Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

Yes, if ever built will be the financially well off only able to afford the high cost.  Look the price of units around Milton etc.

Yo!

[verbatim9]

Any bet that the Riverside expressway will be tunnelled underneath the river before any CRR is built

[ozbob]

Grim reality starting to bite?

Couriermail --> Queensland Government land sell-off to fund urban renewal

STATE-OWNED land in Queensland cities will be sold by the Palaszczuk Government to kickstart urban ­renewal precincts and bankroll new infrastructure.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk will outline the new strategy in a speech today in Townsville, where she is governing for the week, in the hope of reviving Labor's flagging electoral fortunes.

A leaked copy of the strategy reveals developers will have to tailor their proposals to meet Government priorities to snare prime sites.

Southeast Queensland sites identified in the strategy include Mayne Rail Yards at Bowen Hills, properties at Boggo Rd, Roma St and Woolloongabba, a former university campus in Carseldine and a vacant college at Oxley.

Regional renewal precincts include the Townsville waterfront, Toowoomba railway parkland and city centre sites in Mackay, Hervey Bay and Rockhampton.

In the strategy foreword, Ms Palaszczuk and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad state the Government would create jobs, drive growth and build better-connected communities "through the strategic reuse and renewal of under-utilised and surplus government properties".

"This initiative will enable suitable properties to be reviewed, renewed and repurposed in ways which will deliver a range of economic, community and financial outcomes," the leaders claim.

The development industry is expected to support the strategy as significant tracts of state land are in unrivalled ­locations and have been locked up for generations.

Eight economic and community zone types have been identified, including southeast Queensland and regional city urban renewal projects and health and housing precincts.

Government departments will be tasked with identifying surplus sites that may present development opportunities.

"Developments will need to deliver strong community benefits, meet broader government priorities such as ­innovation, affordable housing and expanded tourism and will involve engagement with local governments, the community, stakeholders and industry," the strategy states.

One of the zones is a corridor along the route of the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project from Bowen Hills to Boggo Rd where there is vacant land.

The strategy states prominent land parcels along the CRR route, such as Mayne Rail Yards, would offer multi-billion-dollar transit-orientated development opportunities.

"Income generated from developing sites within the corridor will be used to contribute funding towards CRR and to create exemplary ­public spaces and other ­infrastructure for the community," it states.

THE new "Advancing our cities and regions" strategy is smart, pragmatic politics by the Palaszczuk Government.

It seeks to use surplus land to build better communities and fund much-needed infrastructure. Currently, the State Government is sitting on some $300 billion worth of ­assets while its ability to buy new infrastructure is dwarfed by a mountain of debt.

While the wisdom of keeping income-earning assets in such an environment can be questioned, this strategy doesn't contravene that commitment. Instead, it seeks to exploit another area of assets; the state's property portfolio.

It aims to better integrate services and improve the livability of our cities while freeing up infrastructure funds.

Selling and leasing land won't fund the entire backlog of infrastructure, but Jackie Trad's willingness to innovate around roadblocks Labor has created should be welcomed.

[kram0]

It's no surprise, we all knew there was no cash to pay for CRR and this is why they are stalling and nothing will be done until post the next state election. Trad and Anna planned this 18 months ago, mearly a delaying tactic.

[#Metro]

It's no surprise, we all knew there was no cash to pay for CRR and this is why they are stalling and nothing will be done until post the next state election. Trad and Anna planned this 18 months ago, mearly a delaying tactic.

I think they put it in a holding pattern. Just like the plane - goes around in circles just to burn off fuel. I mean, why else would you do THREE separate business cases for Cross River Rail and THREE separate business cases for Sunshine Coast Line??

Surely one is enough, huh?

Maybe we need a review into that!

[tazzer9]

We are soon approaching the stage that the money used in these plans and feasibility studies could have fully built a decent sized piece of infrastructure.

[Marshal]

So I was thinking about how Turnbul cited the lack of solid business cases as a reason for not yet committing to funding for CRR, and that got me thinking, how exactly does one go about making these business cases? Is it really so hard  that the QLD government can't churn out a convincing case for CRR? If only there was a comparable project of similar scale and purpose, with similar questions over funding and a similar history of being a political football with a business case that we could look at......Oh yeah, Melbourne Metro.

http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/40677/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-WEB.pdf

I may be a bit out of date with my info here, but AFAIK Melbourne metro also lacks a firm commitment from the Turnbul government for funding (after a firm no from the Abbott government. Amusingly, it's also developed off the back of an arguably inferior alternative metro tunnel proposal from the liberal opposition, which in turn was a replacement for the previous government's proposal that was nearly identical to the current proposal. The parallels  are almost eerie.

Anyway, the point is they have this great big fancy business case. I haven't read it thoroughly yet, but having flicked through it, its a pretty in-depth analysis of the project. I don't have the experience to say how well it stacks up on its own merit, but it looks good to me. Had a little chuckle when I reached the chapter regarding Value Capturing as a funding source. This is from back in Feb this year, and our guys are only talking about value capture now! They even have the line "Doing nothing is not an option". The Andrews government assumed office in December 2014, the Palaszczuk Government in February 2015, so they haven't exactly had much more time to work on this down in Victoria. So with that in mind, lets take a flick through CRR's Business Case!

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

So this is all I can really find with my google-fu. First thing I notice is it's way shorter. It's also subtitled cost benefit analysis summary, so I'm guessing its going to be mainly focused on that, with little of the other issues covered in the Melbourne paper (track capacity, livability, social-economic advantage/disadvantage etc). No table of contents, looks pretty basic, guessing its primarily for internal use.

5 pages in and we're done. This isn't a business case, it's a summary. To be fair this document has been prepared for the sake of the State government's own consideration, but seriously, if this is all they have it's pretty abysmal. I recall the business case wasn't provided to the federal government until something like a week before the election, which again was one of the reasons why Turnbul wouldn't commit to a promise regarding CRR funding during the election campaign. The election was the 2nd of July, the only date given for this publication is June 2016, so it lines up. Excluding what they are currently working on, this is it, and it's abysmal.

Honestly, I'm a town and regional planning student with a keen interest in transport, and I believe, given access to the right data, I could do a significantly better job then this. Not necessarily the economic stuff, but the full package regarding justifying the project as a whole. That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. It really does hammer home what you guys are saying about them just being in a holding pattern. It's just not good enough. 

They need to actually sell this project. They have to drum up some political willpower among not just their party but the people of SEQ as a whole. You read the Melbourne paper and its a pretty clear, very visual argument as to why the project is so important. We need that right now so badly, because CRR is just a political football now.

[ozbob]

Thanks for your comments Marshal.  The full business case for CRR has not been made available publicly, I am hopeful that might occur sooner than later.  The Government is dancing with off-key violins at present .. 

[IanFraser]

I'd like to add to what Marshal said and point out the fallacy of evaluating a long term rail augmentation project over just 30 years then discounting everything at an interest rate of 7% real, that is, 9-10% nominal. Marshal is a student, and he doesn't borrow at those rates. Those retired on a self-funded pension can't invest their Super at anything like those rates. Even the big sovereign wealth funds seek to earn long term returns like 4-5% real over long periods by engaging in the global investment markets and constantly scanning the world for the best opportunities. Yes, the discount rate is wrong. Reduce the discount rate and things look a lot better. Extend the analysis term and things look a lot better still. Victoria had a 4% (real) rate in part of their analysis; in the UK & Germany they use rates like 3% and 3.5% and do the projections for periods like 60 years.

Think also about the period of use of such a project. How long ago was it that Melbourne started building its trams? How long has Sydney benefited from Bradfield's vision? Even the Sydney Harbour Bridge is more than 80 years old and will last for a long while yet. Whilst rail between Newcastle and Sydney was built in the 1880's and it desperately needs to be speeded up, it still provides some utility over 125 years later.

Then consider what the cost of alternatives might be. Wasn't the CLEM7 around $3bn and the Airport Link M7 around $5 bn, and those in old dollars which don't buy as much today in our supermarkets. So remember what inflation does - it will probably never be cheaper to build these sorts of things than it is now. Indeed if one looks at land values in a growing city such as Brisbane, then it will be harder and harder to actually retrofit any sort of transport corridor if we don't act quickly enough now. And putting in motorways everywhere has been shown to just never solve the problem, often only adding to it instead.

What is the alternative to Cross River Rail - do nothing? Plough through all those suburbs for yet another motorway under the river? Get real Brisbane. Jump on any politician stuck in transport project inertia!

[#Metro]

So I was thinking about how Turnbul cited the lack of solid business cases as a reason for not yet committing to funding for CRR, and that got me thinking, how exactly does one go about making these business cases? Is it really so hard  that the QLD government can't churn out a convincing case for CRR? If only there was a comparable project of similar scale and purpose, with similar questions over funding and a similar history of being a political football with a business case that we could look at......Oh yeah, Melbourne Metro.

I am not an expert, perhaps someone with official expertise (STB?) can chime in about this.

My understanding is this:

- You work out the costs
- You work out the benefits

Population grows at a predictable rate. Based on a population forecast, say today + 30 years you can work out the number of trips that new population will generate.

Based on that trip generation (say, one trip to work, one trip from work, 0.5 of a trip for other stuff) you can work out the total number of trips.

From this you can guess a mode split between car and public transport. So you might settle on 7% using PT. That gets put on the train.

If the train has a time saving you multiply the time saving (10 minutes) by the number of people that will get the time saving, and then multiply that by the value of time. Value of time is a bit fuzzy, but it might be $20 per hour, for example.

You need to correct this for discounting etc. Same on the costs side.

Once you have the costs and benefits, you can divide to get a ratio, the BCR.

This measures how efficient a project is at converting taxpayer cash to benefits.

As custom, we expect that a "good" project has costs equal to benefits. But of course, there is nothing to stop politicians from choosing something with low BCR (i.e. Townsville Stadium).

To demonstrate this concept, consider the case where CRR is built using gold bullion for the rail. All the "benefits" such as travel time savings, lower emissions, business activity etc are exactly the same. But the cost base is now inflated, so the BCR should drop because using gold bullion for rail is both unnecessary and wasteful.

I am grossly oversimplifying, but Net Present Value tells you about benefits that are left over after you subtract the costs out. (How effective) Here you apply a discount rate, and there is a lot of debate about which rate to use. The debate exists because this is a judgement not a measurement. Usually, there are calculations with low medium and high scenarios.

There are other approaches, but basically that's it.

I understand that people might argue for a case to extend the assessment window, and one needs to make a judgement also about the "right" assessment frame. But I point out that economic life and actual asset life are not the same thing. An asset can become costly to maintain and so forth.

We all know this when we break something like a toaster and get told that it would be cheaper to buy a new one rather than repair the old one. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-life.asp

What is 'Economic Life'
Economic life is the expected period of time during which an asset is useful to the average owner. The economic life of an asset could be different than its actual physical life


Read more: Economic Life Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-life.asp#ixzz4McQkob7Q
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

What is so fascinating is that even inanimate objects and things have a "life". Just think about that.

[curator49]

What makes my blood boil about the whole CRR debacle is that CRR1 was "shovel ready" according to Infrastructure Australia. The land had been acquired, detailed plans and all the necessary reports completed and even Campbell Newman (then Brisbane's Lord Mayor) was supportive. Then it ALL changes when Newman becomes Premier and he scraps the whole project in favour of his "thought bubble" BAT tunnel. He even sells off the land previously acquired. I am not sure how far any of the impact reports got but the whole project had to start over, The LNP eventually conceded it was only an "idea" and did not think it would ever be built.
Anna2 comes along scraps BAT and starts CRR3 which is so changed from the first one that everything has to be done again.
CRR1 offered the best solutions and had the best business case now we are faced with a project that does not meet all the criteria as well as CRR1 although it still passes. CRR1 looked to the future and future rail infrastructure needs now we are being offered a Band-Aid solution.

[ozbob]

Continues to be botched sadly. Utter shambles I agree.

The retrospectroscope will show just how ...

[Stillwater]

Queensland has a strange view of the world when it comes to federal funding.  It is flawed thinking.

Queensland argues that, whatever the pool of funding available, it is entitled to roughly 21 per cent (based on a number of factors, including population).  The key word is ENTITLED.

Our state believes that presenting the case for federal funding is a bit of a formality.  Whether it is a scrap of paper with the words 'please can we have some money' written on it, or a full-blown business case, the premise is that Queensland will end up with 21 per cent of the total.

Also, Queensland doesn't like the feds telling it how money that originates from the vaults in Canberra should be spent.  The state does not like committing to spending fed money in stringent adherence to guidelines, so spelling out exactly what the money will achieve hinders that position.

Queensland's modus operandi is to shout GIVE US THE MONEY first.  If they get the money, it becomes an 'oh crap' moment, because then they have to scramble to devise a project to a scale that matches the money on offer.  Up to that stage, there has been little planning, which is often why projects in Qld get funded progressively, in stages.

Reluctantly, the state will prepare a Claytons business case, because any bit of paper will do, because we are entitled to 21 per cent of what's going.

The caravan has moved on, but not those in power in Queensland.  The feds are after the best possible bang-for-buck.  The process is almost like a competitive bid arrangement.  If there is a better, well-argued project in Vic or NSW, why shouldn't the money go there?  And, when it does, Queensland argues (in circumstances where it doesn't end up with 21 per cent of the pie) that 'we was robbed'.  Often you will hear a Queensland politician argue 'it is own turn'.

The preparation of smart, compelling business cases, with realistic costings and financial arrangements, can't be avoided.  Queensland is always reluctant to go down that path, from the outset.  While the project might be superior, it is not enough that it is -- it must be proven so through a sound business case.  Queensland argues that the fed don't understand Queensland's 'special needs' (decentralised state etc).

It does nothing to demonstrate those needs in a business-like and professional manner.  It seeks to make up for this self-inflicted shortfall buy playing the political game, as we have seen.  Canberra-bashing is well practised in Queensland.

The feds see the worth of a project sometimes, but despair at how little effort Queensland is prepared to put into justifying that worth, in comparison to other states who do these things better.

[#Metro]

What makes my blood boil about the whole CRR debacle is that CRR1 was "shovel ready" according to Infrastructure Australia. The land had been acquired, detailed plans and all the necessary reports completed and even Campbell Newman (then Brisbane's Lord Mayor) was supportive.

Then it ALL changes when Newman becomes Premier and he scraps the whole project in favour of his "thought bubble" BAT tunnel. He even sells off the land previously acquired. I am not sure how far any of the impact reports got but the whole project had to start over, The LNP eventually conceded it was only an "idea" and did not think it would ever be built.
Anna2 comes along scraps BAT and starts CRR3 which is so changed from the first one that everything has to be done again.
CRR1 offered the best solutions and had the best business case now we are faced with a project that does not meet all the criteria as well as CRR1 although it still passes. CRR1 looked to the future and future rail infrastructure needs now we are being offered a Band-Aid solution.

This is correct. CRR1 was more efficient at converting taxpayer money to benefits and generated more benefits (as a whole) than any subsequent proposal. Provided that we have the money (which we do - lack of $ is political) then it makes sense to build CRR1.

Of course, it would have to be compared to any other newer proposal, such as a combined metro / CRR project. (I know people hate this, but due process is due process)

The sell off of land near Dutton Park etc for the tunnel portal was just stupid. It made no sense politically as it was a safe red team controlled electorate and there were no votes to be gained from doing this. Engineering wise I suspect it also detracted from the project.

As usual, no rational explanation was ever given for this course of action.

[Gazza]

Due process is due process?
So what about a combined CRR and Riverside Expressway Road tunnel replacement?

Or a combined continuous tunnel from Dutton Park to Trouts Rd?

[tazzer9]

I would just like to see this version of CRR built.  Just get it over with.
Then later on have a separate strathpine - salisbury via trout road tunnel.   With associated upgrades like track amplification north of strathpine and allowances for the beaudesert line to be connected.

[verbatim9]

Due process is due process?
So what about a combined CRR and Riverside Expressway Road tunnel replacement?

Or a combined continuous tunnel from Dutton Park to Trouts Rd?

It would probably attract more Federal funds and Public support with the expressway being tunnelled at the same time as CRR!?

[ozbob]

"On time, on schedule, we'll be delivering the Cross River Rail delivery bill into this house," @jackietrad says #qldpol

— Felicity Caldwell (@fel_caldwell) October 11, 2016

[ozbob]

Deputy Premier @jackietrad is introducing a bill to create the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority #qldpol

— Felicity Caldwell (@fel_caldwell) October 11, 2016

[verbatim9]

Bill introduced to establish Cross River Rail Delivery Authority https://t.co/UBwTFlWYOl

[ozbob]

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/10/11/bill-introduced-to-establish-cross-river-rail-delivery-authority

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

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Bill introduced to establish Cross River Rail Delivery Authority

Queensland's highest priority infrastructure project, Cross River Rail is a step closer with the introduction of a Bill into parliament to establish the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority.

Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning Jackie Trad said the milestone comes after the launch of the Palaszczuk Government's Advancing our cities and regions strategy.

"Cross River Rail is this Government's highest priority infrastructure project, presenting a unique opportunity to transform South East Queensland," Mr Trad said.

"The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority will be established as an independent statutory body to lead the development, procurement and delivery of Cross River Rail and drive urban renewal within the economic and development corridor.

"The Authority's functions and powers have been designed to ensure that it will be able to deliver both the rail infrastructure for Cross River Rail as well as maximise the broader city building and economic benefits that arise from the project.

"This is essential as the Cross River Rail corridor alone will boost the economy by $70 billion and support more than 85,000 jobs.

"Importantly, the Authority will ensure that Cross River Rail stays on track and is not derailed by politics."

Ms Trad said the Palaszczuk Government was focussed on ensuring Cross River Rail became a reality after it was abandoned by the Newman-Nicholls Government.

"In less than 18 months, the Palaszczuk Government rescoped the project, published the new alignment and submitted the business case to Infrastructure Australia and the Turnbull Government for consideration," Ms Trad said.

"We have allocated $850 million - the largest single allocation to Cross River Rail yet - in order to start funding negotiations with the federal government and delivery arrangements with the private sector.

"Our only frustration with the Cross River Rail project is that it is not currently under construction because the Newman-Nicholls Government tore up a 50/50 funding deal with the Federal Government in 2013."

The Bill also establishes the Cross River Rail Delivery Fund so that any proceeds from associated development can be reinvested in this city shaping project.

The Authority's board will consist of ten members, including up to 6 external expert directors. The Cross River Rail technical team will continue to operate within the Department of Local Government, Infrastructure and Planning as the legislation is progressed through parliament.

For further information visit http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

ENDS

[ozbob]

45,000 more rail commuters expected in AM peak in 10 years #qldpol https://t.co/6gaXIQBHjP

— Felicity Caldwell (@fel_caldwell) October 11, 2016

[v6hilux]

Here we go again - let's hope the ball will actually start rolling soon!

[mufreight]

What is needed in this Cross River Rail Authority is to have at least one member from the general community preferably from a background such as RBoT to keep asking all the awkward questions to keep the bastards honest.  Someone with a decent knowledge of railways and public transport.

[Stillwater]

 

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament Hansard Questions without notice 11th  October 2016
https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2016/2016_10_11_DAILY.pdf

Cross River Rail

Mr KELLY: My question is of the Deputy Premier. Will the Deputy Premier update the House on
the Cross River Rail project?

Ms TRAD: I thank the honourable member for the question. It gives me great joy to report to the
House on the Cross River Rail project. I do want to acknowledge that the member for Greenslopes is
deeply interested in public transport, as is every single member on this side of the House. We are
interested in public transport and its contribution to great city-making initiatives. Cross River Rail
presents an enormous opportunity for us to do exactly that.

I have spoken about Cross River Rail in this House for a long period of time. I am pleased to
report on the fact that the Palaszczuk government has moved this project forward faster and further
than any other government. We have rescoped the project. It is out for public inspection. We have done
an independent business case—it is with Infrastructure Australia—and we are liaising with the federal
government around funding.

We have committed $850 million—more than any other government in this state—to make this
project a reality. Today I am very pleased to report to the House that—on time and on schedule—we
will be introducing into this House the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority bill. The Cross River Rail
Delivery Authority bill—

A government member interjected.

Ms TRAD: Yes. The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority will be an important part of ensuring not
only that this project delivers the public transport infrastructure that our city needs but also that we take
full advantage of all of the economic development opportunities that come with this
once-in-a-generation public transport infrastructure project.

This is an opportunity for our city and our region like never before. The one question that remains
is: what will those opposite do? Will they support it? What is their plan? Will those opposite lift a finger
to advocate for and support public transport infrastructure in this state with their political colleagues in
the federal government? Those opposite need to detail exactly what their plans are for the city of
Brisbane and the South-East Queensland region when it comes to a second heavy rail river crossing.

We know that when they were in government they did nothing. In fact, they did more than nothing; they
damaged the Cross River Rail project. They walked away from a deal with the federal Labor government
for an equal funding partnership for this once-in-a-generation project. They stand condemned for those
actions. They need to answer: what is their solution?

[ozbob]

CROSS RIVER RAIL DELIVERY AUTHORITY BILL  11th October 2016
https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2016/2016_10_11_DAILY.pdf

Message from Governor

Hon. JA TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local
Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment) (12.34 pm): I present a message
from His Excellency the Governor.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): The message from His Excellency recommends the
Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Bill. The contents of the message will be incorporated in the Record
of Proceedings. I table the message for the information of members.

MESSAGE
CROSS RIVER RAIL DELIVERY AUTHORITY BILL 2016

Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68
I, PAUL de JERSEY AC, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled—
A Bill for an Act to establish the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority and to amend this Act, the Economic Development
Act 2012 and the Right to Information Act 2009 for particular purposes.

GOVERNOR
Date: 11 October 2016
Tabled paper: Message, dated 11 October 2016, from His Excellency the Governor, recommending the Cross River Rail Delivery
Authority Bill 2016.

3678 Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Bill 11 Oct 2016

Introduction

Hon. JA TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local
Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment) (12.34 pm): I present a bill for an act
to establish the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority and to amend this act, the Economic Development
Act 2012 and the Right to Information Act 2009 for particular purposes. I table the bill and the
explanatory notes. I nominate the Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee to
consider the bill.

Tabled paper: Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Bill 2016.

Tabled paper: Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Bill 2016, explanatory notes.

Cities and metropolitan regions are becoming increasingly important foci of opportunity,
productivity and economic growth. It is vital that we invest in the necessary infrastructure and city
shaping that makes great Queensland cities like Brisbane even better. Population growth in the coming
decades means that we will have more people seeking to access jobs and more people seeking access
to quality and affordable housing. To access jobs and housing we need to maintain and improve access
to those places where people work and where they live. We need to address our growing road based
congestion in South-East Queensland. All this will see greater demand for public transport, and it is
great public transport that is a hallmark of great cities.

Predicted population growth will see our rail system needing to account for an additional 45,000
passengers in the morning two-hour peak period by 2026. This is the equivalent of 100 fully seated
trains. By 2036 this will expand to an additional 83,000 passengers, or 185 full train loads. This drives
the need for South-East Queensland to be better designed and better connected, with better integration
of land use, infrastructure and transport. The Cross River Rail project delivers this for Queensland.
A new rail connection across the Brisbane River will transform Brisbane, providing much needed
congestion relief on the rail network and rail service access to new locations around the centre of
Brisbane, opening up access to jobs and opportunities. Cross River Rail will improve connectivity and
frequency of services between Brisbane and the rest of South-East Queensland. It will also provide the
catalyst for major urban renewal opportunities around new station precincts. This supports more
compact urban forms, more vibrant centres and access to housing choice, jobs, education and leisure
opportunities. Critically, it will better link residential growth areas to key employment hubs. It will double
rail capacity across the Brisbane River and through the CBD from the south. It will provide new or
upgraded stations for the inner city's key employment and urban renewal areas. It will connect
knowledge infrastructure, which is important to realise the entrepreneurial and innovative vision of this
government's Advance Queensland initiative.

This government is also planning to capitalise on the government's investment in Cross River
Rail to generate wider economic benefits by establishing nodes of major economic activity which are
centred around the Cross River Rail stations. These nodes can then link to hospitals, universities, sports
and entertainment venues and other government services and commercial activities. Importantly,
income generated from developing sites within the corridor will be retained by the authority for
reinvestment in the project.

The authority will work with other government agencies including Economic Development
Queensland to fully integrate transport and land use associated with Cross River Rail and transform
South-East Queensland. The authority will be responsible for finalising the funding model, leading
procurement and managing the delivery of both the Cross River Rail infrastructure project and the wider
economic development associated with the Cross River Rail innovation and economic development
corridor.

The authority's powers are not new powers. These powers are already carried out by a number
of agencies across state government. However, by combining these powers into a single independent
statutory body, the authority will have the necessary support to deliver both the below-ground
infrastructure and the above-ground development required to fully realise this project's city
transformation opportunities. The authority will ensure that Cross River Rail stays on track and is not
derailed by politics. I commend the bill to the House.

[#Metro]

I'm more interested in this CRR Fund thing! Sounds interesting.

The authority is legislated, but even that still has to execute a plan, and that plan is still open to changing. 

Baby steps welcome!

[Stillwater]

"I present a bill for an act to establish the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority and to amend this act, the Economic Development Act 2012 and the Right to Information Act 2009 for particular purposes."

Is the government using this legislative instrument to slip through changes to the Right to Information Act as it applies to all Right to Information requests, or just those that relate to Cross River Rail?  It is acceptable that 'commercial in confidence' matters be restricted, but not the wider issues surrounding Cross River Rail.

It sounds as though the government anticipates a barrage of requests re CRR.

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Bill introduced to create Cross River Rail Delivery Authority

Queensland's Labor Government has introduced a Bill into Parliament to establish a Delivery Authority for Brisbane's proposed Cross River Rail project.

Deputy premier and minister for infrastructure, local government and planning said the CRR was the state's highest priority infrastructure project, and moved a step closer to reality with the introduction of the Bill.

"Cross River Rail is this Government's highest priority infrastructure project, presenting a unique opportunity to transform South East Queensland," Trad said.

"The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority will be established as an independent statutory body to lead the development, procurement and delivery of Cross River Rail and drive urban renewal within the economic and development corridor."

The Bill dictates the Authority's functions and powers be designed to ensure that it will be able to deliver both the rail infrastructure for Cross River Rail, and the maximisation of the "broader city building and economic benefits that arise from the project," Trad explained.

"This is essential as the Cross River Rail corridor alone will boost the economy by $70 billion and support more than 85,000 jobs," the minister continued.

"Importantly, the Authority will ensure that Cross River Rail stays on track and is not derailed by politics.

"In less than 18 months, the Palaszczuk Government rescoped the project, published the new alignment and submitted the business case to Infrastructure Australia and the Turnbull Government for consideration," Trad said.

"We have allocated $850 million – the largest single allocation to Cross River Rail yet – in order to start funding negotiations with the federal government and delivery arrangements with the private sector.

"Our only frustration with the Cross River Rail project is that it is not currently under construction because the Newman-Nicholls Government tore up a 50/50 funding deal with the Federal Government in 2013."

The Bill establishes the Cross River Rail Delivery Fund so that any proceeds from associated development can be reinvested into the project.

Ten members will make up the Authority's board. Six will be external experts.

[ozbob]

Correspondence received:

12th October 2016

Dear Stakeholder

Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Bill 2016

On 11 October 2016, Hon Jackie Trad MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment, introduced the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Bill 2016 into the Queensland Parliament. The objective of the bill is to provide the statutory framework for the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority.

The bill was referred to the Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee for consideration. The committee is required to report to the Parliament by 24 November 2016.

Call for submissions

The committee seeks submissions on any aspect of the bill from the public and interested stakeholders. An information sheet which provides guidelines on making a submission can be found at: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/guidelines/Guide_MakingASubmission_WebVersion.pdf.

Written submissions should be emailed to ipnrc@parliament.qld.gov.au or mailed to:

   Research Director
   Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee
   Parliament House
   George Street
   Brisbane Qld 4000

The closing date for submission is 10:00am on Monday 24 October 2016.

The committee would appreciate if you would forward notice of this inquiry to other interested parties.

Other information

Further information about the committee's inquiry into the bill is available on the committee's website: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/IPNRC.

The bill and its Explanatory Notes are available at these links and from the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel at www.legislation.qld.gov.au.

If you have any queries, please contact the committee secretariat on 07 3553 6621 or by email – ipnrc@parliament.qld.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

Jim Pearce MP
Chair

Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee

[ozbob]

From the Sunday Mail 16th October 2016 page 62 Traps with Peter Cameron

Central station looks cheaper

[SurfRail]

^ 20 seconds of my life down the tube.

[Gazza]

From the Sunday Mail 16th October 2016 page 62 Traps with Peter Cameron

Central station looks cheaper

Que?

[ozbob]

^ not sure who he has been talking too but it might be an early insight into what the LNP might be rolling with .. 

[Stillwater]

Can't be more platforms at Central, without additional platforms through other city stations.  Are we talking additional tunnel?  Merivale St Bridge?  This garbage should not have been published - more confusing than illuminating.

[petey3801]

^ 20 seconds of my life down the tube.

Agreed.

[Marshal]

I don't understand what that little article is proposing at all?
I mean, isn't the issue with the merivale bridge and the switches after it when the ipswich line meets the other lines? How does a new tunnel through to central and more platforms help that?

[James]

I think the potential proposal may be to provide 6 tracks from Central to Bowen Hills. This would amplify capacity by allowing the Ferny Grove line (or the main northern subs) to be separate from the rest of the network.
The plan would probably be:
Beenleigh/Cleveland/GC - Airport/Doomben/Shorncliffe
Springfield - Ferny Grove
Ipswich - Caboolture/Kippa-Ring

The idea of the extra track pair works nicely once we have CRR or if you put six tracks up to Eagle Junction, as then the Doomben Line and Airport line can be fully separated from the rest of the network along with the Ferny Grove Line. I'd support it once we're finished CRR and at the point where we're trying to squeeze 20tph out of every suburban line, but it wouldn't be a good use of the limited funds available, for now.

[Gazza]

Is what you're saying is that the Ferny Grove line for instance would terminate at Roma St, and it would have its own tunnels  dug between Central and Roma st (So Central would cease operating in a Bifurcated arrangement).

Cheap and cheeful that's for sure, but as you say would be post CRR if you were trying to get every line as its own sector to get full capacity (But for that we'd need a wider package of works such as grade sepping junctions and LXings so you could reliably run so many trains)

I think the challenge in such an idea would be the Central to Bowen Hills leg.
Bowen hills I think is easy enough to add an extra pair of platforms at. It's got car parking and vacant land on the western side to cut extra platforms.
But south of there it's painful because so many properties are hard up against the lines. I think you'd just do a tunnel from Bowen hills to Central and dig up Allen street for a station box for extra platforms at Fortitude Valley.