Cross River Rail Project

[nathandavid88]

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 strongly disagree with this, because it would essentially amount to an unfair public transport surcharge imposed on people solely based on where they live. If I get on a train at Beenleigh, I wouldn't be choosing to pay an increased fair to enjoy the benefits of using CRR, I would be forced to pay it because all trains from Beenleigh will use the CRR, regardless of whether I want to pay the extra for the privilege or not. And as you have pointed out, pretty well all lines will benefit from CRR – some directly, some indirectly – so really, if the cost of CRR is going to be passed to passengers who benefit, that should include all passengers who benefit.

I think a simple levy of all ratepayers in areas serviced by Translink is the fairest option. People will of course jump up and down saying that "I shouldn't have to pay because I don't take the train", but as I see it, everyone who could benefit from the infrastructure should pay, regardless of whether they do or not. It might even encourage them to use that which they are paying for. 

[tazzer9]

But everyone especially those who live in beenleigh will benefit from having less traffic.   Why should my tax dollars go into upgrading the Pacific motorway when I never use it it during the peak. 

[verbatim9]

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 strongly disagree with this, because it would essentially amount to an unfair public transport surcharge imposed on people solely based on where they live. If I get on a train at Beenleigh, I wouldn't be choosing to pay an increased fair to enjoy the benefits of using CRR, I would be forced to pay it because all trains from Beenleigh will use the CRR, regardless of whether I want to pay the extra for the privilege or not. And as you have pointed out, pretty well all lines will benefit from CRR – some directly, some indirectly – so really, if the cost of CRR is going to be passed to passengers who benefit, that should include all passengers who benefit.

I think a simple levy of all ratepayers in areas serviced by Translink is the fairest option. People will of course jump up and down saying that "I shouldn't have to pay because I don't take the train", but as I see it, everyone who could benefit from the infrastructure should pay, regardless of whether they do or not. It might even encourage them to use that which they are paying for.

If there is a 2 year Public Transport levy of 100.00 bucks per household per year from SEQ rate payers it could raise a bit towards the tram extension stage 3 dual track to Landsborough, CRR and Metro stage 1 with proper alignment.

[dancingmongoose]

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 strongly disagree with this, because it would essentially amount to an unfair public transport surcharge imposed on people solely based on where they live. If I get on a train at Beenleigh, I wouldn't be choosing to pay an increased fair to enjoy the benefits of using CRR, I would be forced to pay it because all trains from Beenleigh will use the CRR, regardless of whether I want to pay the extra for the privilege or not. And as you have pointed out, pretty well all lines will benefit from CRR – some directly, some indirectly – so really, if the cost of CRR is going to be passed to passengers who benefit, that should include all passengers who benefit.

You wouldn't have to unless your destination is one of those stations, you could presumably change to an all stopper at Kuraby. The general Queensland public seem to be brainless and the second you mention any fare increase based on something they won't use you've signed your death warrant. An extra couple of dollars for people using the stations will not hurt anyone

[SurfRail]

Quite apart from the fact it is patently unfair, it improves the value of the entire network.  If you want to recover extra through fares, it should be by putting up fares system wide.  This idea has no legs on it.

[James]

It'd be wrong to apply a surcharge just to the CRR stations. Particularly at a station like Park Rd where people may transfer - how do you know they used Park Rd (surface) or Park Rd (CRR) if someone is travelling from Bethania to Coorparoo? If any kind of surcharge was applied, I'd be in favour of a peak-only $1/50c concession surcharge applied to any trips finishing at the city stations (South Bank to Bowen Hills, future CRR stations).

My 2 cents - only a good idea before CRR opens, and during peak hour only, as a way to reduce demand/pressure on the core. You'd only do it between 7:30am and 8:30am initially, extending as rail capacity maxes out.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

31st July 2016

Lessons from the West!

Good Morning,

The West Australian State Government has recently launched a transport plan for Perth.

Perth Transport Plan --> http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/projects/perth-transport-plan-for-3-5-million.asp

Largely aspirational and full of hope, nevertheless the WA Transport Minister Dean Nalder made some very interesting and relevant comments at the plan launch.

As reported by The West Australian --> Transport plan valuable but the politics are tricky

Launching the plan at a business breakfast yesterday, Transport Minister Dean Nalder described it as "aspirational" and said that, in an ideal world, transport planning would be a bipartisan exercise based on the best available advice (he also conceded that wasn't going to happen seven months out from a State election).

"When we take independent research, what would be ideal is that we argue over priorities of projects, rather than the creation of a project itself," he said.

"The creation of a project during an election cycle, there is that risk that it hasn't been properly thought through, properly planned and properly researched."

Minister Nalder has nailed the problem with much of our transport planning and implementation not only in WA but also in QLD.  Projects and priorities for these projects changes constantly and the end nothing much of substance is achieved.  Just isolated projects here and there, the priority generally being more political than actual need and merit and based on sound transport sense.

For example Cross River Rail was born as version 1 under the former Bligh Labor Government.  When the Newman LNP  Government was elected, this morphed into a new version CRR #2,  then the ' Cleveland Solution ' and then the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel. When the Palaszczuk Labor Government was returned to Office, Cross River Rail #3 was born.  Project is still in limbo.

Lord Mayor Quirk's ' Metro' proposal is an example of a project that has been thought up during an election and has not been properly thought through, nor properly planned and not properly researched.  It is nonsense!

Will we ever mature into a society that can actually plan and implement big picture transport projects that are the right thing to do and not political whims and ' pork barrels '?

Fair question don't you think?

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.msg176530#msg176530  ]

[ozbob]

Latest media: ' Lessons from the West! '
> https://t.co/9sM2wjGKhQ#qldpol #wapol #auspol #nswpol #springst pic.twitter.com/zMw3pMpmSS

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) July 30, 2016

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> 40-year plan to capitalize on Cross River Rail

Deputy Premier Jackie Trad will take responsibility for Cross River Rail, with the project to now sit entirely within the planning and infrastructure portfolio, as the Palaszczuk Government seeks to turn it from a rail line to a city transformation tool.

For eight years successive governments have spoken about a second river crossing, with the city's train network predicted to carry an additional 83,000 passengers – 185 fully loaded trains – by 2036.  Just a few years later, the south-east Queensland population is expected to grow to 5.3 million.

The rail link, Ms Trad said, has not just become crucial from a transport point of view but also for what it can do for Brisbane.

"The wider economic benefits of this project can be massive if we take the right steps to harness them," Ms Trad will say to the Brisbane Development Association on Tuesday morning.

The government announced a statutory Cross River Rail Delivery Authority earlier this year to "help take the politics out" of the project.

The authority and the project will move entirely into Ms Trad's portfolio, having previously been shared across Transport and Planning and Infrastructure.

The next step – finalising "a new Cross River Rail Economic Development Strategy".

"This strategy will articulate a 40-year blueprint to capitalise on the government investment in Cross River Rail, and catapult the region into a dynamic, innovative and knowledge-led economy able to compete and prosper in global markets," Ms Trad will report.

"By matching private sector innovation and investment with community development imperatives, the strategy will build a road map for creating tomorrow's world-class developments on underutilised government land at an unprecedented scale.

"At the heart of this strategy will be the development of a Cross River Rail Innovation and Economic Development Corridor, stretching from the Boggo Road Eco sciences precinct to the Mayne Rail yards.

"This Innovation and Economic Development Corridor will establish nodes of major economic activity, centred across Cross River Rail stations and linking to hospitals, universities, sports and entertainment venues, and other commercial activities.

"This corridor contains large parcels of underutilised government land, which can be renewed, re-purposed, and redeveloped into major hubs of retail, tourism, knowledge and innovation, entertainment, sports activities and commercial activities.

"And underpinning this corridor is the idea that we must support greater agglomeration in South East Queensland through the clustering of economic and knowledge hubs – driving innovation and productivity. "

Ms Trad said the Economic Development Strategy had already identified 100 "economic development opportunities right across our region" concentrated around the rail network.

That, Ms Trad reported, could contribute more than $70 billion to the Gross State Product, as well as create more than 84,000 ongoing jobs.

"These kind of numbers show just how significant Cross River Rail will be to the transformation of our region," she said.

But the state is still working on how to pay for the $5 billion project. The government will introduce legislation that will establish the Delivery Authority, which will be charged with finalising the funding model, as well as leading procurement and managing delivery, in the coming months.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

2nd August 2016

Cross River Rail developments ...

Good Morning,

Some interesting potential developments with Cross River Rail.

Brisbanetimes --> 40-year plan to capitalize on Cross River Rail

So we now await the actual formation of the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority - proposed as a statutory authority by the way.

Time continues to slide on by ... road congestion, road trauma continues unabated.  The slaughter worsens ..

Is it all a bad dream?

Best wishes
Robert

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

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]

LOLOL

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cross-river-rail-massive-economic-benefit-if-we-take-rights-steps-20160801-gqiovb.html

The government announced a statutory Cross River Rail Delivery Authority earlier this year to "help take the politics out" of the project.

Errr ....

[ozbob]

Latest media: ' Cross River Rail developments ... '
> https://t.co/U0c0ChLciA#qldpol #auspol pic.twitter.com/5TOhQxCXnd

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) August 1, 2016

[#Metro]

So, the authority will be under the control/headed by .... a politician 

(Or perhaps an ex-politician mate?)

[ozbob]

A Statutory Authority (SA) normally has a board of members, who are meant to be essentially independent of the crass politics of the day to day games.

If it is good enough to postulate that the best way to proceed for CRR is ' a statutory Cross River Rail Delivery Authority ... to "help take the politics out" of the project. '  then maybe it is good enough to follow the logic to sort out the public transport mess with a re-invigorated SA (Public Transport Queensland) to ' help take the politics out ' ....   

[#Metro]

I'm not really sure how one takes "the politics out" of the project. It is being delivered and funded by gov't.

The problem with the project is commitment - the Queensland Gov't is always chopping and changing elements.

I really wonder how "independent" this authority will be.

If the CRR DA decides that the best tunnel is one that demolishes Dutton Park station and resumes private homes for a southern

portal, is that going to get a tick automatically because The Authority said so, or will the minister call it in?

[ozbob]

At @Brisbane_D_A talking about the transformational opportunity #CrossRiverRail presents for our city & #SEQ #qldpol pic.twitter.com/kKTTVtIP3W

— Jackie Trad (@jackietrad) August 1, 2016

[Derwan]

The government announced a statutory Cross River Rail Delivery Authority earlier this year to "help take the politics out" of the project.

Because that worked so well with the "Translink Transit Authority"...

[James]

The way you "take the politics out of the project" is by building the bloody thing already. Borrow some money. Get a tunnel borer. Start digging. Simple!

The LNP can't cancel the project if the tunnel has already been half-dug by the time the next election rolls around.

[ozbob]

So, we now wait for legislation to enable the CRRDA.  Will it actually pass parliament?  Will the LNP oppose it?  If they do, then it will be up to the cross benches, and a united labor vote.  The cross bench may not support a project of this magnitude for SEQ.  Selfish politics might well trump reality, again.

And we wait for Infrastructure Australia to pontificate on the full business case.  No doubt, there will internal discussions on various points so probably will take a while

To be honest,  I am not very hopeful for any real progress now for some time.

I think the best thing to do is just to go out borrow some $$$ and start digging. 

[ozbob]

Meanwhile ...  while waiting  ... a reminder for the next election ...

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Deputy premier Jackie Trad to take full control of Cross River Rail project

BUILDING the Cross River Rail will allow kilometres of innovative businesses to be built through Brisbane in a specially planned corridor stretching from Boggo Rd to Bowen Hills, the Deputy Premier says.

Jackie Trad today announced she as assuming full control of the project in her planning and infrastructure portfolio as a new 40-blueprint is drawn up to identify where new residential, commercial and innovation hubs can be built, some of it on under-utilised public land, like the defunct GoPrint site at Woolloongabba.

At the centre is a planned Innovation and Economic Development Corridor linking with stations and linking to hospitals, universities, business, sports and entertainment venues for the building of new retail, tourism, research, and other commercial hubs.

"It is a project that will completely transform our city and our region," she said.

"It will create new economic zones along the rail corridor and it will create jobs and homes for Queenslanders and this is an enormous opportunity to recognise the value that such large-scale infrastructure projects present and do the appropriate land-use planning that comes with it."

The Federal Government has stipulated the state undertake some form of "value capture" — where it manages to benefit from the increased value of land around a new infrastructure project.

The Palaszczuk Government has presented it's Cross River Rail business case to the Federal Government for funding.

It is currently being assessed by Infrastructure Australia

[#Metro]

The way you "take the politics out of the project" is by building the bloody thing already. Borrow some money. Get a tunnel borer. Start digging. Simple!

The LNP can't cancel the project if the tunnel has already been half-dug by the time the next election rolls around.

+1

[ozbob]

Just more delaying tactics I fear.

Queensland is a mess!

[#Metro]

Sort of reminds me of Queensland Rail and the '101' different governance structures it had from 2005 onwards.

It is very easy to work out when "horizon pushing" is being used.I call it "future faking" because all the talk is about what will come, what will happen, and what a utopia it will be when it comes because today it hasn't been delivered. They always use forward-looking statements, and indeed many sellers of financial products, now have to put warnings about "forward-looking statements".

Projections, Models and Expectaions are not facts.

James makes a good point. QLD has built infrastructure in the past without resorting to the creation of special authorities, so why the hold up here?

Similar thing in Melbourne with the "rail everywhere" proposals which had rail lines to places like Avalon Airport, among others. Premier resigned and all the promises went away with it.

A key test of a government is whether they can deliver something that is costless and effortless - like bus reforms or rear door opening. If they can't do basics like that, anything higher than that is in doubt.

[verbatim9]

Channel 10 reports that Council will contribute nothing to CRR and that even Metro is the State"s responsibility. State Governemt state that Council and the State still in funding negotiation for CRR. LOL!

[ozbob]

There is a message here of sorts ..

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/deputy-premier-jackie-trad-to-take-full-control-of-cross-river-rail-project/news-story/90599aa46bd9c2e012e33ab63673be08

... Jackie Trad today announced she as assuming full control of the project in her planning and infrastructure portfolio as a new 40-blueprint is drawn up to identify where new residential, commercial and innovation hubs can be built, some of it on under-utilised public land, like the defunct GoPrint site at Woolloongabba. ...

' metro ' stabling?   errr no Quirky ...

[ozbob]

Here is the 10 News item ...

It is very clear that it is time to take all public transport planning off BCC.  It is just getting worse really ..

I also sense that Quirk et al.  are starting to realise that the quack metro is going to cost a lot more than $1.5 billion ... lol

$$$$ Billions to fuk the bus network.  This place is brainless!

>> https://tenplay.com.au/news/brisbane/2016/8/3/premier-and-lord-mayor-butt-heads-over-river-rail-crossing

[ozbob]

Brisbane, with flow effects to SEQ generally is fast approaching a transport failure state. 

No other state has the equivalent of the despot BCC running rough shod over the rest of SEQ and even the State Government.

They are making their beds, they are going to have lie in the mess.  I do feel a bit sorry for the broader community who will be suffering for years and years the now obvious effects of mediocre governance, despot politics, bureaucratic incompetence and failed implementation of sensible transport solutions.  They had it right for a while, but have now really lost the plot.

Life will become very difficult in Brisbane.  It will be a scorned city.

Other states have actually had the realisation that digits need to be extracted and solutions put in place now.  They are actually constructing things.  In banana-land, it is just vids with crappy music, crass politics and more visions and plans. 

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

4th August 2016

Confronting the Quirk Metro con ...

Good Morning,

So Lord Mayor doesn't want to contribute to Cross River Rail*, but is apparently prepared to waste billions of dollars on a half-baked ' metro ' project that will wreck Brisbane's public transport?

Bus network reform does not cost billions of dollars and will dramatically improve public transport outcomes for Brisbane and with positive flow on effects for all of SEQ.

It is time the Brisbane media stopped swallowing the ' metro '  bull-dust and did some basic research.

Problems with the Quirk ' Metro ' as proposed:

1.  Delivers less capacity than the present busways - fatal flaw**.  Proposed metro is only a capacity of 9000 passengers/hour/direction.  Busways deliver 15,000 passengers/hour/direction.

2.  Is under-costed, grossly in our opinion. We challenge the Lord Mayor to sign a cost explosion indemnification agreement, guaranteeing that any cost overrun on the project ( over $1.5 BN) will be borne solely by BCC.

3.  Absolutely wrecks the inner-city busway network. Stops one station short of RBWH Hospital (to save costs?)

4.  Is very doubtful if Victoria Bridge can be used due to the significant weight of metro trains, track and electrical systems.  Use of Victoria Bridge precludes any further network improvements.

5.  Is not driverless as proposed. If changed to automatic then cost of stations etc. increases massively. Comparisons with Sydney Metro make this abundantly clear.

6.  State owns and controls the busway infrastructure.  It is unlikely that a State Government of any political persuasion would allow the busway system to be wrecked for a system that delivers less capacity than the current network!

7.  Proposed Quirk ' metro ' depot site is state owned and is actually earmarked for CRR.

The absolute minimum capacity for a train to reach the touted 30,000 passengers/hour quoted in the BCC election vote-bait material is 750 passengers per train. The Lord Mayor is suggesting trains with a capacity 2.5x lower, that is 300 passengers/train.

Bus reform http://tiny.cc/newnetwork is required, now. Bus network reform will allow time for a mature future vision and plan to be developed.

Bus network reform is essentially cost neutral, we do not have to waste billions of dollars on pipe dream schemes.

Start bus network reform today!

Best wishes,
Robert

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

* https://tenplay.com.au/news/brisbane/2016/8/3/premier-and-lord-mayor-butt-heads-over-river-rail-crossing

** Quirk ' Metro ' Capacity Calculation

1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds. World's best practise train throughput is a train every 90 seconds. 3600 seconds / 90 sec = 40 trains per hour.

Therefore 30,000 passengers/hour divided by 40 trains/hour = 750 passengers per train (absolute minimum).

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro is 300 pax/train as proposed.

Run every 2 minutes (as announced in election) 30 trains / hour x 300 pax/train = 9000 passengers/hour/direction - a backward step for the network.

Even under the most extreme assumptions, the metro would have less capacity than the busway and be at capacity on opening day.

[ Attached:  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg177430#msg177430 ]

[ozbob]

Latest media: ' Confronting the @Team_Quirk Metro con ... '
> https://t.co/9fTA51GDoi#qldpol@AnnastaciaMP pic.twitter.com/0kAW1M5oKD

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) August 3, 2016

[tazzer9]

BCC should be partly funding it, mainly due to the massive rate increases and benefits they will receive, but if BCC contribute money, then redlands council, MBRC, LCC and GCCC should also chip in a few million each.  Those areas will also benefit from CRR.

[SurfRail]

Does Brisbane want to contribute to the cost of GCLR and the Springfield to Redbank extension too? 

It's in their LGA, they should be the ones paying for it. 

[tazzer9]

GCLR does nothing for brisbane.
While CRR is physically only in brisbane, the services that it will create spreads well beyond brisbane.  In essence, services using CRR mainly run through logan and the gold coast.     And it allows for more services to the redlands and sandgate region.

[#Metro]

BCC should be partly funding it, mainly due to the massive rate increases and benefits they will receive, but if BCC contribute money, then redlands council, MBRC, LCC and GCCC should also chip in a few million each.  Those areas will also benefit from CRR.

The case for BCC funding CRR is simple:

1. CRR increases amenity and thus land values within Brisbane
2. Brisbane City Council rates are based on land values
3. Brisbane City Council will capture the increased amenity in its rates

So despite all this talk of 'land value capture this, land value capture that', we actually already have it, of sorts. Deduct it from BCC and other councils that benefit also.

Obviously the politics is not so simple as this. Where money goes, control goes also. If BCC is to fund CRR, then they will want a say in the design and probably push BaT or something similar to that. Which of course will bog the whole process.

I know I sound like a broken record (not just this issue, but also bus reform!) but QLD Gov needs to fix up the stamp duty / land tax in this State. Do that and the "value capture" will become automatic when big infrastructure and improvements go in.

[SurfRail]

GCLR does nothing for brisbane.
While CRR is physically only in brisbane, the services that it will create spreads well beyond brisbane.  In essence, services using CRR mainly run through logan and the gold coast.     And it allows for more services to the redlands and sandgate region.

What is the economic benefit to the Gold Coast of losing workers like me to Brisbane each day? 

What infrastructure constraint stops more trains being run between Beenleigh and Varsity Lakes for intra-city travel?

Do we extract funding from BCC to extend the railway to OOL once BNE starts clogging up to make it easier to fly to and from Brisbane?  What about fixing the M1 south of Eight Mile Plains to make it easier to get goods to and from Brisbane?  The Mt Lindesay Highway?  Where does this end?

Local rates are for local infrastructure, the rest of the public monies for major projects should always come from State and potentially Federal sources.  The day BCC ratepayers help out with GCLR will be the day I support GCCC ratepayers contributing to CRR. 

[#Metro]

Investigation - Station Access Surcharge

Heard some talk about this. Let's see what the numbers pop out? 

Whether a station access surcharge works or not depends on the numbers exiting from the stations.
Gold Coast and Beenleigh trains would all have to use CRR to stop 'leakage'. This means NO BNL or GC trains via Merivale Bridge.

Assuming say 100 000 pax exit CRR stations in peak hour, and a $1 capped flat daily exit fee.

This is

(100 000 pax)*$1*5days/week*52 weeks/year / 1 000 000 = $26 million per year.

Assuming a 3:2:1 ratio between state, federal and local, and a 5.4 BN price tag, the Queensland government would have to pay 2.7 billion.

How fast would that be to pay back?

2.7 BN / 26 million/year = 103.8 years, which seems unreasonable. More reasonable period might be 30 years, but then the charge would have to be $3.46 on top of existing fares.

Working:

2.7 BN / (30 years x 100 000 pax x 52 weeks x 5 days) = $3.46, seems a bit high.

Conclusion

Remote chance that it could make up a proportion, but not the whole amount. Most you could get out would be $26 million / year x 30 years = 780 million over 30 years (not adjusted) or 14 - 15% of the total cost of the project from "station user fees". I think somewhere else I showed that the "private sector" would at best make up 1-2% of the CRR cost even with the rosiest assumptions (can't dig for this now) so looking at you QLD Gov for the bulk of the funding...

http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Completed%20Projects/Cross%20River%20Rail/EIS/EIS%2030%20Aug%202011/03%20Volume%203/Technical%20Report%201%20Part%20A%20Transport.pdf

[verbatim9]

BCC should be partly funding it, mainly due to the massive rate increases and benefits they will receive, but if BCC contribute money, then redlands council, MBRC, LCC and GCCC should also chip in a few million each.  Those areas will also benefit from CRR.

The case for BCC funding CRR is simple:

1. CRR increases amenity and thus land values within Brisbane
2. Brisbane City Council rates are based on land values
3. Brisbane City Council will capture the increased amenity in its rates

So despite all this talk of 'land value capture this, land value capture that', we actually already have it, of sorts. Deduct it from BCC and other councils that benefit also.

Obviously the politics is not so simple as this. Where money goes, control goes also. If BCC is to fund CRR, then they will want a say in the design and probably push BaT or something similar to that. Which of course will bog the whole process.

I know I sound like a broken record (not just this issue, but also bus reform!) but QLD Gov needs to fix up the stamp duty / land tax in this State. Do that and the "value capture" will become automatic when big infrastructure and improvements go in.

I am a Brisbane resident and agree with cross funding. I hope people on this forum outside the BCC area are not advocating for BCC council to cross fund CRR. They should be lobbying their own councils to contribute. ☺

[Stillwater]

^^ The state government is slowly ruling out funding options, saying they won't put up car rego etc. to meet the cost of CRR.  The numbers on the floor of parliament mean they probably won't reveal what the WILL DO, although that would be helpful.  It seems that the recommendation on the way forward will come from the new CRR Delivery Authority that the state will establish.  That way, if the new authority recommends that an 'infrastructure levy' be placed on every rate notice in SEQ (with councils having to collect it and pass it to the state government), the state government will be able to say 'it wasn't us, it was the CRR Authority that made us do it'.  A sliding scale of rates could apply - higher for those SEQ councils that don't already charge a transport levy as a component of their rates.

[ozbob]

Joined transport ministers from across Australia at #TIC . Very interesting guest speech from @SecretaryFoxx pic.twitter.com/tiJnYfPVFZ

— Stirling Hinchliffe (@StirlHinchliffe) August 4, 2016

[ozbob]

#TIC  = Transport and Infrastructure Council

Meeting today in Melbourne

> http://transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/