Cross River Rail Project

[SurfRail]

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.

The Gabba PDA is limited to pretty much the Goprint site and surrounds, which is exactly where CRR will go - there isn't much else to be redeveloped in the immediate vicinity. 

If one was declared for Boggo Rd it could probably be a bit more substantial.

[newbris]

Greens urban planning & development policy from their website:

Urban Planning and Development
1. The development of local and State government planning schemes which reduce greenfield sites and support urban renewal (infill).

2. Supporting the creation of urban villages and town centres through Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) and Transit Adjacent Developments (TADs)

3. Fund the upgrade of existing public transport and where required develop new public transit networks,

4. Facilitate urban renewal through rezoning of land usage which promotes mixed zoning and use of medium to high density development

5. Retain or increase the quality and quantity of public and green spaces within and around urban villages.

6. Improving safe and active transport options, including;

a) The prioritisation of transport options (in order); walking, cycling, Public transport, private vehicle usage.

b) Dedicated cycling pathways, which accommodate for commuter cycling, recreational cycling, and sports cycling.

c) Dedicated pedestrian pathways.

d) Improving public access to showers and change rooms at key transport hubs.

7. Ensuring greater emphasis of Green Infrastructure in urban planning and development. Applications include;

a) Water management including stormwater and flood controls

b) Shading and heat reduction

c) Wildlife corridors

d) Urban wetlands, parklands and recreational spaces.

See: http://greens.org.au/policies/qld/planning-development

[#Metro]

Policy isn't practice. We have to see what actions are taken or are not taken.

To be fair, it would be extremely hard to find reasons to block a Gabba development. There are no houses on the land at the moment, there is a very tall building next to it (Telstra exchange) and there is a busway and cross river rail.

It should be developed to the maximum extent possible.

[aldonius]

Look at the developments Sri has been particularly up about, and it's mostly stuff in West End: by no stretch of the imagination are they TODs, and there's no major increase in public realm within the site plan for the increased number of people. (Admittedly the latter isn't exactly easy; you only have so much surface area on your block of land).

The other kicking issue is housing affordability, and when you think about how run-down old houses are getting replaced with upmarket apartment blocks it's not difficult to see how the minimum available rents might climb even in the face of large overall supply increases.

All of which is to say I don't think Sri would oppose a TOD over Wooloongabba CRR station.

[Derwan]

Media Release: Palaszczuk Government commits $800 million to kick-start Cross River Rail

Cross River Rail is charging full steam ahead with the Palaszczuk Government today providing an in-principle commitment of $800 million towards building Queensland's number one infrastructure project.

The move comes as Building Queensland, the state's independent infrastructure adviser, declared Cross River Rail ready for state investment in its Infrastructure Priority Pipeline Report.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said this was the biggest funding commitment to Cross River Rail by any government in its history, and part of the Government's $40 billion four-year infrastructure program announced in the 2016-17 State Budget.

"This builds on our recent commitment of $50 million in the 2016-17 State Budget to establish the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority and commence early work, and $634 million funding to deliver the critical European Train Control System which will pave the way for the project," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"With the business case now endorsed by my Cabinet, it will be provided to the Federal Government and Infrastructure Australia to ensure we urgently secure Federal funding.

"The Federal Labor Opposition have clearly demonstrated their commitment to this project. It's time Malcolm showed he is serious about backing this nation-building infrastructure project that his own infrastructure advisory body has identified as a high priority initiative for the country."

Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure Jackie Trad said ensuring such a significant project continued to move forward would require support from all three levels of government and partnerships with the private sector.

"We expect the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project will transform from a single piece of transport infrastructure into one of Australia's largest innovation and economic development initiatives – driving new development and population growth, better access to jobs and schools, and higher property values.

"The economic case is clear that for every dollar we invest in Cross River Rail, our economy will see a return of $1.21. Supporting this project should be a no-brainer decision for the Federal Government, Brisbane City Council, and private partners.

"If we look to projects like London's £15 billion CrossRail project, we can see that partnerships between the public and private sector can work, with innovative funding solutions like availability payments, development rights and value sharing on the table.

"One of the key tasks of our new Delivery Authority will be to explore innovative funding models for Cross River Rail so that this project can finally be delivered."

Treasurer Curtis Pitt said this in-principle commitment of $800 million fits with the priorities of the 2016-17 Budget: Growing innovation, attracting investment and building infrastructure.

"The Palaszczuk Government's contribution to this project will come from the State Infrastructure Fund which received an allocation of $2 billion in the Budget I handed down on 14 June," said Mr Pitt.

"Delivery of Cross River Rail will require support from all levels of government, as well as third-party finance and close examinations of value-sharing options.

"Our commitment is contingent on funding contributions from the Commonwealth Government and clearly this is exactly the type of project Queenslanders expect them to back.

"Malcolm Turnbull will shortly have the business case, which is also being sent to Infrastructure Australia, so he has everything he needs to back this project."

Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe said Building Queensland's Business Case highlighted the economic benefit to the nation of building Cross River Rail.

"Cross River Rail is not just a project for commuters north and south of Brisbane – it will benefit every commuter in the south east corner from Gympie North to the Gold Coast," Mr Hinchliffe said.

"Building Queensland predicts Cross River Rail will also boost public transport use across the region by 29,000 trips per day in 2036, which will ease congestion taking 18,500 cars off the road a day.

"In ten years' time if we don't build Cross River Rail passengers in South East Queensland will have to wait a combined total of 11,000 hours per day for a train which will cost the economy more than $240 million per year due to road congestion alone.

"Cross River Rail will support more than 1,540 jobs each year during construction and, with an anticipated construction timeframe of five years, the project could generate more than 7,700 jobs for Queenslanders.

"When Cross River Rail is operational it will continue to generate and support approximately 570 jobs each year."

Cross River Rail snapshot:

* Support an additional 65,000 jobs within new CRR station precincts
* Support an additional 12,000 residents and more than 40,000 jobs in the high-growth southern CBD, through the Albert Street station
* Increase the proportion of the population in metropolitan Brisbane living within 30 minutes of employment from 15.2 per cent in 2015 to 20 per cent in 2026.
* Increase peak period rail capacity into the CBD from 86 to ultimately 134 trains per hour, a 56 per cent improvement
* Reduces the number of people travelling to the CBD by car by 18,500 per day in 2036.
* Reduces total wait time for train passengers by 11,000 hours per day in 2036
* Increases the mode share of public transport in the region from 6.8 per cent currently to 10.4 per cent in 2036.
* Avoids costs to the economy of $240 million annually in 2036 from road congestion.

[Fares_Fair]

Landsborough to Nambour rail duplication (aka part of #2tracks) had a benefit cost ratio of greater than 2.28.. just saying.

In November 2011, when it was approved for construction by (then) Labor Treasurer, the Hon Andrew Fraser, it was costed at $1.7 billion for an output generation to the Queensland economy of $4.57 billion.

Do the math.









BCR = 2.69

[Derwan]

Landsborough to Nambour rail duplication (aka part of #2tracks) had a benefit cost ratio of greater than 2.28.. just saying.

CRR will benefit a LOT more people. 

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

27th June 2016

Cross River Rail Funding Announcement

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has welcomed the Queensland Government's commitment of $800 million dollars towards Cross River Rail.

Cross River Rail is Queensland's highest priority project. After three separate incarnations of the project over seven years, we are all desperate to see Cross River Rail funded and built. Although the actual infrastructure is located within the Brisbane CBD, the benefits of Cross River Rail are truly regional. Cross River Rail will enable Gold Coast and Logan passengers a faster journey to and from work. It means more trains more often, particularly during peak hour. Cleveland line passengers also stand to benefit from freed up capacity on the Merivale Railway Bridge.

Cross River Rail is also an urban renewal project. Woolloongabba station should be intensively developed with very high density residential, commercial and dining possibilities. Woolloongabba ticks all the boxes for a green transit oriented development. To ensure absolute maximum exploitation of the Woolloongabba site, we ask the Queensland Government to put the site out to public tender, similar to what it has done with the Queens Wharf development. Under no circumstances should the site be given over to Brisbane City Council for Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's metro depot.

We also call on the Queensland Government to consider declaring a Priority Development Area (PDA) around the Park Road/Boggo Road station site. Regional and rural visitors undergoing medical treatment at the PA hospital and students need accommodation. The Park Road/Boggo Road site is a prime position for this purpose.

These developments will help pay for the construction of Cross River Rail stations. Although Land value capture has also been discussed to help pay for Cross River Rail, we think a better idea is for Brisbane City Council to contribute up to $1BN for this project. The logic is simple - Cross River Rail will raise land values immediately around stations and within Brisbane generally. This land value uplift will be captured by Brisbane City Council in the form of higher rates revenue due to the simple fact that Brisbane City Council's rates are based on land values. It seems unfair that Brisbane City Council will benefit handsomely from this project while contributing nothing to it.

Once again, we welcome the announcement of State funding for Cross River Rail and hope that this incarnation of the project will be the last one.

Contact:

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

[Stillwater]

^^ 

Mr Pitt's statement should be noted: "Our commitment is contingent on funding contributions from the Commonwealth Government."  He doesn't state what amount is being sought from the Federal Government.  $800m?  If the Commonwealth matched the state dollar for dollar, that still leaves a $4 billion shortfall.

And if Bill Shorten and Labor do not form government after 2 July?  Their $800m commitment evaporates.  If Malcolm Turnbull doesn't take the bait and commits before 2 July ..... ?  He can continue to say that his government has only just received the business case and it will be given 'due care and attention' after the election.

Mr Turnbull's political considerations would be whether CRR Mark III would make a difference in the seat of Brisbane and possibly seats like Forde and Longman.  Could he afford to lose Brisbane to the Greens by not making a firm commitment to CRR right now and still win the national election overall?  The state government's timing of this announcement and its continued hardball political play around infrastructure projects, is audacious.

[ozbob]

Cross River Rail benefits, according to the Building Qld business case.#qldpol pic.twitter.com/nX0hGzL8Dn

— Steven Wardill (@stevenwardill) June 27, 2016

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> 'Over to you Mr Turnbull'

[verbatim9]

Good! and hopefully the metro will be realigned to compliment ?

[kaykayt]

https://vimeo.com/spatialau/review/165948232/c1c77b0d46

https://vimeo.com/spatialau/review/172106254/d9a5a1a390

[Stillwater]

Building Queensland's summary of the Cross River Rail BCR analysis:

http://buildingqueensland.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cross-River-Rail-Cost-Benefit-Analysis-Summary.pdf

[Stillwater]

Perhaps RailBOT should consider teaming up with the Victorian Public Transport Users Association, NSW Action for Public Transport and Western Sydney Public Transport Users, together with other like-minded groups, to present annual awards for best produced video presentation associated with new infrastructure proposals.  They could be called the 'Maybies' (projects that may be built.)

This one should win a prize for best music score, with the added innovation of a heavenly choir from 1:10.

https://vimeo.com/spatialau/review/165948232/c1c77b0d46

Possible inspiration:

(The sublime theme from The Mission)

[Derwan]

Brisbane Times: Queensland 'finds' $800 million for Cross River Rail

[Stillwater]

From the Brisbane Times story: "Queensland infrastructure spokesman Chris Warnock said – aside from the universally-accepted Cross River Rail project - regional planning in Queensland from state governments had halted."

[#Metro]

Um, already have concerns about the "Summary" business case.

The 1.21 BCR is a P50 value. That means that the final cost being less than $5.4 billion is only 50%! The project has a 50% chance of overshooting the costs of this figure. And as we all know, projects are more likely to be delivered over cost, than under cost.

The P90 value is more reliable, and this BCR is only 1.12. That is razor-thin!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-book-supplementary-guidance-valuing-infrastructure-spend/early-financial-cost-estimates-of-infrastructure-programmes-and-projects-and-the-treatment-of-uncertainty-and-risk

The number of jobs has been included, but it is problematic. Jobs are a cost, not a benefit. You could have more jobs 'created' if teams of people were employed to push the train through the tunnels. What matters is the value the project creates. The jobs number has been included there purely for political purposes.

The BCR does not indicate whether WEBs have or have not been included in the figure of 1.21 (which really is 1.12).
WEBs are very rubbery and personally I ignore them for evaluation purposes. It is very concerning that the WEBs component appears to actually be the major component of benefits for this project. It suggests that the BCR perhaps has been padded up.

A more rigorous assessment would be to compare it to a similar project, such as the Auckland tunnel through the CBD for trains that are going on at the moment (reference class comparison).

The other thing that I didn't understand was that the project cost $5.4 billion, but the Net Present Value of the benefits was only $996 million? I would suggest getting external expert advice on this, but if a project has a BCR of 1 that means the benefits equal the costs exactly, so logically a project that costs $5.4 billion is required to generate a benefit of $5.4 billion to get a BCR of 1. This project only generates a NPV of benefits 1/6th of its costs. Like I said, I have to check this, but that there is a question mark already.

And finally, the offer of $ 800 million is the greatest cause for alarm because it signals that the Queensland Government is absolutely NOT serious about this project and is still playing stupid political games with the project by setting things up such that the business case is released just 5 days before election day. $800 million is just 14.8 % of total project costs, that is a total joke and insult.

No wonder "the summary" business case has been released. And the "rest of it" released conveniently after the election has passed. What are they hiding??

[#Metro]

I have dug up numbers.

Cross River Rail1 (CRR1)
Net Present Value (2010) - $2.3 Billion in benefits; Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.42 rising to 1.63 with WEBs.

Bus and Train Tunnel (BaT): (Cross River Rail II)
$0.64 Billion in benefits: Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.16

Cross River Rail III
$0.9 billion in benefits, Cost Benefit Ratio of 1.12 (P90)

The BCR of this project is worse than CRR1 in absolute terms by any metric used.
It is similar in benefit to BaT. Indeed the BCR is slightly lower (but about the same I say due to natural variation).

Given that BaT also had buses included, and this project does not, one has to wonder.

[tazzer9]

Landsborough to Nambour rail duplication (aka part of #2tracks) had a benefit cost ratio of greater than 2.28.. just saying.

In November 2011, when it was approved for construction by (then) Labor Treasurer, the Hon Andrew Fraser, it was costed at $1.7 billion for an output generation to the Queensland economy of $4.57 billion.

Do the math.
BCR = 2.69

The difference is CCR will directly benefit people.   Its a case of because so many people will use it, it makes for better political spin.   The 2 tracks for the NCL mostly benefits freight and that isn;t the prettiest subject to put on a flyer.

[SurfRail]

^ I have to ask - why do you keep calling it CCR? 

[#Metro]

Do the math.
BCR = 2.69

Yes, but watch this (I made up the numbers and names):

Project A
Public Transport Awareness Flyers

Cost $1000
Benefit $1000
BCR = 1

Project B
Rail Project from X to Y

Cost $10 million
Benefit $10 million
BCR = 1

Two very different projects with identical BCRs. These metrics are there to guide a decision, not to decide. Typically we also need to look at the size of the benefits, the net present value (NPV) as well.

One can find more about Cost Benefit approaches here http://www.cbabuilder.co.uk/

Ultimately the decision to build or not build a project must be subjective and political.
A formula can inform a decision but cannot make the decision itself. Only elected representatives must do that.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Cross River Rail 'better value for money' than Melbourne's Metro

Brisbane's $5.4 billion underground rail project - Cross River Rail – is half the cost and better value for money than Melbourne's $10 billion Metro project, documents seen by Fairfax Media reveal.

However even that did not convince the Federal Government to promise money for the project before Saturday's federal election. The Labor Opposition last weekend offered $800 million.

Combined with Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk's "in-principle" $800 million, it still leaves the project $3.8 billion short of funds.

Brisbane's Cross River Rail is also half the cost and reportedly better value for money than Sydney's transformative - but more expensive - $11 billion Metro system, promising wholesale changes to Sydney's rail network.

It is also similar value for money to a light rail project through Canberra's CBD, but not quite a "beneficial" as the first stage of the Gold Coast's very popular light rail project.

The business case was sent to the Federal Government on Monday, straight after State Cabinet approved the project.

Brisbane's Cross River Rail – what the business case shows

    Will contribute $3.28 billion to Queensland's Gross State Product over 30 years.
    Will support 1,547 direct and indirect full-time jobs during construction;
    Will support 576 jobs when its running; and
    Will generate $1,209 million of wider economic benefits to the Cross River Rail project.

How other states' projects compare

    1. Melbourne's Metro - $10.9 billion total cost. Cost benefit ratio of 1.1 to 1. Five new underground tunnels with two new stations connected to Flinders Street and Melbourne Central. More information from here.
    2. Brisbane's Cross River underground rail project - $5.4  billion total cost. Cost benefit ratio of 1.2 to 1. Twin 5.9 kilometre tunnels between Dutton Park station, travelling under the Brisbane River and Brisbane CBD before exiting south of the Exhibition station. It provides Brisbane with a second inner-city rail river crossing, needed by 2020. The business case summary is here.
    3. Canberra's Light Rail project - $783 million total cost.  Cost benefit ratio of 1.2 to 1. A 12km light rail route from Canberra's northside to the City with associated stops, depot, road, signalling and other work.  More information from here.
    4. Gold Coast light rail – stage one. Now complete. Cost benefit ratio of 1.63. to 1.Stage one runs from the Gold Coast University, north of Southport to Broadbeach. Stage two is already approved.
    5.Sydney's Metro – $11 billion total cost. Now being planned. When it is complete, Sydney Metro will deliver a total of 66 kilometres of metro rail, with up to 31 metro stations. More information here.
Monday's announcement by Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk that the Queensland Government would fund $800 million to Brisbane's underground rail if the federal government matched the funding, did not immediately strike its target with the federal government.

Major Projects Minister Paul Fletcher welcomed the business case, but repeated comments made by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to Fairfax Media last week that it simply would not be considered in four days before the election.

"You can't provide a business case for a multi-billion dollar project just four days out from a Federal election and just expect to get a funding commitment in the hundreds of millions of dollars," Mr Fletcher said.

"If the Queensland Government was serious about funding Cross River Rail they would have allocated $800 million for the project in their Budget two weeks ago," he said.

Mr Fletcher said Infrastructure Australia, which was already familiar with previous versions of the project (Cross River Rail 1 and the BAT tunnel), would provide advice to the government elected on Saturday.

The Palaszczuk Government's independent infrastructure body, Building Queensland, said it was too early to say how much could be expected from the private sector, or how much could be drawn from rising land values, known as "value capture".

Property Council of Queensland executive director Chris Mountford welcomed the business case, but said the unanswered 'value capture' funding was an Achilles heel for the project.

"There is some potential for the government to partner with property owners around stations and along the corridor to generate additional urban renewal, uplift and funding opportunities," Mr Mountford said.

"But the so-called 'value capture' activities will not come anywhere near plugging the current funding gap," Mr Mountford said.

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow called on Brisbane City Council to scrap its Brisbane Metro project and contribute a billion dollars to Cross River Rail.

"The logic is simple - Cross River Rail will raise land values immediately around stations and within Brisbane generally. This land value uplift will be captured by Brisbane City Council in the form of higher rates revenue due to the simple fact that Brisbane City Council's rates are based on land values."

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Turnbull's $800m snub for Cross River Rail

THE Federal Coalition won't commit funding to Brisbane's Cross River Rail before Saturday's election despite a new business case finding the project would cut congestion, create jobs and deliver a significant economic dividend.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Darren Chester last night insisted the Coalition stood ready to support Cross River Rail (XRR) but the $5.4 billion project must be assessed by Infrastructure Australia first.

"You can't provide a business case for a multi-billion dollar project just four days out from a Federal election and just expect to get a funding commitment in the hundreds of millions of dollars," he said ...

^

As we have constantly pointed out, the State Government has been for too tardy with the business case for CRR.  Agree with Mr Chester that the project does need to be assessed by IA in this latest incarnation realistically first.  The state government has no one to blame but themselves for the Federal response.

[#Metro]

Brisbane's $5.4 billion underground rail project - Cross River Rail – is half the cost and better value for money than Melbourne's $10 billion Metro project, documents seen by Fairfax Media reveal.

Except it isn't. Two projects can have identical BCRs and arrive at vastly different net present values.
A BCR is a ratio. This means that it does not have a unit after it like kg, km/hr or $.

Net present values have a $ unit. From the gov perspective, we should be looking at those as well.

The P50 BCR value should not be used for any purpose other than to mark the "middle" of the distribution of possible BCR values. At P50, the project has a 50% chance or running over this cost. P90 is much more realistic, and that is only a BCR of 1.12, which is essentially hovering just above break-even.

[ozbob]

Lets lay off the doom and gloom for a while.  The project CRR v3 is viable and economically of benefit on the basic analysis.  The final determinant of whether this project will proceed really rests with the IA evaluation and whether the Feds will support.  BCC should also make a committment but as we know myopic polyticks with BCC is their modus operandi.

[#Metro]

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow called on Brisbane City Council to scrap its Brisbane Metro project and contribute a billion dollars to Cross River Rail.

"The logic is simple - Cross River Rail will raise land values immediately around stations and within Brisbane generally. This land value uplift will be captured by Brisbane City Council in the form of higher rates revenue due to the simple fact that Brisbane City Council's rates are based on land values."

Forget about value capture - the value is already being captured by BCC. Just send them an invoice!

[Stillwater]

It is too stupid for words to say that the Federal Government has 'snubbed' a request for CRR funding.  It just hasn't made a decision yet.

In the normal course of events, consideration of the 25 CHAPTERS in the CRR Business Case would take IA about 3-4 months.  The Caretaker Conventions applying during election campaigns prevent IA from supplying advice to government on such a matter until a government is formed and sworn in.  The best we could hope for is an announcement about January 2017, with the actual amount confirmed in the 2017-18 Budget.

The Shorten pledge is all about politics.  The 'in principle' $800m from state Labor, only triggered for payment if the federal Coalition kicks in $800m, is demonstrable proof that state Labor doesn't believe federal Labor will win Saturday's election.  It's all about politics too.

The truth is that Queensland has handled the business case preparation badly, delaying its submission.  Playing politics is no substitute for good policy, good planning, and timely planning. 

[#Metro]

In the normal course of events, consideration of the 25 CHAPTERS in the CRR Business Case would take IA about 3-4 months.  The Caretaker Conventions applying during election campaigns prevent IA from supplying advice to government on such a matter until a government is formed and sworn in.  The best we could hope for is an announcement about January 2017, with the actual amount confirmed in the 2017-18 Budget.

An excellent point Stillwater.

[Gazza]

Brisbane's $5.4 billion underground rail project - Cross River Rail – is half the cost and better value for money than Melbourne's $10 billion Metro project, documents seen by Fairfax Media reveal.

Except it isn't. Two projects can have identical BCRs and arrive at vastly different net present values.
A BCR is a ratio. This means that it does not have a unit after it like kg, km/hr or $.

Net present values have a $ unit. From the gov perspective, we should be looking at those as well.

The P50 BCR value should not be used for any purpose other than to mark the "middle" of the distribution of possible BCR values. At P50, the project has a 50% chance or running over this cost. P90 is much more realistic, and that is only a BCR of 1.12, which is essentially hovering just above break-even.

So what do you want the government to do from here forwards?

-Proceed?
-Cancel the project?
-Redesign to get a higher BCR/NPV?

[tazzer9]

^ I have to ask - why do you keep calling it CCR? 

Because my English teachers failed at making me good at any form of proof reading.

[Gazza]

^ I have to ask - why do you keep calling it CCR? 

Because my English teachers failed at making me good at any form of proof reading.

Cross City Rail?

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> The secret plan that would see motorists pay for CBD rail link

[Derwan]

Couriermail --> The secret plan that would see motorists pay for CBD rail link

Media statement from Jackie Trad: Claims a motor vehicle levy will help fund Cross River Rail are incorrect

[ozbob]

Media release
Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment
The Honourable Jackie Trad

Claims a motor vehile levy will help fund Cross River Rail are incorrect

Reports today that Cross River Rail could be funded by a levy on motorists are not correct.

The Turnbull Government requires all major projects seeking infrastructure funding to assess value capture options as a condition for federal funding.

This is outlined in the Australian Government's Smart Cities Plan (May 2016), which states they "have a policy to explore value capture early in all business cases seeking Commonwealth funding for infrastructure" and also in their Principles for Innovative Finance (March 2016) which states "the suitability for innovative financing arrangements should be assessed for all projects before the amount of grant funding is determined."

In accordance with the Turnbull Government requirements, Building Queensland examined value capture options as part of their independently developed business case for Cross River Rail – but this does not mean they reflect Queensland Government policy.

If Tim Nicholls is opposed to Queensland undertaking value capture assessments as required by the Turnbull Government, he is not only out of step with his federal LNP colleagues but is willing to cut Queensland off from millions of dollars in federal infrastructure funding for major projects.

Following the Palaszczuk Government's commitment of $800 million to this project, the new Cross River Rail Delivery Authority will now be responsible for developing a detailed funding model.

While this will include consideration of availability payments, value sharing (in accordance with Commonwealth requirements) and development rights, the Palaszczuk Government will not be levying motorists to pay for Cross River Rail.

The full report provided to Infrastructure Australia notes that "The Queensland Government has ruled out road pricing mechanisms as part of the options analysis (preliminary evaluation) phase as it is inconsistent with Queensland Government policy."

For the first time, the Queensland Government has committed to regularly publishing business case summaries for major projects which clearly detail the independent cost benefit analysis undertaken by Building Queensland.

This greater level of transparency, combined with the work of our independent infrastructure adviser – Building Queensland – means we will not have a repeat of the LNP's 1 William Street which was a complete disregard for taxpayer money.

ENDS

[Stillwater]

A slug on motorists may not be such a bad thing, as it would influence travelling behaviours.  Does not BCC 'slug' ratepayers for its inefficient bus operations via a component of rates?  Local authorities around Brisbane charge their ratepayers a transport levy (and all of them do a better job than BCC when it comes to applying that money to sensible transport solutions.)

Something's up: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cross-river-rail-levy-trad-rules-out-two-of-six-secret-taxes-in-business-case-20160629-gpun9b.html

We must also consider the politics of this.  If the transport levy (in whatever form) was applied by postcode, it could be restricted to the people of SEQ as payees.  That way, the State Government could say to the people of North Queensland and Western Queensland (and the Katter Party people), that they are exempt from having to pay for essential transport infrastructure that largely benefits the South-East.

Everyone living outside the South-East is having a bit of their tax money being applied to CRR by virtue of the fact that all Queenslanders are contributing to the $800m of state money currently on the table from state coffers.  Conversely, a bit of tax contribution from everyone in SEQ is going towards the Townsville Stadium, even though few people from the lower half of the state will ever step inside it.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Does not BCC 'slug' ratepayers for its inefficient bus operations via a component of rates?

Not sure. How many of us actually live in the BCC boundary?

Weren't ratepayers slugged an extra $40 recently as part of the inefficiency and translink not wanting to pay up to support it?
Edit: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbane-city-council-budget-rates-to-rise-by-25-per-cent-average-rate-rise/news-story/4a05ff2718135d2b39782dbfd6a6eb24

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Trad hasn't ruled out Cross River Rail levy altogether

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Cross River Rail: Deputy Premier defends levy plan to cover funding gap

... Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Brendan Lyon said every option to fund Cross River Rail must be considered.

"A public fear campaign to derail the project serves no one's interest, including the Queensland public, who are crying out for more investment in infrastructure, not less," Mr Lyon said.

^  Yep.  Queensland is such a backward place, hysterical opposition, media prone to beat-ups.  No wonder it is going down the sewer as a state ..

[Stillwater]

Theologians sometimes enjoy a port with cheese, and a civil discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Politicians get themselves into verbal contortions about why an excise is not a tax and how is possible to have a levy while still keeping a promise not to raise taxes.  For the punter, any decision from government that results in costing them more money is a tax.  In trying to explain 'value capture' on TV last night, Ms Trad had the same deer in the headlights startled stare that former Liberal federal politician John Hewson had when trying to explain the GST when it was a proposal, and its application to the cost of a birthday cake.  She demonstrated a lack of understanding around 'value capture', because her head was telling her not to say the words 'levy' or 'tax'.

Queenslanders are not mugs.  They should not be treated as such.  The state government should have come clean about funding options for CRR, and not kept Queenslanders in the dark about the obvious question: "If the Commonwealth and the state each contribute $800m each, where will the rest of the money come from?"  In not doing so, it has allowed the Opposition an opportunity to make political mileage out of CRR.

Once again, politics gets in the way of a sensible discussion within the community about how we fund major infrastructure projects.  All the fly-through videos, glossy brochures and websites showing what might be, via a wish-list of projects, won't disguise the fact that a 'funding pipeline' is needed to fund the pipeline of projects.

By voting ALP at the last state election, thereby taking asset sales off the table, did we think that the money foregone by not selling assets somehow would appear by magic?  What voters were saying was "we don't want to sell state assets in order to build essential infrastructure, but we want the infrastructure and we understand it must be paid for by other means."  Now the means are emerging, we should not be surprised.

What's disappointing is that Ms Trad and Mr Emerson are both political tragics and can't stop themselves from playing the politics, which replaces sensible and mature discussion.  They are like children hurling insults while fighting over a toy in the playground.  Ms Trad needs to channel the late Tom Burns, Mr Emerson the late Jim Killen.

For these people to be 'statesmen' they need to be a bit more Churchillian in outlook, taking the people with them, in a sustained and mature conversation with voters.  Their focus remains the 10-second media grab.