Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

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

Palaszczuk Government appalled at LNP scaremongering over Cross River Rail

Deb Frecklington's misleading comments over the funding of Cross River Rail show the LNP are not only opposed to this project and at odds with their federal colleagues, but are also willing to alarm Queenslanders for blatantly political reasons.

Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure Jackie Trad said Deb Frecklington had been out peddling her five fallacies today, but it was evident the LNP has very little grasp on the detail and complexity of this vital infrastructure project.

"The business case for Cross River Rail is not a 'secret business case' as the LNP would have Queenslanders believe. It has been developed independent of government, by our independent infrastructure adviser Building Queensland, and has been willingly provided in its entirety to Infrastructure Australia and the Federal Department for Infrastructure and Regional Development," Ms Trad said.

"We committed at the election to releasing summaries of business cases for major projects, including the crucial Benefit-Cost Ratio, so Queenslanders can have confidence that our government will invest in projects that deliver value for money.

"The five-page summary was not 'heavily edited' as the LNP is claiming. It too was developed independent of government by our independent infrastructure adviser Building Queensland and not altered in any way by the Government.

"The LNP's attacks today are blatantly hypocritical. Not only did they not publish, nor indicate that they would publish, a business case for the BaT Tunnel or their New Generation Rollingstock, they didn't even develop a business case for the $2.6 billion waste of taxpayer funds at 1 William Street.

"In fact, Scott Emerson is also on the record as saying government business cases should not be released in full because of commercial in confidence considerations. 

"Labor's record of transparency will stack up over the LNP's any day of the week."

Ms Trad said the Turnbull Government required all major projects seeking infrastructure funding to assess value capture options as a condition for federal funding.

"By slamming the exploration of value capture options, as required by the Turnbull Government, the LNP are effectively at odds with their federal colleagues and are willing to shut the door to millions of dollars in federal funding for major projects," Ms Trad said.

"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 these options reflect Queensland Government policy or that they will be implemented.

"It is too early in the planning phase to rule other options for value capture in or out. Once established, the new Cross River Rail Delivery Authority will develop a detailed funding model and our Government will keep Queenslanders informed of our fair and transparent intentions every step of the way.

"While the funding model will consider 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."

Frecklington's Five Fallacies

Claim: Labor will introduce the six new taxes to fund CRR.
Source: LNP Media Release 29/06/16 "Hidden Business case includes the following new taxes to fund CRR..."
Fact: When added up all of the value capture options exceed the cost of Cross River Rail ($7.38bn vs $5.4bn).  Exploring value capture is a conditional requirement from the Federal Government before funding will be considered. BQ has explored value capture options but these will not necessarily be implemented by Government.  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.


Claim: Government will introduce a congestion charge to raise $1.2bn
Source: LNP Media Release 29/06/16 "Hidden Business case includes the following new taxes to fund CRR: Congestion Tax paid for by motorists= $1.2bn"
Fact: We have previously ruled out congestion charging and the business case notes this. The Federal LNP has made funding for infrastructure conditional on the exploration of value capture.


Claim: We said we would release business cases – we should release CRR Business Case in full.
Source: Deb Frecklington on ABC radio, 29/06/16 "They took to the election that they would release full business cases."
Fact: BQ policy document promises that it will release Cost Benefit Analysis summaries. Scott Emerson has previously said that government business cases should not be released in full because of commercial in confidence considerations.


Claim: Cross River Rail doesn't cost $5.4bn it costs almost $10bn when you include operational costs.
Source: LNP Media Release 29/06/16 "...Cross River Rail which is set to cost almost $10bn, not the $5.4bn claimed by the government."
Fact: The business case written independently by BQ says Cross River Rail will cost $5.4bn to build. Building Queensland estimates the yearly operational and maintenance costs of Cross River Rail will be $47 million in real terms.  Operational costs will be paid over a period of 30 years. Building Queensland's report states that operational and maintenance costs will not be incurred until 2023. Additionally, the LNP never counted operational costs when they spoke about the cost of BAT.


Claim: Labor has tried to hide these taxes by releasing a heavily edited version of the business case.
Source: LNP Media Release 29/06/16 "The premier tried to conceal the plans for the six secret taxes when she released and edited version of the business case on Monday that deliberately hid the new taxes to pay for the project"
Fact: Building Queensland is an independent organisation and released the cost benefit analysis summary that was endorsed by the Board as per the requirements under Legislation. The Cost benefit ratio for the project of 1.21 is not inclusive of any of the value capture options canvassed in the Business Case. That means not pursuing any of the value capture options would not impact on the BCR figure as reported.   

[Stillwater]

Jackie Trad: "We committed at the election to releasing summaries of business cases for major projects, including the crucial Benefit-Cost Ratio, so Queenslanders can have confidence that our government will invest in projects that deliver value for money."  Like the Townsville Stadium.  Projects with a BCR higher than CRR go unfunded.

[#Metro]

LOL, Jackie Trad moralising about being prudential with public finances. Hello, TOWNSVILLE STADIUM?

The business case is secret - they only released 'the summary'. Where is the rest of it?

Blue Team are not very good either:

- They want to criticise but their BaT business case was petty bad.

- They did not indicate a funding source for BaT (Tooth Fairy Tax perhaps?)

- They have no stated public alternative to Cross River Rail III, do they have a public transport policy at all?

- They want to oppose land value capture (I consider land tax and council rates as 'capture' here).

Well, why should people get a massive uplift in their property value courtesy of the taxpayer without having to lift a finger?

How about Blue Team justify that?

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.

Well said Stillwater. I encourage you to write an MR!

Cross River Rail isn't going anywhere with $800 million peanut from the Queensland Government. It will need much more than that.

[#Metro]

Business Cases of Different Cross River Rail versions:

Cross River Rail (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)
Net Present Value $0.64 Billion in benefits
Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.16

Cross River Rail III:
Net Present Value: 0.99 Billion in benefits
Cost Benefit Ratio of 1.12 (P90)

* P90 = 90% chance the project will come at this cost or below.

Conclusion: The current proposal is only marginally better than BaT (indicated by NPV).

[Fares_Fair]

#2tracks for just the 22km Landsborough to Nambour in 2011, had a cost of $1.7 billion for an output generation to the Queensland economy of $4.57 billion.
That's a benefit cost ratio of 2.69.

I have always tempered this by using a greater cost figure of $2 billion but using the 2011 figure for output generation.

This track impacts / affects 58% of the Queensland population located along the North Coast Line corridor up to Cairns.

[Gazza]

Business Cases of Different Cross River Rail versions:

Cross River Rail (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)
Net Present Value $0.64 Billion in benefits
Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.16

Cross River Rail III:
Net Present Value: 0.99 Billion in benefits
Cost Benefit Ratio of 1.12 (P90)

* P90 = 90% chance the project will come at this cost or below.

Conclusion: The current proposal is only marginally better than BaT (indicated by NPV).

So what should they do now?

[#Metro]

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

You know, what is interesting about this is the original CRR1 proposal is still the best project on any metric.

Provided the Government has the funds (which it does, locked away in assets), it has the option of choosing a project that will return over

2x more benefits than the current proposal.

An interesting question is why the BCR and NPV values have degraded so much. What did they remove from the CRR1 proposal that

generated so much benefit?

Politics has destroyed this project. All subsequent projects have inferior BCR and NPV values to the original.

[Stillwater]

Was CRR Mk1 developed to P90 stage?

[#Metro]

Was CRR Mk1 developed to P90 stage?

Does someone have the original documents? I personally don't have this info.

Would it be worth requesting this info? I am curious as to why the social benefits (NPV) has become so low in subsequent iterations

of the project. It's like something very valuable has been deleted or missing from subsequent proposals. What could it be?

Whatever was missing was worth an extra $1BN in social benefits?

Original Proposal:

[SurfRail]

There was never a station at Spring Hill in the original proposal.  There was one, plus various other inner city stations, proposed in the 2006 study which preceded the full scoped proposal.

The 5 "new" stations for version 1 were the same as they are for version 3, with just slightly different configurations. 

[#Metro]

There was never a station at Spring Hill in the original proposal.  There was one, plus various other inner city stations, proposed in the 2006 study which preceded the full scoped proposal.

Yes, I just realised this. My error - I was thinking before that CRR1 official proposal (!) Was a while ago.

So what is missing? The Yeerongpilly link? It is hard to see how that had much benefit from the beginning.

[OzGamer]

Just different modelling. Speaking as a former transport and economic modeller, it's amazing how much these values can change with slight changes in assumptions.

Edit: also, I should add, the speed improvements were better for CRR1 as it was a faster run from Yeerongpilly through the tunnel.

[petey3801]

Yeerongpilly portal also increases Beenleigh/Gold Coast line capacity more than Dutton Park portal (Dutton Park portal really doesn't add much at all without increasing the number of Gold Coast train stops, which is not a good idea).

[SurfRail]

The new project also involves building additional platforms at every station from Dutton Park to Salisbury inclusive (far as I am aware), which was not a requirement for CRR1 - there were 2 extra tracks from Salisbury to the Yeerongpilly portal but these were express lines and the only extra platforms were at the rebuilt Yeerongpilly station.

[#Metro]

Is Dutton Pk being kept with CRR3 ?

[SurfRail]

^ I think it is.  Would be very difficult for Trad politically if not!

I'm not sure how they plan of making a station at Boggo Rd work given the proximity.  It must be fairly shallow to enable there to be a level platform accessible from dives located inbound of Dutton Park, particularly if it has provision for 9 cars.  The grade will be reasonably sharp.

None of this was an issue with earlier versions.  For CRR1, the original plan was for dives at Fairfield, and then they gradually worked out it made better sense to keep pushing the portals further out so additional surface works weren't needed.  Basically we will be stuck with 3 tracks if this goes the way I think it will, which is actually no different to BaT.

[James]

^ I think it is.  Would be very difficult for Trad politically if not!

I'm not sure how they plan of making a station at Boggo Rd work given the proximity.  It must be fairly shallow to enable there to be a level platform accessible from dives located inbound of Dutton Park, particularly if it has provision for 9 cars.  The grade will be reasonably sharp.

None of this was an issue with earlier versions.  For CRR1, the original plan was for dives at Fairfield, and then they gradually worked out it made better sense to keep pushing the portals further out so additional surface works weren't needed.  Basically we will be stuck with 3 tracks if this goes the way I think it will, which is actually no different to BaT.

Yes, Dutton Park is staying as part of CRR3.

I think the main benefit of CRR3 is that it doesn't include buses. Personally, I think the bus section of BaT would have been a negative for the bus network overall (it didn't fit in the context of the current bus network).

I think the significantly lower BCR/NPV is because the tunnel surfaces earlier in CRR3 than CRR1, and this has negative impacts on capacity and travel time. If the CRR designers use BaT as a template, there's no reason stubs couldn't be left for the extension of a tunnel down to Yeerongpilly at a later date (a la CRR1) like what was shown in BaT.

[#Metro]

So this must also mean that trains must run on the Beenleigh line in addition to Cleveland line trains, just to serve 1 station.

Dutton Park is redundant as a station (Park Rd + Bus). It is also an extremely ugly station as it is positioned half way under a bridge, has narrow platforms and is partly in a cutting.

I would not be against its removal.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Call to co-ordinate transport plans

THE two biggest public transport projects in Brisbane could end up cannibalising their own funding options unless they are co-ordinated and sequenced properly.

The State Government is pushing ahead with its $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project and Brisbane City Council has started undertaking the business case for its $1.5 billion Metro rapid transit system.

METRO: Planning experts point out problems

Both projects are scheduled to be built over the next six to eight years, depending on whether they can secure enough funding to proceed.

Each would rely heavily on funding from the Federal Government, the private sector and potentially value-capture methods.

Engineers Australia infrastructure spokesman Chris Warnock said having two levels of government pursuing different projects could lead to a situation where they cannibalised funding for each other.

"Funding of infrastructure is the big issue at the moment," he said.

"There is a finite amount of money available, and both seem to be trying to attract it from the same places like the Federal Government and the private sector.

"Both projects do different things and are important, but they need to be co-ordinated and sequenced properly to ensure they actually happen."

Mr Warnock said it appeared that each level of government was competing with each other rather than working together to get the best infrastructure outcomes.

"Engineers Australia again calls for an integrated transport plan for the southeast because at the moment we have two levels of government pushing ahead with major projects that don't appear to be talking to each other."

Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe said both projects would potentially require funding from similar areas but Cross River Rail needed to come first as it was the state's top infrastructure priority.

"It's a city-changing project that's creating increased and expanded public transport capacity; it's not an enhancement," he said.

"We also want to see enhancements so we are willing to work with Brisbane City Council on this project (Metro) and others."

Brisbane Deputy Mayor Adrian Schrinner said both infrastructure projects could happen, and was confident of getting the Metro up and running by 2022.

"There is room for both projects and funding ability for both projects at a national level when you are talking about all levels of government and the private sector," he said.

Brisbane City Council has pledged to be the majority funder of the Metro, but The Courier-Mail understands the State Government will not commit cash to the project until Cross River Rail is under way. That would leave up to $750 million needed from the Federal Government and the private sector to ensure Metro gets built.

The State Government has committed $800 million to Cross River Rail and a matching commitment from whoever forms the next Federal Government would still leave $3.8 billion unfunded.

Building Queensland, which advises the State Government on infrastructure projects, will have some involvement in developing the business case for Metro.

The Go Print site in Woolloongabba is another key conflict between the two projects, with the Metro needing it for a stabling yard, while the State Government wants it to be a major urban-renewal project to help pay for the Cross River Rail.

"The Go Print is fundamentally important to the delivery of Cross River Rail – not just for a station, but for the whole site in terms of urban renewal," Mr Hinchliffe said.

"It is a very valuable level (of the site) to be turning into a stabling yard."

But the city council claims having three modes of transport feeding into the Go Print site – rail, Metro and buses – will add value and attract a greater level of interest from developers.

"Ultimately, from a transport-planning point of view, having a busway interchange, Cross River Rail and a Metro station is absolutely ideal," Cr Schrinner said.

Metro is expected to be complete in 2022, while the recently completed business case for Cross River Rail states the construction timeline is five to eight years.

What a shambles, BCC still in denial.  One does spend billions of dollars to reduce public transport capacity.

[kaykayt]

Are Springfield services going to go via CRR?

[verbatim9]

Are Springfield services going to go via CRR?

Thought just Gold Coast and Beenleigh services and selected Northern Services?

[kaykayt]

Are Springfield services going to go via CRR?

Thought just Gold Coast and Beenleigh services and selected Northern Services?

Hmm... I wonder why it says:

The project will support regional redevelopment in areas such as Flagstone, Yarrabilba, Coomera and Springfield, as well as urban development in areas such as Dutton Park, Woolloongabba, Brisbane CBD and Roma Street.

In the fast facts section > http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

[#Metro]

WHY does everything have to be so complicated in Queensland?

Just run ALL the services, Beenleigh and Gold Coast, via the new tunnel. Springfield via Tennyson? No thanks! KISS!!

Dutton Park station looks like the set of a crime scene with its narrow platforms, half-under a bridge and setting in a cutting.

People can change at Park Road.

[ozbob]

Are Springfield services going to go via CRR?

No.

[ozbob]

Are Springfield services going to go via CRR?

Thought just Gold Coast and Beenleigh services and selected Northern Services?

Hmm... I wonder why it says:

The project will support regional redevelopment in areas such as Flagstone, Yarrabilba, Coomera and Springfield, as well as urban development in areas such as Dutton Park, Woolloongabba, Brisbane CBD and Roma Street.

In the fast facts section > http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

The project will allow more trains on all sectors, this doesn't mean they will be using CRR.

[ozbob]

Letter to the Editor Queensland Times 28th June 2016 page 19

Cross river rail funds welcome

[James]

So this must also mean that trains must run on the Beenleigh line in addition to Cleveland line trains, just to serve 1 station.

Dutton Park is redundant as a station (Park Rd + Bus). It is also an extremely ugly station as it is positioned half way under a bridge, has narrow platforms and is partly in a cutting.

I would not be against its removal.

Incorrect - the tunnel will surface between Park Rd and Dutton Park, much like BaT was going to.

I still think it is a pretty sub-par solution though. Just stump up the extra cash, tunnel out to Yeerongpilly, buy up those properties that the LNP sold off and just do. it. properly. Not hard!

[SurfRail]

There is a possible silver lining in that it considerably widens what the possible future stages could be.  Could head towards Greenslopes rather than Yeerongpilly for one.

[Stillwater]

While we will have to wait a few days until the make-up of the new federal parliament is known, neither major party could have the numbers to govern outright.  A hung parliament (with minority rule) really puts the nutjobs in the box seat.  The Greens will want more bicycle paths and Bob Katter will want more dams and ethanol plants for North Queensland.  Let the bunfight begin.

If the Coalition scrapes in with the support of one or two independents, then we are back to the scenario of no federal funding (at this stage) for CRR MkIII.  IA will make a sensible evaluation of the Business Case and make a recommendation to government re its funding.  With talk of the government re-tweaking superannuation and health spending to reflect voter concerns, infrastructure funding may have to take a back seat.  After all, from a political perspective, the available spend as been 'targetted' in the areas to garner the most votes.  This is the PCR Index (Political Cost Ratio).  The spare change down the back of the parliamentary couch has been dug out and spent/promised.

All-in-all, the big Queensland Labor's gamble on release of the CRR business case during the election campaign and teeing up with Mr Shorten beforehand to commit a federal Labor Government to funding it seems a bit of a shambles.  So where too from here?  Will Ms Trad apply her brightest lipstick and shout down the TV cameras, yet again, 'SHOW US THE MONEY'?

[ozbob]

The best hope for CRR #3 under the present mess is for a majority L/NP Government.  They could still limp to the line with 76 seats.  If they are forced to enter into a minority government with Katter and perhaps others, any significant infrastructure funding for Brisbane you can kiss good bye too IMHO.  The government will be at the mercy of political extremists and will certainly fail eventually.  The problem will be of course infrastructure stalemate for years more.

Queensland has been treated poorly by L/NP that is very clear, but our incompetent State Government has not helped with delayed business cases etc.  QLD LNP is also a load of rabble.  Very sad future for Queensland at this time.

So, a summary for CRR #3 is:

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow now Brisbane, Queensland

' A summary for Cross River Rail #3 future is ... '

> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg176299#msg176299 ...

#qldpol #auspol #deadduckqld

[James]

All-in-all, the big Queensland Labor's gamble on release of the CRR business case during the election campaign and teeing up with Mr Shorten beforehand to commit a federal Labor Government to funding it seems a bit of a shambles.  So where too from here?  Will Ms Trad apply her brightest lipstick and shout down the TV cameras, yet again, 'SHOW US THE MONEY'?

As sure as night follows day, Trad will put on the lipstick, gather the media puppies around and cry out "Show me the money! Show me the money!", like a child does when they can't get their favourite toy.

CRR #3 will just have to wait for the next electoral cycle. 2018 here we come!

[ozbob]

Yep, hate to be pessimistic but one must be realistic.  Our state Government is failing, and failing badly.  CRR #3 is over.  Looking forward to the next iteration now -  CRR #4.

The State Government  cannot even find the courage to stand up to Quirk et al. and call out the ' metro ' for the bull sh%t it really is.

They whisper behind closed doors, and occasionally leak a memo or two.  But morally they are as weak as p%ss sadly.

Transport is just an almighty mess, no amount of spin / rhetoric can disguise this now.   Total shambles!!

[Stillwater]

Well, if State Labor can't get any matching money from the feds for CRR, it has $800m in infrastructure money left unspent.  Suggest change of plan .....

1) State Government reallocates the $800m it has set aside for CRR, but which it has no avenue for spending
2) Announces it will put the $800m towards the SCL upgrade, duplication to Landsborough North IF the Federal Government matches the $800m for track upgrade further north to Gympie North (possibly beyond - to Rockhampton)

The rationale is this.  So far we have $800m, probably, for a $5.4 billion project.  Ain't going to happen.  However, $800m will bring forward essential infrastructure on the SCL, create jobs and suck up excess capacity in the mining/construction sector.  The work supports Caloundra South development.  State Government could argue that it is starting work immediately (the planning is there) and will expect the feds to kick in their money once the SCL business case is submitted to IA and evaluated.  That will be June 2017, allowing for the feds to allocate money for SCL in 2018-19 Budget.

Result: $800m for Queensland from the feds, $1.6 billion in transport infrastructure for Queensland.  With a positive BCR, this project will make money for taxpayers.  It isn't $5.4 billion, but it is $1.6 billion to buy a good piece of infrastructure.

Of course, some of that $800m might have to be held in reserve for the MBRL fix, but a substantial amount is left over for SCL.

The state government's position that all transport infrastructure projects are on hold (incl. extension of the Springfield Line to RP and the SCL duplication) until enough money is saved year-on-year to meet the cost of CRR, and only then should the money flow elsewhere, is an unsustainable and illogical position.

[James]

Yep, hate to be pessimistic but one must be realistic.  Our state Government is failing, and failing badly.  CRR #3 is over.  Looking forward to the next iteration now -  CRR #4.

The State Government  cannot even find the courage to stand up to Quirk et al. and call out the ' metro ' for the bull sh%t it really is.

They whisper behind closed doors, and occasionally leak a memo or two.  But morally they are as weak as p%ss sadly.

Transport is just an almighty mess, no amount of spin / rhetoric can disguise this now.   Total shambles!!

As long as we don't change governments, I reckon CRR #3 will be what gets up. Even then, if someone with less of a 'scorched earth' approach than Newman leads the LNP to a 2018 victory, CRR #3 may still remain the plan.

Anna P. lacking the courage to stand up to Quirk is no surprise. Quirk is quite popular with Brisbanites. I expect the Metro will fall over in due course. A fight will eventually come when BCC asks the state to hand over the busway and it says 'No'.

[ozbob]

^ yes, no  way will they hand over the busway.  The fact that they lack the courage to publicly condemn the fraud is very very disappointing to me.  The mediocre ALP campaign for BCC votes was just another show of general political incompetence, which is not confined to the ALP by the way, LNP and L/NP are equally mediocre.

Brisbane media is captive to BCC in general as well in the main.  They too lack the moral courage to really analyse and report in a balanced way - some exceptions but mainly it is just regurgitated statements etc.  They accept the bullsh%t as fact.  Very very sad and it doesn't auger well for future Brisbane at all.

There has been an interesting sub-plot with the federal election.  The disconnect between the main stream media and political reality, and actuality.  I find it rewarding that it has now been recognised, first signs were with #qldvotes and #vicvotes, but has been further made manifestly clear with #ausvotes.

[ozbob]

L/NP are across the majority government line.  CRR #3 lives on for now ... 

[ozbob]

So this is where Cross River Rail #3 sits for now ...

... Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in Loganholme last week told Fairfax Media he conditionally supported the Cross River Rail project, but the federal government needed to read the project's business case before committing funds.

Mr Turnbull questioned Mr Shorten's allocation of $800 million without reading 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."

Infrastructure Australia Queensland chief executive Steve Abson on Monday said while a cost-benefit ratio of 1.21 was "not particularly high", the project should go ahead.

"It doesn't sound like a particularly high CBA - 1.2 - but when you look at the scale of the $5.4 billion project then there is obviously significant benefit," Mr Abson said.

Mr Abson said major contractors wanted to know the scale of "value capture", the investment to be drawn from rising land values and fees, included in the project.

"We need to see in the business case, when it is released, what sort of reliance they are having on value capture to fund part of that," he said.

The Palaszczuk Government set up a body called Building Queensland to assess all infrastructure projects valued at more than $50 million when it won office in January 2015.

On Monday Building Queensland released it first-ever list of infrastructure projects, called Building Queensland's June 2016 "pipeline of infrastructure projects".

Not surprisingly, the Cross River Rail project, was on top of that list of projects ...

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/federal-election-2016-queensland-finds-800-million-for-cross-river-rail-20160627-gpsrgr.html

[Stillwater]

The Queensland Government should not assume it is the norm not to do the hard yards in terms of preparing cogent and robust business cases for major infrastructure projects and hope that its lack of business case preparation can be compensated by desperate politicians at election time abandoning sound process and giving away millions of dollars of taxpayer money.  Message to Jackie Trad and Co: "SHOW US THE BUSINESS CASES".  The attempt to snooker Malcolm Turnbull and the LNP by coordinating release of the CRR business case just days before election, with the Shorten commitment of $800m shows that the state government sees the placement of infrastructure and the infrastructure project in terms of winning votes, not in terms of freight and passenger movement efficiency.  We should guard against the government of the day politicising Building Queensland and pressuring it to tweak the BCR assessment of labor-favoured projects.

Just look at the neutering of TransLink.

Not only have we had three attempts at getting CRR right, we also have governments with a propensity to launch '30-year visions' for infrastructure and transport that barely last three years before being re-written.  We have even had brazen interference in the processes, cancelling a tender that had been let on the SCL for instance, following a political outcome that did not go the way of the government of the day.

Self-deluding promises, such as rapid rail between the coasts and Brisbane in 'about an hour' are meaningless, without parallel planning for raising the money to build the necessary infrastructure.  Further message to Jackie Trad and Co: "SHOW US THE PIPELINE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING BEFORE DISCUSSING WITH TAXPAYERS THE PROJECTS IT WILL BUY."

[ozbob]

The Queensland Government should not assume it is the norm not to do the hard yards in terms of preparing cogent and robust business cases for major infrastructure projects and hope that its lack of business case preparation can be compensated by desperate politicians at election time abandoning sound process and giving away millions of dollars of taxpayer money.  Message to Jackie Trad and Co: "SHOW US THE BUSINESS CASES".  The attempt to snooker Malcolm Turnbull and the LNP by coordinating release of the CRR business case just days before election, with the Shorten commitment of $800m shows that the state government sees the placement of infrastructure and the infrastructure project in terms of winning votes, not in terms of freight and passenger movement efficiency.  We should guard against the government of the day politicising Building Queensland and pressuring it to tweak the BCR assessment of labor-favoured projects.

Just look at the neutering of TransLink.

Not only have we had three attempts at getting CRR right, we also have governments with a propensity to launch '30-year visions' for infrastructure and transport that barely last three years before being re-written.  We have even had brazen interference in the processes, cancelling a tender that had been let on the SCL for instance, following a political outcome that did not go the way of the government of the day.

Self-deluding promises, such as rapid rail between the coasts and Brisbane in 'about an hour' are meaningless, without parallel planning for raising the money to build the necessary infrastructure.  Further message to Jackie Trad and Co: "SHOW US THE PIPELINE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING BEFORE DISCUSSING WITH TAXPAYERS THE PROJECTS IT WILL BUY."

To put it bluntly Mr Stillwater, if the State Government had not dallied with the business case for CRR it would be commencing in the next few months IMO.  They had a year where very little was done.  Had the business case been submitted to IA and properly assessed prior to #ausvotes we would be on the way, no doubt.

Both the ALP and LNP are hopeless.  Sad reality.  It comes down to who does the least harm ...