. The majority will still have to come from taxpayer sources.

Calculation.

100 million / 5.4 billion x 100 = 1.85 % of total costs.

i.e. 98% of CRR costs still standing.

[Stillwater]

Don't take my figures as absolute, I was using them as an example to prove a point.

[Derwan]

The private sector will pay for stations in exchange for the rights to build apartments and shopping centres on top or adjacent.  If a private company can build and hand to the state government a $100m railway station for QR/TransLink to operate, and then make $300m profit on whatever it builds on top and operates on commercial terms (ie a shopping centre over 20 years), it is $200m in front.  Can TMR and QR swing such a deal?

I agree with you!  Unfortunately developers appear to be unable (or unwilling) to factor in the return on investment if they were to fund development of public infrastructure.  They see their job as building the dwellings.  They know how much they can sell them for and like to keep their simple equations.  If they spend more to build public infrastructure, there is that element of "unknown".  Will the increase in the value of the dwellings cover the costs of them spending on infrastructure?

We need a progressive developer to hash out a deal with the Queensland government that gives them some guarantees but allows them to shoulder at least part of the development costs.

Privately-owned train stations leased to the QLD government.  Could that work?

[Gazza]

Ive been doing some reading on this, and apartments close to train stations attract roughly a 10% premium over ones without.
That could serve as a guide to what developers might spend.

[tazzer9]

A railway station also massively increases foot traffic in the area.  So any shops at street level within about 1km of the station will benefit greatly.  Same goes for light rail.

[Stillwater]

A railway station at somewhere like The Gabba could have lots of things included by way of commercial tenancies -- coffee shop, fast food, quickie supermarket (grab the groceries on the way home), doctors surgery, restaurant.  The private developers need to get creative and do some horse trading.  But are there good horse traders in QR/TMR to be able to allow for these things while having a functional railway station built by the developer, and paid for by him/her, in return for the commercial elements built into its design?

[#Metro]

I think the fact that we are dealing with the Queensland Government increases the risk massively for a developer. Wouldn't touch it with a long pole until the State Government (a) committed the funding and (b) set the construction. This is an extreme risk project for private money because who knows, the plan could be thrown out again tomorrow and delayed for many years.

When you have money to invest, you need certainty. You can't have the gov turn around and announce that 'Oh well, complete change of plans/design/7-year delay now'.

[Stillwater]

^ That would appear to be the reason why the state government is talking about a 'delivery authority'.  That authority needs to know what it jurisdictional responsibilities are relative to other agencies, such as Treasury, State Development, TMR and QR.  BCC won't put money into CRR, but it will gladly claim the increased rates from new development that occurs around CRR stations.  It may even get involved with height limits on buildings above the stations, and sewer connections etc.  In a bureaucratic sense, this could be an administrative nightmare, quite apart from the commercial realities of financing a project such as CRR.

[SurfRail]

^ Not really.  You just declare the immediate surrounds of every station a priority development area.

Of the 5 stations, 2 (the Gabba and the Ekka) are already in PDAs to begin with. 

Albert St would be within the Queens Wharf PDA if it was extended by one block or so.

Declaring one for Boggo Road and Roma St would probably be justifiable even without CRR.

[#Metro]

I think it is a good idea SurfRail. Though one must be careful that such a designation may take away community voice, particularly in the case of Woolloongabba, where Cr Sri (Greens) has been elected on an anti-development platform.

I think the Park Road TOD certainly is possible SurfRail, it looks like it is just a car park at the moment. Pretty poor use of space given the location next to a busway and a train station.

[newbris]

The only reason no one wants to live in an apartment in brisbane is because its a dead city.   Being close the the CBD or shopping/business area means nothing because everyone goes to sleep at 7pm.  Why would you want to live in an apartment over a railway station when you have a 30 minute frequency after 7pm and you can't do your shopping because the supermarket has closed for the day.

I ride home later than 7pm quite often and much of Brisbane is still buzzing and inner city apartments are going gangbusters. Many of the inner supermarkets open until 9pm weekdays, the one in Milton opens until midnight.

[verbatim9]

I think it is a good idea SurfRail. Though one must be careful that such a designation may take away community voice, particularly in the case of Woolloongabba, where Cr Sri (Greens) has been elected on an anti-development platform.

I think the Park Road TOD certainly is possible SurfRail, it looks like it is just a car park at the moment. Pretty poor use of space given the location next to a busway and a train station.

Pity the Greens are anti development makes sense for TOD around CRR (Economically and Evironmentally) High density housing around Public Transport Hubs means less congestion and less land clearing for new housing stock in the burbs. If the apartments are well built and large enough for families and have amenities on the ground floor and basements such as supermarkets and retail; They will sell like hotcakes.

[#Metro]

The Greens don't like housing in the suburbs and they don't like housing in the city. I guess people will just have to live on houseboats...