Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

$715 million for CRR1

Out of say a 6 BN project is c.a. 12% of total project costs. Not serious.

In fact, nobody has been serious about the funding. They are all throwing around peanut figures that don't even fund a decent amount of the total costs.

[Derwan]

$715 million for CRR1

Out of say a 6 BN project is c.a. 12% of total project costs. Not serious.

It was for the scaled-down (stage 1) $4.4 billion version and is really no different to the current figure of $800 million for the current $5.4 billion project.  They're obviously planning for the rest to come from "somewhere".  (Tooth fairy perhaps.)

[ozbob]

Various scenarios from here as I see it.

1.  Qld Government manages to get business case evaluated by IA and some funding achieved. Political reality bites and bulk of the money is found through value capture, rates,  loans and asset leases. Project proceeds.

2.  Business case flops.  Project remains in limbo.  (What's new?).

3.  State election:  LNP victorious.  They scrap CRR and support the metro.  CRR is seen as a red project, despite blue supporting it on and off for years.  At this point Brisbane's & SEQ's future public transport is well and truly ruined of course.  But hey, does anyone really care besides us?  It's polyticks!

4.  State election: ALP victorious.  CRR goes to iteration number 6 or 7 ....

Meanwhile bus jam in Brisbane just worsens.   ALP and LNP both lack the courage to fix it.  They are morally as weak as p%ss sadly.

" We don't need network reform, but we do need a metro hey? "

As I've said many times, despite the complete replication of lack of attention to basic issues with the bus network down here*, we at least have the advantage of having our most important 2 rail issues now currently being solved.  GCLR extension to the border will be essential over time and will do very well, but we are not exactly at a point where the system is grinding to a halt without it.  Likewise the extension south from Varsity Lakes.  I don't envy Brisbane.

(* Disclaimer - I am currently at my desk in Queen St in the city!)

Yep, the only ray of sunshine is the Gold Coast (bus issues not withstanding  ).

For Brisbane and the rest of SEQ the future is very grim indeed.

[ozbob]

I would have hoped that in today's media there would be some attempt to highlight the strong points of the Cross River Rail business case and the true value of CRR after the concerns in the Courier Mail yesterday.

No response from Government is very unsatisfactory IMO.   

It is almost tantamount to saying in effect ' the project is dead, we are incompetent, no idea, no real plans, don't care '. 

We need more than video animations.  There hasn't even been a countering statement from Government.

[#Metro]

No response from Government is very unsatisfactory IMO.   

Well if they don't say anything, maybe in their world, it didn't happen?

Brisbane City Council uses the same approach. A ton of stuff about bus reform - they have not come out

and engaged with the issue. Never. Just a few lines when the New Bus Network Proposal went out in 2014 to say that it was

noted.

[ozbob]

No sign of a business case summary or business case on > http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/

[ozbob]

Well, while we are waiting ... settle back and enjoy this classic .. 

[Stillwater]

Remember when the LNP admitted that they released the BAT plans knowing that the BAT would not be built?  So intense has been the politics around this project that the politics has become an end in itself.  This is the biggest political football going in Queensland -- with statements back and forth from both camps trying the embarrass the other side politically.

So complete is the politicians' grip on this project that the bureaucrats must be frustrated to buggery, including by having to take directions from ministerial advisers to 'cook the books'.  The project is hopelessly tainted and compromised.

The reason for CRR, from an urban planning and congestion-busting transport perspective, has been lost.  The government is incapable of arguing the case from that point of view.  That is the problem, Ozbob.  Politicians insist on being the spokespersons for this project.  They back-bite and snipe to the extent that the whole project has become so tainted that the private sector will be highly suspicious.  This will affect their willingness to invest.

For CRR to progress to reality, politicians must decide to take a back seat, authorising the experts within government to go public with the arguments from a transport efficiency and social equity and town planning perspective.  That is what is being lost.

The Business Case for CRR should be released, perhaps within the context of a 'CRR Colloquium' attended by all the industry players.  The politicians should take a back seat at such a gathering  -- be seen, but not heard.  It is an impossible task, unfortunately.

[ozbob]

...

For CRR to progress to reality, politicians must decide to take a back seat, authorising the experts within government to go public with the arguments from a transport efficiency and social equity and town planning perspective.  That is what is being lost.

The Business Case for CRR should be released, perhaps within the context of a 'CRR Colloquium' attended by all the industry players.  The politicians should take a back seat at such a gathering  -- be seen, but not heard.  It is an impossible task, unfortunately.

Well said.  That is exactly what needs to occur.  Sadly, I think they lack the smarts to realise that.

[nathandavid88]

Even though it may not meet calculated targets Re: cost based ratio? It has the potential of private regeneration of areas and employment oppotunities with new businesses opening up around stations and the construction of those businesses. E.g. I suspect that Westfield Helensvale will do well with Light rail Stage 2 completion.

The big thing is that many of the CRR Station locations are currently undergoing regeneration irrespective of whether CRR goes ahead or not. At Boggo Road, the development application to refurbish and adapt Boggo Road Gaol is being assessed, with an approval to build apartments across the road next to the station. Woolloongabba is already undergoing a massive redevelopment with a lot of big developments along Stanley Street, Logan Road and Wellington Road. There are a few big developments planned or underway for the area of the CBD around Albert Street, and the RNA redevelopment is in full swing, with the next major stage beginning after this year's Ekka.

The only real regenerative opportunities associated with CRR, are in way of redevelopment directly above the Albert Street Station and the redevelopment of/above the Woolloongabba Station (Go Print and Landcentre(?) site). As SurfRail mentioned a few posts back, the value of these sites is little more than a drop in the bucket, and wouldn't even fund the construction of the station below the site.

[Stillwater]

The state government PR jockeys have been put to work ghost writing a piece for Jackie Trad, talking up the benefits of CRR.  My favourite line .... "CRR is more than a benefit-cost number"

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-cross-river-rail-will-define-brisbane-says-deputy-premier-jackie-trad/news-story/a8f1da843e4ea513107d437f7c45cace

[#Metro]

"CRR is more than a benefit-cost number"

If an assessment is rejected every time the result comes up and The Queensland Gov't don't like it, why bother doing an assessment at all? She may as well fire the Building Queensland board and approve Quack Metro as well, because it the Queensland Government isn't going to take the advice, there is no need for it.

The Queensland Government needs to explain where circa $1BN of project benefits (i.e. about a 50% reduction in benefits) disappeared to when one compares CRR3 to CRR1.

Jackie Trad again throws around the BCR of 1.21. This is deceptive as it is a P50 value which should not be used for anything other than to provide a midpoint marker. The P90 value is more reliable. Using the P50 value means that there is a 50% chance the project will cost overrun. On a project like this, that could be a very significant overshoot.

The P90 is 1.12. Razor thin. At least it is positive, but as this is "the summary" I can only wonder if the actual BCR is lower than 1.

Raising an objection to this aspect of the project does not mean that Cross River Rail is not required. It means that this specific version (#3) has had things done to it that reduce the benefits significantly.

For example, I could propose that gold rails be used in the tunnel. This would reduce the BCR massively. Yet I could still make all the arguments that Jackie Trad made about vision, time savings, development opportunity, train throughput etc. Her arguments miss the mark entirely, and raise questions about whether the project will actually be $5.4 BN or more like $7 BN. In that case, we may as well build CRR1, not CRR3.

The Story Bridge is a real example of how major infrastructure reshapes and remakes cities. Without the foresight and resolve to push forward with this visionary project, Brisbane would not be the city we know today.

My understanding was that the Story Bridge was a make-work program to deal with the depression. Its purpose was to tide people over. Queensland is also not in a depression / recession.

Cross River Rail will support more than 1540 jobs a year during construction and will support up to 65,000 new jobs within the new station precincts once delivered.

Construction jobs created are not a benefit, but a cost. Perhaps twice as many people could be employed if machines were not used, for example.

Both projects required governments to demonstrate commitment and the ability to think for today, plan for tomorrow and deliver for future generations.

Err. No. It demonstrates the exact opposite. An unstable, dithering government that took 7 years to deliver three video animations, the progressive ruination of a good project to a butchered project, an administration addicted and infected with spin and unable to finance or deliver because it painted itself in a corner with no sales/leases/borrowing rhetoric.

It is truly a miracle that the Gold Coast Light Rail has managed to avoid much of these problems so far.

[#Metro]

Enough excuses, Brisbane cross river rail needs to be built ($)
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/enough-excuses-brisbane-cross-river-rail-needs-to-be-built/news-story/3d4a1353e761842d764dd054fcbd719a

"BRISBANE'S long-stalled Cross River Rail plan is becoming like the neighbourhood motoring enthusiast's proverbial car restoration project.

Despite years of talk, nothing has actually been achieved, the cost of completing the undertaking continues to grow, and few believe it will ever be actually done."

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

13th July 2016

Enough excuses, Brisbane cross river rail needs to be built

Good Morning,

So the the Courier Mail now correctly opines ' Enough excuses, Brisbane cross river rail needs to be built '

> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/enough-excuses-brisbane-cross-river-rail-needs-to-be-built/news-story/3d4a1353e761842d764dd054fcbd719a

Couldn't agree more.   The political games and delay with the business case for Cross River Rail has been unacceptable at many levels.

It is now time to come clean, and progress this project urgently.

Enough of the political games.

It is time politicians stood back and allowed the transport experts within the Government bureaucracy to get on with it, free from political interference from all sides.

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.msg176436#msg176436 ]

[ozbob]

Enough excuses, (cross) river rail needs to be built > https://t.co/BwEcbnq3rb #qldpol

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) July 12, 2016

[ozbob]

Latest: ' Enough excuses, Brisbane cross river rail needs to be built '
> https://t.co/kIXsGa2xHK#qldpol #auspol pic.twitter.com/U6Jer42XyT

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) July 12, 2016

[ozbob]

The Queensland Government has still not spoken up for Cross River Rail.  It is left to the Courier Mail to opine.

Shambles.

[Stillwater]

The Courier-Mail editorial piece could be summed up in three words: Just Do It!

A state government with such a thin majority probably needs some reassurance that there will not be a voter backlash if it charges some sort of 'financial impost' (do not use the word 'tax') on the people of the South-East (people up north will be mad if they pay).

Can Jackie Trad and Co. leave off talking up the project and allow the bureaucrats to take it from here.  Can we then take it beyond the animation and glossy brochure -- please.  Her piece for the paper did not mention finances - at all.

We are all big girls and boys.  Let's have a conversation about ways to pay for it.  Put something on the table, Palaszczuk Government.  Don't talk in vagaries.  It should show some spine and demonstrate that it can manage to deliver Queensland's 'No.1 Infrastructure project.'  Otherwise people might get the impression that this government can't deliver anything.  The voter backlash will come if the government continues to sit on its hands.

[#Metro]

The Queensland Government is rapidly losing altitude now. This is ridiculous!!

Cross River Rail has been announced three times. Read that again - three times!

Hidden business case! What garbage! They should release the entire thing immediately. If they "need time"

to read the business case, they can do that after it is posted on their website along with everyone else.

There is only so many times you can announce the same project over and over again.

[James]

Can Jackie Trad and Co. leave off talking up the project and allow the bureaucrats to take it from here.  Can we then take it beyond the animation and glossy brochure -- please.  Her piece for the paper did not mention finances - at all.

We are all big girls and boys.  Let's have a conversation about ways to pay for it.  Put something on the table, Palaszczuk Government.  Don't talk in vagaries.  It should show some spine and demonstrate that it can manage to deliver Queensland's 'No.1 Infrastructure project.'  Otherwise people might get the impression that this government can't deliver anything.  The voter backlash will come if the government continues to sit on its hands.

There is no need to ask where the money is coming from - we already know, it is coming from Malcolm after we tell him to "Show us the money"

James has given up for the meantime. Thinking about the constant merry-go-round which is CRR only just makes me cranky about how Brisbane is getting screwed by BCC/state government. In particular, an incompetent state government which has to resort to accounting tricks to balance the books. BCC and non-action on bus network reform comes a close second.

State needs to get some balls, tell BCC to shove its metro, borrow some money, build CRR. It is too late to do nothing. The fact the CM is doing the talking on CRR #3 really shows that the state government has no idea.

[SurfRail]

Is everybody on holidays on George St?

[#Metro]

Is everybody on holidays on George St?

Isn't it scary SurfRail? It is like State and Local Government have been infected with brain rot fungus and turned into zombies mouthing public relations.

[The Reaper]

Build to the original CRR 1 but to remove the gold plating make the southern portal between Dutton Park and Fairfield making provision to extend the tunnel to Yeeroongpilly at a later date.

Comments like this really don't help. It's the same language that has been used by the various forms of TMR to deny funding to rail projects, all the while making every road interchange a cloverleaf. But I digress.

The "gold plating" you mention is more accurately described as "fundamentally necessary", and is probably the main contributor to the reduction in BCR between iterations #1 and #3. Quickly, the benefits and functionality afforded by the Yeerongpilly portal are:

• Faster travel times for all passengers using the tunnel, including those from Yeerongpilly
• Removes the need to build platforms on the dual gauge track, saving 6 x platform and station upgrades
• Allows 24 access between Tennyson (and potentially Acacia Ridge depending on configuration) and the Port of Brisbane for freight traffic

But more than any of this the Yeerongpilly portal is needed to deal with the number of out of service trains each side of the peak, to reach the yards at Clapham. If the tunnel can take 24tph, and the existing Merivale Bridge also 24, this means a maximum of 48tph will be headed southbound during the AM peak. These need to go somewhere, and the original design allowed the out of service component (which could be up to 30tph, after taking out regular counterpeak services) to access Clapham over two tracks free of conflict. Without this capability, the capacity of the system is limited, which means iteration #3 provides less capacity than iteration #1. It is also worth noting that the Yeerongpilly portal option was identified in the precursor studies to CRR for this reason, after originally favouring Fairfield. This is because the surface resumptions to provide the same capacity would have cost significantly more than simply extending the tunnel, and unnecessarily caused severe community impacts.

The Yeeronpilly portal - not gold plating, not a "nice to have", but critically fundamental from day one of the project.

[#Metro]

Build to the original CRR 1 but to remove the gold plating make the southern portal between Dutton Park and Fairfield making provision to extend the tunnel to Yeeroongpilly at a later date.

The thing is, it is CRR1 that is the best project to build. It is superior to all other projects proposed so far on both BCR and NPV terms. It has the greatest social return for money invested by any measure.

The "lack of funding" is purely artificial, due to another political piece of gymnastics, the whole 'no assets sales/leases/borrowing/taxes' pledge which leaves just the tooth fairy to fund this project.

This is insane!

[ozbob]

Build to the original CRR 1 but to remove the gold plating make the southern portal between Dutton Park and Fairfield making provision to extend the tunnel to Yeeroongpilly at a later date.

Comments like this really don't help. It's the same language that has been used by the various forms of TMR to deny funding to rail projects, all the while making every road interchange a cloverleaf. But I digress.

The "gold plating" you mention is more accurately described as "fundamentally necessary", and is probably the main contributor to the reduction in BCR between iterations #1 and #3. Quickly, the benefits and functionality afforded by the Yeerongpilly portal are:

• Faster travel times for all passengers using the tunnel, including those from Yeerongpilly
• Removes the need to build platforms on the dual gauge track, saving 6 x platform and station upgrades
• Allows 24 access between Tennyson (and potentially Acacia Ridge depending on configuration) and the Port of Brisbane for freight traffic

But more than any of this the Yeerongpilly portal is needed to deal with the number of out of service trains each side of the peak, to reach the yards at Clapham. If the tunnel can take 24tph, and the existing Merivale Bridge also 24, this means a maximum of 48tph will be headed southbound during the AM peak. These need to go somewhere, and the original design allowed the out of service component (which could be up to 30tph, after taking out regular counterpeak services) to access Clapham over two tracks free of conflict. Without this capability, the capacity of the system is limited, which means iteration #3 provides less capacity than iteration #1. It is also worth noting that the Yeerongpilly portal option was identified in the precursor studies to CRR for this reason, after originally favouring Fairfield. This is because the surface resumptions to provide the same capacity would have cost significantly more than simply extending the tunnel, and unnecessarily caused severe community impacts.

The Yeeronpilly portal - not gold plating, not a "nice to have", but critically fundamental from day one of the project.

Yo.

Really sad that one of the first acts of the Newman regime was to reverse the property acquisitions at Yeerongpilly to properly enable CRR.  Morons ...

[#Metro]

Hello. This might help.

4.2.2. P50 and P90 cost estimation
From an organisational point of view, the expected cost of a portfolio of projects is of more
interest than the costs of projects costed separately. Individual projects are considered at the
mean of a simulated cost distribution, typically the P50 estimate. The P50 cost value is an
estimate of the project cost based on a 50% probability that the cost will not be exceeded.

The P90 value is an estimate of the project cost based on a 90% probability that the cost will
not be exceeded. Project proponents (and their management) often prefer to have less
commercial (and political) exposure in respect of capital budgets and often look for a P90
figure (or equivalent if done deterministically), meaning the contingency allowance on top of
the base estimate is sufficient to ensure that there is a 90% chance that the amount will not
be exceeded (Evans and Peck 2008a).

Federal Infrastructure recommends the use of the P90 cost estimate in financial budgeting.

7. Conclusion

This paper is intended to draw the attention of transport agencies to the Best Practice Cost
Estimation ('the Standard') in the preparation of cost estimates for any proposed project(s)
that require funding from the Australian Government. The application of 'the Standard' will
assist the Government in their understanding and appraisal of project proposals, and
improve the preparation of cost estimates that form part of the documentation to make them
more transparent, reliable and consistent.

The incorporation of risk should be a necessary step in project cost estimation at all stages
of a project, by applying the P90, rather than the P50, value. It is claimed that adoption of the
P90 value will improve the alignment of cost estimates between the Australian Government
and transport agencies.

'Best practice' cost estimation in land
transport infrastructure projects

http://atrf.info/papers/2010/2010_tan_makwasha.pdf

[Stillwater]

Note that whenever the feds and the state government share the cost of a project 50:50 or 80:20 (or whatever) these days, the feds stipulate the dollar amount they will pay, equivalent to their share, based on the project cost that Queensland has estimated.  When costs go over the estimate, Queensland starts squealing that the feds are 'not paying their fair share' or that the agreement was 50:50 of the eventual cost, each side paying half.  The feds' tactic is to discipline the state to get its cost estimation right, or wear the cost difference itself.

Not getting the cost of CRR right would be disastrous.

Another interesting thing is that the state government says CRR is the No.1 top priority project and that all other track enhancement, extensions and upgrades hang off it.  Some of these projects can be done independently of CRR proceeding, but the state government has a fixed mind on the subject.  All passenger track augmentation and upgrades in SEQ are on hold, apart from a signalling upgrade to make the existing track work a little harder.

Calls for SCL duplication or Springfield line extension to Ripley are met with the one single response: "CRR has priority."  Thus, nothing happens anywhere.

The government has also been silent on MBRL fix and its costs.  This fixit money may have to come from the $800m Queensland has allocated for CRR.  There would appear to be no other bucket available.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

13th July 2016

Cross River Rail - What a Mess!

Greetings,

We welcome Deputy Premier Jackie Trad's piece in The Courier Mail (July 13, 2016) today.

Cross River Rail has been a victim of successive Queensland Governments crass politicking within the transport portfolio. It is the reason why, after almost eight years, we still don't have a single metre of Cross River Rail tunnel built. Other areas of the transport portfolio, such as bus network reforms and until recently, fares across the public transport network, were also affected.

Just how damaging has this politicking been on the people of Queensland?

Deputy Premier Jackie Trad says that Cross River Rail's cost benefit ratio is strong at 1.21. While this is sound, the original Cross River Rail 1 proposal was even better bang for buck. With a cost benefit ratio of 1.42 rising to 1.63 when wider economic benefits were counted, it was a superior project when compared against the current proposal.

In other words, later changes to the Cross River Rail project have made it a worse, not a better, project.

Building Queensland, the public agency tasked with preparing Cross River Rail's business case, estimates that the current Cross River Rail proposal will generate around $996 million of benefits to society. Benefits include reduced travel times, less pollution, reduced congestion, and so forth. Again, this is good. However, the Queensland Government's Co-ordinator General estimated that building the original Cross River Rail project would have generated $2.3 billion of benefits to society.

In other words, approximately $1 billion of social benefits has apparently been lost due to changes to the Cross River Rail Project brought on by politics.

Some of the changes to Cross River Rail have been forced by the loss of property reserved at Yeerongpilly for the original Cross River Rail project - an ill thought out move by the former Newman Government. We speculate that much of this gross loss in project benefits is due alterations surrounding the placement of the southern portal, which was originally intended to begin around Yeerongpilly.

In any case, we call on the Queensland Government to immediately publish the full Cross River Rail business case and all supporting modelling, assumptions and calculations on the Department of Transport website.

The Queensland Government is quickly losing credibility over its ability to deliver Cross River Rail and other projects in the transport portfolio such as bus reform within Brisbane.

After almost eight years, Queensland deserves more than three video animations.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

References:

Opinion: Cross River Rail will define Brisbane, says Deputy Premier Jackie Trad
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-cross-river-rail-will-define-brisbane-says-deputy-premier-jackie-trad/news-story/a8f1da843e4ea513107d437f7c45cace

"In terms of overall project benefit, the EIS identified that the project would deliver a net present value (NPV) of $2.3 billion with a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1:42. The EIS also predicted that this BCR would increase to 1:63 when the wider economic impacts are included."
Source: page 107, Cross River Rail project Coordinator-General's report on the environmental impact statement December 2012. http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/resources/project/cross-river-rail/crr-eis.pdf

'Best practice' cost estimation in land transport infrastructure projects
http://atrf.info/papers/2010/2010_tan_makwasha.pdf (Contains an explanation of what P50 and P90 mean)

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

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Opinion: Cross River Rail will define Brisbane, says Deputy Premier Jackie Trad

CROSS River Rail is Queensland's number one infrastructure priority and will transform the way we live and move around southeast Queensland.

It has a strong benefit cost ratio of 1.21 – better than comparative projects like Melbourne Metro and Inland Rail. But projects like this are more than a BCR – they deliver transformational benefits not captured in the economic analysis alone.

Cross River Rail will mean shorter times right across the network, saving commuters up to 15 minutes from Beenleigh; 14 from Manly and nine from Petrie. It will more than double rail capacity through the inner-city, reducing commuter waiting times by more than 11,000 hours a day. But it is not just a rail project – it is also an opportunity to reshape our region and unlock the full potential of our city.

For good reason, it is the Palaszczuk Government's highest infrastructure priority and an important part of our plan to unlock economic opportunities and make Queensland more internationally competitive.

The looming capacity crunch on our rail network is reminiscent of the inner-city capacity problems Brisbane faced during the 1920s, when growth meant we were struggling to meet traffic demand with just one inner-city crossing – the Victoria Bridge.

The solution – the Story Bridge – was proposed at a time when there were only around 100,000 registered cars in Queensland. Today, the heritage-listed structure carries that many cars a day.

The Story Bridge is a real example of how major infrastructure reshapes and remakes cities. Without the foresight and resolve to push forward with this visionary project, Brisbane would not be the city we know today.

Cross River Rail is a similar project to the Story Bridge. With no major rail infrastructure investment in inner-city Brisbane since 1996 and no new inner-city river crossings since the Merivale Bridge in 1978, the reality is our already congested inner-city rail network will start to reach capacity from 2021 without Cross River Rail.

Despite nearly a century between the proposed Story Bridge and Cross River Rail projects, the priority to generate economic and employment benefits for Queensland is unchanged.

The construction of the Story Bridge gave Queenslanders jobs when we needed it most – during the Great Depression. At its peak construction phase the Story Bridge project offered significant employment opportunities, employing around 400 in workshops, the office and on-site.

Cross River Rail will support more than 1540 jobs a year during construction and will support up to 65,000 new jobs within the new station precincts once delivered.

Both projects required governments to demonstrate commitment and the ability to think for today, plan for tomorrow and deliver for future generations. Cross River Rail will leave a legacy of enduring benefits long after people lose interest in the political argy-bargy and number crunching.

Modern, smart cities invest in public transport. We must deliver this project for our people, our economy and our future.

Like the Story Bridge of 1940, Cross River Rail will reshape and redefine Brisbane, generating new places to live and work.

Jackie Trad is Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure

[IanFraser]

Just a few comments on the Cost-benefit Analysis from a long-standing Actuary (well, I actually prefer to sit on trains, but that's another story). People are going off in different directions with their comments, often stemming from ingrained political party biases, but the whole concept of cost-benefit analysis is to try and provide some guide for ranking projects one against another. As performed in Australia, it is a very inexact science and rarely sums up in one number enough of the nuances, benefits and risks in a project. Indeed that process is often better left to bankers and long term funding institutions, but rarely to politicians unless they have a very brave, forward-looking public service insisting on the very best standards of advice, standing behind them.

I am only freshly a property owner in Qld (from NSW) so cannot comment on the local scene - including the original similar or different projects proposed over the years) except to say this:
A) To use a discount rate of 7% pa in real terms when AAA governments can currently borrow at less than 3% for the longest issue terms (deduct your own estimate of inflation from that to get the value in real terms, but it is extraordinarily low by recent historical standards) seems somewhat "out of whack";
B) To compare a backbone heavy rail project over a 30-year period when the asset life is generally regarded as 80-100 years, at least, seems likewise a trifle (tongue-in-cheek here) biased;
C) To compare a heavy rail project moving masses of people per hour with (say) roads that otherwise might need additional lanes added in that time frame and where the carrying capacity of persons per lane is substantially below that of rail, introduces another bias which any commentator should be very wary of backing.

So take any number in this latest report with a grain of salt. Yes, Infrastructure Australia prefers a P90 case rather than P50 for construction costs (that will stay as a rule until Australia gets to be more reliable in terms of our building & construction costs) but the National Transport System Management Guidelines for project evaluation are in desperate need of a total re-working (not just a revisions at the edges which has been happening) if we are to eliminate the inherent biases in the way in which these BCR numbers are produced and interpreted.

DO NOT jump to initial conclusions, I say, about a quoted BCR and let the professionals get in and do their work on this - hopefully keeping politicians side-lined until they can give better than Sir Humphries' famous "fearless advice". And remember, "wider benefits" that cannot be quantified are sometimes worth more than those that can be.

[ozbob]

Welcome Ian. 

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the wider benefits can be very considerable.  They are in the case of CRR.

We really need this project to happen from here.  Hopefully politics might be finally put aside.

[ozbob]

Smart cities invest in public transport – the Palaszczuk Gov and @QldLabor will deliver Cross River Rail for #qld https://t.co/cDfUuedEOr

— Jackie Trad (@jackietrad) July 13, 2016

[ozbob]

Just to highlight again:

Cross River Rail Business Case 'Summary'

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

[#Metro]

From the Melbourne Metro business case:
http://melbournemetro.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/40494/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-06.PDF

8.1. Key economic indicators
The following economic performance measures were calculated to compare the economic
viability of Melbourne Metro:

The Net Present Value (NPV) gives an indication of the magnitude of net benefit to society,
calculated by taking the difference between the present value of the total incremental
benefits and the present value of the total incremental costs. Positive NPVs indicate an
investment is desirable to society as a whole.

The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is a measure of value for money for government expenditure,
calculated by dividing the present value of total incremental benefits by the present value of
the investment and recurrent operating and maintenance costs. It is of principal value when
Government is considering spending scarce funds. BCRs greater than one indicate that an
investment is economically efficient.

(Basically, if I used gold for the rails in CRR, the costs would increase and the BCR would thus fall. All the arguments re: travel time improvments, vision etc, would still hold, but the project's overall value would be eroded)

Deputy Premier Jackie Trad claimed that CRR was had a better BCR than Melbourne Metro. Really?

What she appears to have done is compare her pumped up BCR of 1.21 (with WEBs) to the WEBs-free BCR figure of
1.1 for the Melbourne Metro. So it is apples and oranges I am afraid.

More importantly, the Melbourne Metro's benefits for society are almost four times greater than that offered by Cross River Rail 3.  Indeed, the Melbourne Metro's NPV is similar to that of the original Cross River Rail #1 proposal.

A massive amount of benefit ($1 BN approx.) has been lost through subsequent changes to the CRR proposal.

When the Queenland Government has to resort to slippery comparisons and silly games like 'summary' business cases released on election eve, and take 8 years to deliver three video animations, one can have no confidence in anything that they say.

A properly constituted project with competent administration does not require trickery to sell itself.

8.2. Key findings – Melbourne Metro Program

Table 16 summarises the economic evaluation results for the Melbourne Metro Program.
Using VITM demand modelling data, the BCR for the Melbourne Metro Program ranges from
1.5 to 3.3 and NPV ranges from $3.7bn to $18.0bn (under an holistic assessment including
WEBs) discounting at 7 and 4 per cent respectively at the P50 cost level.

Under an assessment that considers conventional benefits only, the BCR ranges from 1.1 (discounting at 7 per cent)
to 2.4 (discounting at 4 per cent).

Using Zenith demand modelling data, the BCR for the Melbourne Metro Program ranges from
1.9 to 3.9 and NPV ranges from $5.9bn to $22.5bn (under an holistic assessment including
WEBs) discounting at 7 and 4 per cent respectively at the P50 cost level. Under an assessment
that considers conventional benefits

[ozbob]

Hopefully the full business case for CRR will be made available.  I am sure IA will give it a good going over.

Nothing will happen until it is evaluated.

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Trad goes all in on CRR

[ozbob]

Growing government will do no good > https://t.co/9dsw7V86U6 #qldpol

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) July 27, 2016

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe rules out fare increase for river rail

[dancingmongoose]

Brisbanetimes --> Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe rules out fare increase for river rail

Presumably speaking about fares as a whole there but I would be perfectly fine if the new CRR stations had increased fares, similar to how the airport does but not that extreme, at least initially. That way it would only affect people directly benefiting from it (of course there are others who will benefit from it like the whole damn network but most people probably wouldn't be able to see that)

[verbatim9]

Brisbanetimes --> Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe rules out fare increase for river rail

Presumably speaking about fares as a whole there but I would be perfectly fine if the new CRR stations had increased fares, similar to how the airport does but not that extreme, at least initially. That way it would only affect people directly benefiting from it (of course there are others who will benefit from it like the whole damn network but most people probably wouldn't be able to see that)

I dont believe in extra gate charges for this project. Doesn't the whole city benefit due to less congestion and business opportunities around new stations? Better to levy rate payers for a year or 2 in Logan, Ipswich, Brisbane and Moreton maybe Gold Coast?