Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

13th May 2017

Cross River Rail - start construction tomorrow!

Good Morning,

Deputy Premier Trad and Minister for Transport has outlined how politics is affecting Cross River Rail, yet again.

[ Couriermail --> Opinion: PM's excuses about not funding Cross River Rail in Federal Budget 2017 don't add up ]

Leading into the 2017-18 Federal Budget we did warn that it was not looking promising for funding due to the ranking of CRR at Infrastructure Australia (3rd tier, only a high priority initiative) and the fact variations to CRR and the impact of the revised ' Brisbane Metro ' had not been included in the previously submitted business case - well at least no public confirmation of this.  This gave the Coalition Federal Government an out.  Queensland is not the only state shafted, South Australia and Victoria too have been poorly dealt with.

In our view the Queensland Government should commence early works for Cross River Rail.  The project is sound and it will eventually  achieve some Federal funding either from the Coalition Federal Government or a Labor Federal Government in time.

If the Queensland Government is genuine it can spend the money already budgeted on actual construction rather than more glossy brochures and 'seat warmers' to create them.

If an actual start is made prior to the federal election the position of the Turnbull Federal Government circus becomes untenable, and the electoral pressure to provide funds intensifies, of course if the Queensland Government does nothing prior to the Queensland election the electorate will view that failure poorly and added to the other failures for rail in Queensland will have an undoubted effect at the ballot box.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

References:

1.  Budget 2017-18
http://www.budget.gov.au/

2.  Infrastructure Priority List 2017 - Project and Initiative summaries
http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/Infrastructure-Priority-List.aspx

[ Attached: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg192315#msg192315 ]

[Stillwater]

Ms Trad's disappointment is understandable.  Putting aside the politics, where to from here?  More articles in the Courier-Mail?  More tweets telling S-E Queenslanders how their lives will change with CRR?

In addition to starting CRR construction using Queensland Government and private funding at the start, the plan must be to capture as much of the $10 billion 'big projects' funding pool on offer from the feds.  Or is the plan just to leave the $850 million for CRR in the bank?

Queensland keeps going on about its 'fair share' of federal funding.  Applying that principle, it is entitled to about $2 billion of the total.  That's $1 billion for CRR (a figure with a B in front of it, as the Premier wants) and $1 billion for Brisbane Metro and other essential works.

BCC is still working on the business case for Brisbane Metro.  Maybe the feds want to keep CRR in limbo until it gets the Metro business case from BCC.  It will then have a choice of which one to fund.

It is not an unreasonable scenario, given the politics at play, for a Coalition in Canberra to announce that it has received the Metro business case and everything is good, and announce funding for it.  A Coalition government in Canberra funding the pet project of an LNP-led council.

Going into the next state election, the LNP says it has a plan that is fully funded (Metro), while Labor's CRR remains unfunded and stalled.  The message for the electorate?  The LNP is getting on with the job, Labor is all at sea and floundering.  LNP is building Queensland, Labor just dreams about it -- the usual lowbrow politics that plays out in this state, with infrastructure the favourite plaything.

The more Labor screams about CRR funding, and the project does not proceed, the more the voters see the Palaszczuk Government as a 'do nothing' government.  It can't fund the project itself, it lacks the maturity to negotiate sensibly with the feds, when other states can -- and get money for their constituencies.  And then the thought slowly sinks into the voters' minds that they have the solution through the ballot box .... install governments of the same persuasion in Canberra and Brisbane and that will make governments at various levels cooperate to get things done.

So does Ms Trad want to try her chances with more carping about Canberra obstructionism?

She should let us in on the plan from here -- even in a glossy brochure or via video, or tweet, if she wants to.

What is the structure she will put in place, what is the work that needs to be done to get that $2 billion, what are the alternative ways of making at least a start on CRR so that the project attracts federal government funding subsequently.  A start on CRR changes the perceptions -- Labor is getting on with the job, the conservatives are Scrooges, uninterested in SEQ.

You can't pull that off while, at the same time, not doing anything yourself.  That just shows the electorate their choice is Tweedledum or Tweedledee.   Or Pauline Hanson.

[ozbob]

 

[ozbob]

FYI ...   

The LNP's Very Fast Train Policy - pulled directly from an episode of Utopia 😂😂 #qldpol https://t.co/rE3Yuflj6p

— Jackie Trad (@jackietrad) May 15, 2017

That's funny @JackieTrad, last year you welcomed the work being done around high-speed rail - what's changed?"https://t.co/Bmx96uq3tg https://t.co/cZHVFoc1yU

— Scott Emerson (@scottemerson) May 15, 2017

.Nothing. I said then & repeat now work on Inland Rail or futuristic high speed rail doesn't negate need 4 Cross River Rail our #1 priority https://t.co/DCKI6Y1mq0

— Jackie Trad (@jackietrad) May 16, 2017

@jackietrad @scottemerson Both Inland Rail and Rapid Regional Rail (Coasts) highlight the need absolutely for CRR ....

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 16, 2017

[ozbob]

9 News --> Turnbull to Qld: I'm not an ATM

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the states can't keep "using the federal government like an ATM" to get money for infrastructure projects.

The comments come as the Queensland government continues to lobby Mr Turnbull to match its $850 million commitment to start work on Brisbane's Cross River Rail project.

But Mr Turnbull repeated his concerns about the viability of the project, despite a full business case being given by the Queensland government late last year.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/05/17/10/44/turnbull-to-qld-i-m-not-an-atm

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets 17th May 2017

Cross River Rail - start construction tomorrow!

Greetings,

Prime Minister Turnbull has said this morning* that the states cannot keep " using the federal government like an ATM"  to get money for infrastructure projects.

[ * http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/05/17/10/44/turnbull-to-qld-i-m-not-an-atm ]

So it does look like the PM is not going to play ball with Cross River Rail.  The Queensland Government should start Cross River Rail with its own finances.

This is how a RAIL Back On Track Member has commented this morning on the stalemate for infrastructure in Queensland.

Nailed it don't you think?

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6647.msg192597#msg192597

Both sides of politics are serial offenders when it comes to planning and funding major infrastructure in Queensland.  Both assume that 'daddy moneybags' federal government, not the state, will pay for everything.  Therefore, the game plan is to float ideas of one kind or another - some practical others not - and call upon the federal government to fund the latest brain fart.  When there are practical solutions, such as the SCL duplication, the project is delayed and delayed and put through various studies and business case analyses to delay construction, while giving the impression that the project is progressing.

When we have major projects, such as CRR, an incoming government cannot bring itself to fund it (even if they had the money) because that would be implementing the previous government's agenda.  Usually, there is some case mounted that 'we have a better, cheaper idea' and we get ideas such as the BAT and Cleveland Solution being floated and going nowhere.  Delays, delays.

All the while, endless strategic planning documents are produced, outlining some future Utopia.  The Queensland Plan, Connecting SEQ 2031, Shaping SEQ etc.  The electorate is promised a better tomorrow always.

But when the deadline to implement something that was promised looms, what happens?

A further document is produced, another study is ordered.  The promised project is delayed while the job is reviewed.  Ultimately, the next fanciful idea is put forward, as a ploy to distract the populace from the political undertaking to build whatever was promised.  When called to account by community groups and the media, the government says it has moved on from that idea to the new one -- often to be delivered 10 or 20 years into the future.  We are told to cling to that new hope.  The pollies get kudos, or claim it, for the glossy brochure and the fly through.

The business case for Beerburrum-Nambour duplication and upgrade is done (for about the fourth time).  Now, when the expectations is that it will be constructed, the excuses begin.  Canberra didn't include it in the Budget.  We have a better idea - bullet trains running from the Gold Coast to the Wide Bay.

The reality is that the doable and the practical solution never gets done.  It is the Queensland disease.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

[ Attached: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg192427#msg192427 ]

[ozbob]

Media: ' Cross River Rail - start construction tomorrow! '
> https://t.co/u03BReJEy0#qldpol#infrastructurestalemate@QLDLabor @LNPQLD pic.twitter.com/UCtZDU5GFL

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 17, 2017

[ozbob]

^ 4BC News have followed up .. 

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> PM Malcolm Turnbull tells Queensland his government is 'not an ATM'

Malcolm Turnbull says the states can't keep "using the federal government like an ATM" to get money for infrastructure projects.

The prime minister's comments come as the Queensland government continues to lobby Mr Turnbull to match its $850 million commitment to start work on Brisbane's Cross River Rail project.

Mr Turnbull repeated his concerns about the business case for the project, despite one being delivered by the state Labor government late last year.

"We need to get better value out of our infrastructure investment than we have in the past," the prime minister said in Brisbane on Wednesday.

"We need to be investing more and treating these taxpayer dollars with more respect so that we get the maximum output from it, rather than just treating the Commonwealth government like a cash dispenser machine."

Mr Turnbull also said he remained "nonplussed" by Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk abandoning her usually cordial relationship with him in the lead-up to the federal budget, making several strong-worded demands about Cross River Rail.

Following the budget, which overlooked the $5.4 billion project, Ms Palaszczuk described the lack of funding as a "slap in the face" and vowed to continue to lobby for greater Commonwealth assistance.

The budget included money for projects in Melbourne and Sydney, as well as a multi-billion dollar federal rail fund that could be used to fund Cross River Rail, but not before 2019.

[ozbob]

Unless the Queensland Government starts this project now, Cross River Rail is as dead as a dodo !

PM Turnbull is hopelessly politically biased though when it comes to infrastructure.  They have committed funding to projects without business cases and BCRs < 1 ...

I rather did like the idea of trams in the Brisbane River .. 

Next?

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

CRRail looks bleak: @TurnbullMalcolm says it&#39;s not so much a business case as a proposal, @AnnastaciaMP @jackietrad @abcnews #qldpol

— Chris O&#39;Brien (@COBrienBris) May 17, 2017

[ozbob]

LOL Brisbane is gone for all money ...  a few bi-artics is not going to do much in the end.

My suggestion is to #FleeQLD while you are young and adaptable.

My choices would be:

1. Perth

2. Adelaide

3. Hobart (if you like the cooler weather)  Tasmania is a great place overall.  Not that much rail but still good.

4. Melbourne.

Sydney is always good for visiting.

[Jonno]

Cophenhagen

Berlin

Vancouver

Vienna

Auckland

.......

[#Metro]

Time to offload a power station or two I think.

We don't need to own two power stations which the private sector would happily pay for and run.

We DO need Cross River Rail.

#1 priority hey? What's more important - public ownership of a power station or two, or infrastructure we can use that has a social

benefit and that the private sector won't build without public funds?

Daniel Andrews and Victoria have the right idea - offload the port and use the $$ to pay for 50 level crossing removals and rail network upgrades.

There are also other things the Queensland Government can do, like land tax, like TOD rezoning around all QR stations.

I suspect this funding block is designed to delay until an election when the state blue team will unveil their own plans for CRR4.

[Stillwater]

Does the Queensland Government know how to prepare a Business Case for a major project that conforms with the IA guidelines?  When is one person's Business Case a 'proposal' only?

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/files/Stage_4_Business_Case_Assessment_Template_Transport.pdf

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/files/Assessment_Framework_Overview.pdf

https://atap.gov.au/framework/business-cases/files/f4_business_case_for_proposed_initiatives.pdf

Maybe someone with a copy of the so-called CRR Business Case could do everyone a favour and leak it to the media so it's suitability and adequacy could be assessed.

[Gazza]

Im happy for power stations to remain in public hands.
A Private operator will want to recoup their investment and make ongoing profit, which would mean higher power prices.

The WA libs lost on power privatisation.... there's just no votes in it.

[#Metro]

Prices are set by supply / demand, not production costs.

This is because alternative power generators exist and they are in competition.

An increase in production cost at one generator  therefore does not automatically translate into a price increase.

In addition to this, the current public operators are commercialized and thus must also generate a return.

People need to decide whether pubic ownership and the symbolism that comes with it is the number 1 priority, or cross river rail is.

[James]

Or you know, you could borrow money. From a bank. Like every other human being, company and government does when they need to fund infrastructure. The problem is neither political party is interested in doing the hard miles to get the project off the ground. Too busy doing political grandstanding, blaming the other party and so forth. It's really quite sad.

Maybe we can hope that the ALP is listening, reading, and thinking that maybe a (small) bit of debt may mean more GST and a significant net benefit to the state which is too big to ignore?

[#Metro]

Borrowing is good too. Likely a mix of sources needed.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Time to offload a power station or two I think.

We don't need to own two power stations which the private sector would happily pay for and run.

We DO need Cross River Rail.

#1 priority hey? What's more important - public ownership of a power station or two, or infrastructure we can use that has a social

benefit and that the private sector won't build without public funds?

Daniel Andrews and Victoria have the right idea - offload the port and use the $$ to pay for 50 level crossing removals and rail network upgrades.

There are also other things the Queensland Government can do, like land tax, like TOD rezoning around all QR stations.

I suspect this funding block is designed to delay until an election when the state blue team will unveil their own plans for CRR4.

Essential infrastructure should never be privitised.

[OzGamer]

Metro, if you insist on flooding this forum with your privatisation agenda, you need to understand some basic economics:

If a power station is worth something in the free market it means it is generating a positive cashflow. If the government sells this asset and uses the money to build something like Cross River Rail, it is turning a positive cashflow asset into a negative cashflow asset. Therefore, you are permanently worsening the government's budgetary position. All else being equal, this would need to be managed by further borrowing.

So why not just borrow the money to build Cross River Rail?

Sell the power company or don't, it is irrelevant to whether or not you build Cross River Rail. If you really just want to sell public assets for ideological reasons then fine, but take that to a right wing political forum. I'm frankly sick of it here and it is close to making me (and I suspect others) give up on this as a place to discuss transport policy.

[tazzer9]

Power Stations are a massive revenue generator for the state government.   Its unlikely they will be privatised, and if they were, we would end up selling them for far less than what they are actually worth.

[ozbob]

BREAKING Malcolm Turnbull & Premier finish an hour long meeting about cross river rail @7NewsQueensland pic.twitter.com/fYQOlbdW0g

— Marlina Whop (@MarlinaWhop) May 17, 2017

[ozbob]

Premier @AnnastaciaMP following "productive" meeting with PM @TurnbullMalcolm RE issues with Cross River business case #auspol #qldpol pic.twitter.com/uCVFSdGGVu

— Felicity Caldwell (@fel_caldwell) May 18, 2017

[ozbob]

PM has told @AnnastaciaMP more work is needed on Cross River Rail business case. She thanked him. @abcnews #qldpol pic.twitter.com/ADLywoktPj

— Chris O&#38;#38;#39;Brien (@COBrienBris) May 17, 2017

^ which is basically what we have said.

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg192427#msg192427

... Leading into the 2017-18 Federal Budget we did warn that it was not looking promising for funding due to the ranking of CRR at Infrastructure Australia (3rd tier, only a high priority initiative) and the fact variations to CRR and the impact of the revised ' Brisbane Metro ' had not been included in the previously submitted business case - well at least no public confirmation of this.  This gave the Coalition Federal Government an out.  Queensland is not the only state shafted, South Australia and Victoria too have been poorly dealt with.

In our view the Queensland Government should commence early works for Cross River Rail.  The project is sound and it will eventually  achieve some Federal funding either from the Coalition Federal Government or a Labor Federal Government in time. ...

[Stillwater]

^Very interesting!  I'd like to know if Ms Trad was in one the meeting.  Good to see that Queensland is up for hatching a deal.  Perhaps common sense is prevailing - state starts work, continues to iron out business case kinks, a bit of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink on the prospects of federal funding in out years.  Encouraging, especially as the state is probably putting the finishing touches to state Budget.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Premier and PM discuss 'couple of issues' holding up Cross River Rail

The Cross River Rail business case has been sent back to the Queensland government to fix up a "couple of issues".

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk met with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at Waterfront Place on Thursday morning, discussing the $5.4 billion rail infrastructure project and Cyclone Debbie recovery.

Ms Palaszczuk would not disclose what the specific issues were with the business case, which had been sent to the federal government and Infrastructure Australia.

"The Prime Minister has conveyed to me today that Infrastructure Australia has a couple of issues, they would like some more work done, and I have said that I will progress that work as quickly as possible," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"I'm not going to go into those details now but I do want to thank the Prime Minister for having such a productive meeting.

"I made it very clear that Queensland had a number of key priorities that I want to see some funding towards.

"We have agreed the business case is with the federal government."

Transport Minister Jackie Trad has recently insisted the business case was completed, with the federal government and waiting for a decision.

Ms Palaszczuk said she would make the business case her priority and planned to meet with Ms Trad and her director-general and would speak with Infrastructure Australia.

Ms Palaszczuk, who in recent weeks has been critical of the Prime Minister, described the hour-long meeting as "very productive".

"This has been a very courteous meeting, very respectful and I think it is a positive sign."

On Wednesday, Mr Turnbull declared the federal government would not be used as an ATM by the state governments, and told a LNP post-budget lunch that Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls should be the next premier of Queensland.

They also spoke about the need for a national energy policy.

Ms Palaszczuk said the meeting showed there was a willingness to talk about the issue and "go through a couple of outstanding issues".

Mr Turnbull said Infrastructure Australia described the Cross River Rail proposal as inadequate in "a number of respects".

"They want to know more about its integration with other transport systems and networks in south-east Queensland, about land use opportunities, generally the development aspects of it," Mr Turnbull said later in the morning at Fig Tree Pocket.

"It needs more work and look, that is not, I'm not making a criticism of it, I'm just stating a fact."

Mr Turnbull described it as a "very constructive" and "cordial" discussion on a range of issues.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Premier admits Cross River Rail 'issues'

Update:

THE Cross River Rail business case lacks detail around its development, land use issues and proper integration with other public transport, Malcolm Turnbull says.

The Prime Minister said he had a very constructive discussion with Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk this morning about the $5.2 billion infrastructure project.

"The submission, or the proposal, is inadequate in a number of respects," he told reporters following the meeting.

"This is Infrastructure Australia's view and they want to know more about its integration with other transport systems and networks in South East Queensland, about land use opportunities, generally the development aspects of it.

"It needs more work. That is not — I am not making a criticism of it, I am just stating a fact."

He said the Premier's Director-General Dave Stewart would be meeting with Infrastructure Australia shortly.

"We certainly want to bring the assessment process to a conclusion but at this stage it is still ongoing," he said.

Earlier:

PREMIER Annastacia Palaszczuk says Infrastructure Australia has some issues with the Cross River Rail business case that need to be addressed but she will not reveal what they are.

She will also not comment on whether it involved further taxes to capitalise on any increase in land values as a result of the project.

Ms Palaszczuk met with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to discuss the project, among other issues, this morning.

She said the meeting was "respectful" and she was hopeful about progress on getting funding for Brisbane's second river rail crossing.

"The Prime Minister and I have had a very productive conversation," she said as she left the hour-long meeting

"He has conveyed to me today that Infrastructure Australia has a couple of issues that they would like some more work done on and I have said that I will progress work as quickly as possible."

Ms Palaszczuk said she would be meeting with Deputy Premier Jackie Trad today to discuss the business case issues.

It comes after Mr Turnbull yesterday hinted he did not believe the state was doing enough to ensure it took advantage of the increase in property values likely as a result of the project.

[ozbob]

Mind boggling stuff.  We warned constantly that there were issues and unless they were addressed funding would not be forthcoming.

How come we can see that but the bumblers and fumblers in Big Willy cannot?

All the more reason we need Public Transport Queensland - get this stuff out of the oversight of DTMR/TransLink and fast ...

[ozbob]

9 News --> PM flags 'issues' with Cross River Rail

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has agreed to work on a number of "issues" with the Cross River Rail project, following a meeting with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The premier and prime minister sat down together in Brisbane on Thursday following weeks of sniping about funding for the project.

Ms Palaszczuk described the meeting as "positive", but said the state government had agreed to address several issues with the project identified by Infrastructure Australia.

"The prime minister has conveyed to me that Infrastructure Australia has a couple of issues (on which) they would like some more work done and I have said that I will progress that work as quickly as possible," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"I would hope in the future it would be possible to have more discussions like the one we had today."

Speaking at a later press conference, Mr Turnbull also described the meeting as "constructive" and "cordial" but also repeated his view that the business case presented by Queensland "needs more work".

"The submission or the proposal is inadequate in a number of respects; this is Infrastructure Australia's view," Mr Turnbull told reporters.

"It needs more work. I am not making a criticism of it, I am just stating a fact."

"We certainly want to bring the assessment process to a conclusion but at this stage it is still ongoing."

Mr Turnbull said issues including Cross River Rail's integration with other transport systems, notably the Brisbane Metro proposed by Brisbane City Council, as well as land use opportunities, had been identified by Infrastructure Australia.

The premier wouldn't say how long it will take to work through the issues, but said she will be meeting with Deputy Premier and Transport Minister Jackie Trad, and her director-general to discuss how to move forward.

She says she and Mr Turnbull also talked about category D funding for people affected by Cyclone Debbie, as well as the national energy policy, as she spruiked her policy of a hydro-electric plant in North Queensland.

[#Metro]

Essential infrastructure should never be privitised.

Queensland already has a number of non-government power generators, as do other states.

Cross River Rail is the essential infrastructure because no private actor is going to build it without gov't funds.

If a power station is worth something in the free market it means it is generating a positive cashflow. If the government sells this asset and uses the money to build something like Cross River Rail, it is turning a positive cashflow asset into a negative cashflow asset

Government is the only actor that can invest in assets like Cross River Rail. Power stations, not. Look at Victoria or NSW, plenty of $

around for 50 level crossing removals, and suchlike. They sold the port to help them do that.

Sell the power company or don't, it is irrelevant to whether or not you build Cross River Rail. If you really just want to sell public assets for ideological reasons then fine, but take that to a right wing political forum. I'm frankly sick of it here and it is close to making me (and I suspect others) give up on this as a place to discuss transport policy.

At every election about half the people vote for blue team, half for red team and a smaller proportion for the greens and minor parties.

You just can't censor discussion because you don't like certain policy options. It's a valid option.

It's been done before and Red Team is the biggest privatiser of government assets there is.

If done this way, the Queensland Government could also claim 15% bonus from the Federal Government through the asset recycling scheme.


Privatisations under QLD Labor governments

1994 Gladstone Power Station $750m Goss (ALP)

1999 Queensland TAB $268m Beattie (ALP)

2006 Allgas Energy $535m Beattie/Bligh (ALP)

2006 Sun Retail $1,202m Beattie/Bligh (ALP)

2007 Powerdirect $1,200m Beattie/Bligh (ALP)

2010 QR National 66% sale $4,050m Bligh (ALP)

You can see the income from sale proceeds is of a scale where you could fund something like CRR.

I could go on, such as the sale of insurer businesses and SunCorp etc. It's been done before and can be done again.

All this "we won't sell assets" thing is just pure rhetoric, its the "retail front" of the party. Just look at the history, they have a very solid track record in this area. They even sold Queensland Rail.

[Stillwater]

It is interesting that Ms Palaszczuk said she would be talking to Jackie Trad, indicating that this matter has escalated to a Premier-PM level, beyond the SHOW US THE MONEY antics of Ms Trad, media conferences on the Kangaroo point cliffs, tweets and other stunts.  The fundamental issue has always been the adequacy of the business case.

In addition, it is the Premiers Department Director-General Dave Stewart who will be doing the talking on behalf of Queensland with Infrastructure Australia and not the TMR Director-General Neil Scales.  That's progress.  Given his background in the UK, Neil Scales must be picking up fast on the relative responsibilities of Commonwealth-States in Australia, the cross-overs of responsibility, the interplay, the political intrigue and the cocktail mix of funding surrounding a major infrastructure project  such as CRR from all levels of government with competing political objectives and different corporate priorities.

[Stillwater]

So, essentially, for the past eight or nine months, we have had to put up with this nonsense:

Feds - it is not a Business Case, it is a proposal, it doesn't relate to the latest project you propose but an earlier CRR plan, we can't see clearly how it fits in with Metro and land use planning and wider development issues - therefore it is a proposal.  Give us the details we need to make a proper assessment.

State -  It is good as your going to get.  Stop the stuffing around.  Give us our money.

It's called inter-governmental relations.   

[kram0]

I have it on good authority that Curtis Pitt and Anna have found money to start CRR in 2017/2018. All will be revealed in the state budget so my source has indicated. They want to be seen as doing something major in there first term and are sh%t scared what will happen at the poles if they don't start the state's number 1 project.

Fingers crossed and time will tell.

[#Metro]

I'm confident that funds will come from both levels. I think they have heard enough of their own rhetoric. The fact that Malcolm and Annastacia met is a good sign.

Personally, I think this integration stuff Malcolm is on about is nonsense. But the development thing is good and meshes with RBOT position on TODs.

[OzGamer]

Government is the only actor that can invest in assets like Cross River Rail. Power stations, not. Look at Victoria or NSW, plenty of $

Not true. Private entities could invest in rail if they liked, just like Aurizon did. The reason none will build Cross River Rail is that it won't make any money. All of the railways in America were built by private money.

New South Wales has plenty of money because they have a higher tax rate and they've had a bonanza in stamp duty from the investor-fueled property boom/bubble. Selling the power assets was nothing more than an accounting fiddle

around for 50 level crossing removals, and suchlike. They sold the port to help them do that.

But they will now have a worse budget position for ever. They easily could have removed the level crossings with borrowings and not sold the port. I don't have a strong opinion about public ownership of the port, but it is irrelevant to the government's investment in infrastructure that is financially negative but with wider benefits.

You just can't censor discussion because you don't like certain policy options. It's a valid option.

Nobody's being censored. I'm stating that it's tiresome and been done to death and it makes the overall forum less interesting. Turn the whole of RailBOT into your private soapbox if you like but you'll be talking into the void eventually.

It's been done before and Red Team is the biggest privatiser of government assets there is.

So what, I was saying nothing about party politics. I was saying that privatisation is a political issue that has effectively nothing to do with public transport policy.

1994 Gladstone Power Station $750m Goss (ALP)

1999 Queensland TAB $268m Beattie (ALP)
...

Blah blah blah. So what! What is your point? Who cares what the ALP thinks. I don't. I think they've gotten some things right and some things wrong.

[Stillwater]

Mr Pitt says that the federal government's statement, via the PM, that the CRR Business Case 'needs more work' to 'clarify a number of issues' is "a revelation".  Really?  Really?

Doesn't he read the media or get a summary of what's displayed in this forum?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/with-federal-money-cross-river-rail-work-could-start-this-year-trad-20170503-gvxwju.html

It's obvious that Labor Queensland finally realises that its game of bluff with the feds hasn't worked.  Let's face it, the state government's concept of an integrated transport plan is to publish pictures of a bus and a train side by side in a glossy brochure.

Something worthwhile might come out of this as the feds press home the need for some deep thinking about integrating CRR and Brisbane Metro and revitalising suburbs and inner-city precincts.

The more Labor pushed that CRR was their No.1 infrastructure project that was going nowhere, the more they were publicising their own inadequacy to get things done.  Not a good look going into a state election campaign.

[#Metro]

Not true. Private entities could invest in rail if they liked, just like Aurizon did. The reason none will build Cross River Rail is that it won't make any money. All of the railways in America were built by private money.

Aurizon focuses on freight. Freight makes money. Unlike a power station, passenger services do not make money. The money is made when people go to work, businesses set up etc, gov't can tax it, which is why gov't and only gov't can ultimately fund Cross River Rail.

New South Wales has plenty of money because they have a higher tax rate and they've had a bonanza in stamp duty from the investor-fueled property boom/bubble. Selling the power assets was nothing more than an accounting fiddle

And because they offloaded things so they can pay for the metro etc.

NSW electricity asset sale to lead to infrastructure boom, but what projects could get the green light?
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/nsw-electricity-asset-sale-to-lead-to-infrastructure-boom-but-what-projects-could-get-the-green-light/news-story/8b1ef544612ce9ad353cc3dafb00bdf4

But they will now have a worse budget position for ever. They easily could have removed the level crossings with borrowings and not sold the port. I don't have a strong opinion about public ownership of the port, but it is irrelevant to the government's investment in infrastructure that is financially negative but with wider benefits.

No, the Victorian Government budget is in surplus of $1.2 billion. Government is there to provide goods and services that the private sector would find unprofitable. Like railway crossing removals and extensions.

Victorian government funds infrastructure and health services in new budget

Treasurer Tim Pallas claimed the third budget will deliver more than $8 billion in surpluses over the next four years, with a $1.2 billion surplus this financial year.

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/politics/victorian-government-funds-infrastructure-and-health-services-in-new-budget/news-story/b3908b8efc536c67209762e91a78c090

I was saying that privatisation is a political issue that has effectively nothing to do with public transport policy.

How to fund things is a political issue too. Things need to be paid for, you know. People might want a power station to be

publicly owned, but they can't hide the fact that it doesn't need to be publicly owned. Offloading one or two could pay for CRR -

the Queensland Government's #1 priority.

[ozbob]