Cross River Rail Project

[BrizCommuter]

Will LNP axe Cross River Rail?
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/will-lnp-axe-cross-river-rail.html

[ozbob]

Will LNP axe Cross River Rail?
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/will-lnp-axe-cross-river-rail.html

Thanks!   

Sent to all outlets & ...

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/887348233889918977

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Brisbane Cross River Rail date delivery a bridge too far

CROSS River Rail may not be needed for a decade after its planned delivery in 2024 despite the State Government funding and building the $5.4 billion project.

Passenger demand figures reveal the CityTrain system's supposed choke point, the Merivale Bridge, operated at just 65 per cent seated capacity during morning peak hour in 2016.

The data reveals an extra 2869 seated passengers could cross the bridge during the 7.30-8.30am peak.

Despite an uptick in demand over the past two years, the number of rail passengers that traverse the Merivale Bridge daily remains below 2011 levels.

At the average peak hour patronage growth rate of 2.5 per cent, Cross River Rail will not be needed until 2035.

The revelations come amid a political bunfight over Cross River Rail with the Opposition refusing to match Labor's commitment to fully fund the project.

Opposition deputy leader Deb Frecklington accused the Labor Government of "cooking the books" on Cross River Rail to stack up its pet project.

"It shows again how weak and inadequate the Cross River Rail project is," she said.

However, Deputy Premier Jackie Trad said up to 21 trains crossed Merivale Bridge during peak hour, while capacity was 24.

Cross River Rail would increase peak hour capacity to 48 trains an hour.

"If nothing is done to increase the number and frequency of trains able to cross the Brisbane River during the peak, then the daily commute for many passengers could end up resembling the Bombay Express," she said.

"If there's no extra capacity built into the rail network, including additional train frequency and additional train services, then rail patronage will stagnate and more cars will be forced on to SEQ roads."

Commuters were warned that 2016 would be a choke point during the first discussions of Cross River Rail.

However, that date was amended to 2021 after passenger forecasts were found to be flawed and demand dropped after prices spiked.

The latest estimate of 2026 is because of the looming introduction of a train control system that will allow more trains to travel across the Merivale Bridge. ...

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Qldaah/status/887503524548030464

[verbatim9]

This Cross River Rail Saga is bizarre. It's almost like a Yes and No campaign tied to a referendum. Commentary from every source.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Editorial: Clarity by Government vital on Cross River Rail

QUEENSLANDERS could be forgiven for being cynical about Cross River Rail.

Those who live in the southeast corner have had the benefits of this rail link dangled before them for a decade or more only to watch it become mired in one issue or another. For those in regional Queensland, the rail link is an example of the southeast-centric spending bias while they struggle for basic improvements.

The latest imbroglio over this $5.4 billion project plays into both these themes. With an election looming, the Palaszczuk Government has pledged to fully fund Cross River Rail. The Labor administration allocated $2.8 billion over the forward estimates of its final budget with the remaining $2.6 billion to come in future years so the project is completed by 2024.

This decision was both pragmatic and political. Given the Turnbull Government's recalcitrance, Labor could ill afford to go to another election with its "No. 1 infrastructure priority" in limbo. Meanwhile, the LNP Opposition has yet to commit one way or another towards Cross River Rail.

There's a political impetus to the LNP's positioning given Cross River Rail's toxic image in the regions and the fight the party faces reclaiming support lost to One Nation.

How the Opposition can reconcile its resistance with the fact it spent almost three years in office pursuing the so-called Bus and Train Tunnel, which was an amended incarnation of Cross River Rail, has not yet been fleshed out.

However, right now it is Labor that is in power and Labor that is committing billions of dollars of taxpayers' money towards this project.

So it is Labor's responsibility to provide Queenslanders with evidence that backs Cross River Rail's case.

The Courier-Mail has long supported this project and the reasons for this are just as sound now as they were in its infancy.

Examples across the world, such as London, Paris and New York, demonstrate that underground stations and associated rail infrastructure spawn vibrant urban centres through infill developments, which attract tourism and investment, creating wealth.

It is blatantly apparent that as the southeast region grows, as jobs are generated in the city and housing established outside it, that a second rail crossing on the south side of the Brisbane River is necessary to prevent the point where demand exceeds the ability to supply. The important question is not if we need Cross River Rail, or some variation of it, but when.

As revealed by The Courier-Mail, new figures have cast doubt on the urgency of the project. They demonstrate that the existing river crossing has been operating at around 65 per cent of its seated capacity during the morning peak for the past five years.

Numerous factors could be behind this conundrum. Passengers alighting at earlier stations, Brisbane's system of tunnels making car travel more attractive and exorbitant price rises are just a few. Deputy Premier Jackie Trad has argued that up to 21 trains an hour can safely traverse the Merivale Bridge. Given capacity is currently 24 trains it would take just three more services for the system to reach a choke point.

However, this is a disingenuous response from Ms Trad given it does not address the core issue of how many passengers these trains are actually carrying. The Minister has already been caught out failing to disclose an array of new taxes and levies proposed in the detailed business case to help pay for Cross River Rail. It raises the question what other information deemed not fit for public consumption is contained in this document. While Ms Trad has committed to release an update, there are fears it will just replicate the sanitised edition that was originally released. Given the veil of commercial-in-confidence has been removed with the Government fully funding the project, Ms Trad now needs to release the full business case.

With the enormous commitment taxpayers are being asked to make in Cross River Rail, it is incumbent on Ms Trad to be upfront with all this information if she wants public support for the project.

[#Metro]

As revealed by The Courier-Mail, new figures have cast doubt on the urgency of the project. They demonstrate that the existing river crossing has been operating at around 65 per cent of its seated capacity during the morning peak for the past five years.

The seating capacity is largely irrelevant. A train with 1000 people on board takes up as many slots on the network as a train with no

passengers that is 'dead running'. Because passengers do not pack perfectly into vehicles, and it is culturally inappropriate to have people

jammed between others, vehicles can reasonably carry 80% of their theoretical rated capacity and be considered 'full'.

The relevant number in this is the fact that 21 trains use the bridge in peak hour (as reported by CM) and that the maximum capacity is 24.

So the utilisation is: (21 / 24) x 100 = 87.5% use.


So it makes sense to expand that capacity, and particularly so if we expect places like Logan and the Gold Coast population to increase.

To not build CRR would be to assume that over the next 30 years, the number of additional people commuting to Brisbane will not exceed 3000... (calc: 24 - 21 x 1000)

It would take about 10 years to build it properly, so it makes sense to construct it... 10 years before it is required.


The main financial indicators are both positive. The costs outweigh the benefits (BCR - a unitless measure of efficiency) and the overall

effectiveness is also positive (NPV- a measure of the total financial value of benefits such as time savings generated).


Or is the Gold Coast - Brisbane Pacific Motorway just going to soak up all the extra travel?


PS: If the LNP wants to be consistent, just apply their logic to roads. Most cars have 1 passenger in them and most cars have seats

for 5 people, so that is (4/5) * 100 = 80% empty seating, even on gridlocked peak hour motorways. Put this to Deb Frecklington et al. and

see what they have to say. I could make the argument that no new roads are required in Queensland - ever - with this type of reasoning.

[kram0]

You should forward this information to the negative Deb Frankin so she can have some vision for the future!!

[Stillwater]

Ms Frecklington seems to want to justify why the LNP wants to delay CRR, because if it does, there is $2.8b sitting in the forward estimates (put thereby Labor) that the LNP could reallocate at election time into a number of dodgy projects in electorates the LNP wants to win.  Let's just take an example -- ALP at election time commits to CRR, but LNP says it is not needed and snaffles $800m of that for duplication of the SCL to Nambour (because the LNP has a burning desire to win back the seat of Nicklin).  Or it promises Citytrain services to Toowoomba, or whatever.  It is a big bucket of money that the LNP is eyeing off.

The references to 'seat capacity' is a load of twaddle.  It is the number of trains that need to cross the Merivale Bridge that is the issue.

Ms Frecklington seems to be saying that trains should terminate at South Brisbane and Roma Street and the passengers are turfed out to board the next service in order to make up a full train to get across the bridge.

It may not be BAT, but it's batty thinking.

[BrizCommuter]

Realistically 24tph across the Merivale Bridge with existing signalling would be very unreliable.

[brissypete]

Having some Southside trains terminate at South Brisbane could be an ok option to increase capacity as its quite a busy station in peaks and Platform 3 is hardly used

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

[#Metro]

Pretty clear that Tim Nicholls will cancel CRR, this is just the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) prelude to it all.

Contrary to popular belief, politicians aren't stupid, and even if they were, their advisers are not.

Somewhere along the line they have decided that a redistribution of the CRR money would be

politically more profitable and that Gold Coast LNP seats have sufficient margin to cancel it.

Money will probably go into that Brisbane River aquarium, and the Roma Street stadium idea.

[Stillwater]

We are seeing the LNP concocting a 'False News' story.  What they want people to believe is that the Merivale St Bridge is below capacity (measured as bums on seats) due to Labor incompetence.  Secondly, the LNP wants us to accept that CRR is a big expensive project designed to 'prop up' the ALP in inner-Brisbane, and Jackie Trad especially. The LNP refers to a 'secret' business case, and speculates on what it contains (secret taxes etc).

The LNP wants to paint itself as a party 'for all of Queensland, not just SEQ'.  This is the segway argument to using the billions Labor has budgeted for CRR and reallocating the money right across the state, in marginal electorates it hopes to win at the next election.

The reporters will ask 'have you abandoned CRR?' and the LNP will answer 'no', we need CRR, just not now - look at the 65 per cent seat occupancy'.  The ALP is spending recklessly, we are spending wisely on 'critical infrastructure' (read stadiums and other pet projects).  The LNP will get around the lack of business cases for these projects by promising them and saying they 'will be subject to rigorous business case analysis, BCRs etc'.

Photo opportunities with LNP candidates at the site of the new dam, the new library, the new whatever.

And ..... not a penny spent.  It's brilliant, but is it Fake News.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

21st July 2017

Comment: Cross River Rail is NOT an 'Inner City' Project

Greetings,

RAIL Back on Track wishes to address some disinformation around the Cross River Rail project, and particularly so given the recent estimates hearings.

Firstly, Cross River Rail is not an 'inner city project'. The fact that stations are located at Woolloongabba, CBD (Albert Street), Roma Street and Exhibition is purely incidental. Indeed, residents of the inner city are the least to benefit from Cross River Rail as it is often faster and more frequent to catch a bus. For example, Woolloongabba already has a busway with buses to the city every few seconds.

On the contrary, the main beneficiaries of Cross River Rail will be LNP electorates located on the Gold Coast, and in time the Sunshine Coast. Logan residents will directly benefit also. The rest of the SEQ rail network will see indirect benefits, as a reduction in congestion through the CBD core of the rail network will allow new peak hour services to be put on, which in turn will reduce waiting time and thus overall journey time (journey time = waiting time + in-vehicle trip time).

Secondly, we want to address capacity issues around Cross River Rail and passenger peak hour seated capacities over the Merivale Bridge. Consider if this same logic were applied to roads - it would justify a ban on all road widenings, new road constructions and road tunnels across the entire state of Queensland.

Consider the fact that most cars have 1.3 passenger in them and most cars have seats for 5 people. So the "passenger seated capacity" is thus calculated as (3.7/5) * 100 = 74% empty seating, even on gridlocked peak hour motorways. See? No need for roads with all that empty space around, right??

What really matters is the number of trains making the crossing in the peak hour - we estimate that this is running above 80% of vehicle (i.e. not passenger seats) capacity of the Merivale Bridge. It is not unreasonable to think that an addition of 3000 passengers (+3 trains) due to growth in LNP electorates on the Gold Coast and in Logan over the next 30 or more years would bring that to a breaking point.

We estimate the "fall in peak hour passengers" as compared against 2011 passenger levels during peak hour amounts to less than half of one train. And we believe further that this drop in patronage (which also coincided with a drop in bus use) is can wholly be explained by the incendiary single and double digit fare increases forced on commuters as part of a failed fares policy that made public transport use in SEQ the highest and most expensive in Australia.

We need Cross River Rail for the future. All Queenslanders are frankly fed up with the political games and lack of bi-partisan support on this essential state-building project.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Reference:

Estimates https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2017/2017_07_18_EstimatesFAC.pdf

[Stillwater]

 

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/CrossRiverRail/status/861465862166925313

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/CrossRiverRail/status/889012859228704769

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/CrossRiverRail/status/889390763494187008

[verbatim9]

Deloitte reckon CRR will go ahead early  2018 as per this article

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-five-hits-and-five-misses-of-the-queensland-economy-20170725-gxii4n.html

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/CrossRiverRail/status/889989616501006336

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ShaneDoherty9/status/890061208958758912

https://twitter.com/ShaneDoherty9/status/890064471812648961

https://twitter.com/ShaneDoherty9/status/890064048515166210

[ozbob]

 https://twitter.com/fel_caldwell/status/890069473574748160

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/COBrienBris/status/890068967410290688

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/stevenwardill/status/890068602426208257

[Derwan]

Just looking at the map on the front page, IA obviously put a lot of thought and work into ensuring that its response was accurate......

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

26th July 2017

Cross River Rail - full steam ahead!

Greetings,

RAIL Back On Track supports the Deputy Premier and Transport Minister Jackie Trad, and the Palaszczuk Labor Government in their committment to forge ahead with Cross River Rail. Cross River Rail was the number one project on the Infrastructure Australia (IA) Priority List 2012, and now according to IA is now only an initiative?

The current analysis of Cross River Rail by IA is unreliable and inaccurate in our opinion.  The fact that there are numerous errors in the IA document reflects the poor evaluation process.  We believe IA is now politicised to the point of irrelevancy.  Hopefully with a change at the Federal level IA will once again assess projects on merit not on the politics of the states.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

21st July 2017

Comment: Cross River Rail is NOT an 'Inner City' Project

Greetings,

RAIL Back on Track wishes to address some disinformation around the Cross River Rail project, and particularly so given the recent estimates hearings.

Firstly, Cross River Rail is not an 'inner city project'. The fact that stations are located at Woolloongabba, CBD (Albert Street), Roma Street and Exhibition is purely incidental. Indeed, residents of the inner city are the least to benefit from Cross River Rail as it is often faster and more frequent to catch a bus. For example, Woolloongabba already has a busway with buses to the city every few seconds.

On the contrary, the main beneficiaries of Cross River Rail will be LNP electorates located on the Gold Coast, and in time the Sunshine Coast. Logan residents will directly benefit also. The rest of the SEQ rail network will see indirect benefits, as a reduction in congestion through the CBD core of the rail network will allow new peak hour services to be put on, which in turn will reduce waiting time and thus overall journey time (journey time = waiting time + in-vehicle trip time).

Secondly, we want to address capacity issues around Cross River Rail and passenger peak hour seated capacities over the Merivale Bridge. Consider if this same logic were applied to roads - it would justify a ban on all road widenings, new road constructions and road tunnels across the entire state of Queensland.

Consider the fact that most cars have 1.3 passenger in them and most cars have seats for 5 people. So the "passenger seated capacity" is thus calculated as (3.7/5) * 100 = 74% empty seating, even on gridlocked peak hour motorways. See? No need for roads with all that empty space around, right??

What really matters is the number of trains making the crossing in the peak hour - we estimate that this is running above 80% of vehicle (i.e. not passenger seats) capacity of the Merivale Bridge. It is not unreasonable to think that an addition of 3000 passengers (+3 trains) due to growth in LNP electorates on the Gold Coast and in Logan over the next 30 or more years would bring that to a breaking point.

We estimate the "fall in peak hour passengers" as compared against 2011 passenger levels during peak hour amounts to less than half of one train. And we believe further that this drop in patronage (which also coincided with a drop in bus use) is can wholly be explained by the incendiary single and double digit fare increases forced on commuters as part of a failed fares policy that made public transport use in SEQ the highest and most expensive in Australia.

We need Cross River Rail for the future. All Queenslanders are frankly fed up with the political games and lack of bi-partisan support on this essential state-building project.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Reference:

Estimates https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2017/2017_07_18_EstimatesFAC.pdf

^ 4BC News followed up.  Thanks for the interest .. 

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/890090451222573059

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Queensland rejects 'flawed' assessment of Cross River Rail

The benefits of Cross River Rail have been "significantly overstated" and its $5.4 billion cost is likely to exceed its benefits, Infrastructure Australia says.

That led to a rubuke from Deputy Premier and Transport Minister Jackie Trad, who slammed the assessment as flawed.

Infrastructure Australia's latest advice keeps Cross River Rail as a high priority initiative, recognising the issue of rail capacity through the Brisbane CBD.

But IA did not include the current proposal for Cross River Rail on the infrastructure priority list.

It said IA would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case which addressed its concerns with benefit estimation and clarified the estimated timeframe for the emerging capacity problem.

"A revised business case should also quantify potential benefits from land use change and urban renewal expected to result form the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks," the IA project evaluation summary reads.

Infrastructure Australia also managed to invent a new suburb called "Hill Gate" in a map on the front page of its project evaluation summary - presumably it is an amalgamation of Hill End, West End and Highgate Hill.

Ms Trad said she did not know where "Hill Gate" was in Brisbane.

"Maybe it's a suburb near Malcolm Turnbull in Sydney but it certainly doesn't exist in Brisbane, so I was very curious as to why it appeared on the Infrastructure Australia map of the project," she said.

"I was also curious about why the CBD had moved to East Brisbane.

"I think Infrastructure Australia need to get some of those basic facts right."

Ms Trad said over the next 20 years, the population in south-east Queensland would grow by 1.5 million people.

"We need the infrastructure to be built for this growing population," she said.

Ms Trad said the Merivale Bridge currently had capacity for 24 trains, with 21 trains crossing during peak hour.

"So there is only capacity for an additional three trains during peak hour," she said.

Ms Trad said IA provided the Queensland government with its analysis two days ago, after having the Cross River Rail business case for 13 months.

"We have been backwards and forwards with Infrastructure Australia since they've had the business case and supplied additional information at their request," she said.

"None of that information has been included in their analysis of the business case. This is incredibly disappointing."

Ms Trad said IA's analysis was based on mistakes and assumptions that were "clearly false".

"What they are telling Queenslanders is Cross River Rail shouldn't be built until we reach a crisis on our network, until we see patronage figures increase to 150 per cent," she said.

Ms Trad accused IA providing analysis, summaries and commentary that was consistent with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's position not to invest in Cross River Rail.

"What we are seeing from Infrastructure Australia is a system whereby they produce the evidence to support Malcolm Turnbull's funding decisions rather than providing evidence on which to base funding decisions on," she said.

"We don't have faith in the process that Infrastructure Australia has undertaken."

IA said the patronage figures in the Cross River Rail business case were "unprecedented".

"That is untrue, Melbourne experienced them only recently and here in the south-east Queensland network, as soon as we built the Merivale Bridge and electrified the train network we saw similar growth, 6.7 per cent in public transport," Ms Trad said.

In a briefing note, Cross River Rail Delivery Authority head Graeme Newton said IA's summary contained "inherently flawed advice, with 23 instances of unsubstantiated opinions, assertions or errors".

Mr Newton recommended potentially withdrawing the CRR business case from the IA review process.

The Queensland government has committed to fund the project without federal government assistance if necessary.

Ms Trad confirmed the Queensland government would still go ahead with funding Cross River Rail alone, but the IA assessment provided a "level of false analysis" around the state's number one infrastructure project.

"We do have other projects that have been submitted to Infrastructure Australia and I am hoping that they treat those projects in terms of their analysis with much more independence and impartiality," she said.

RACQ spokesman Paul Turner said it was disappointing IA said south-east Queensland needed to reach "crisis point" before Cross River Rail was funded.

RACQ spokesman Paul Turner said it was disappointing IA said south-east Queensland needed to reach "crisis point" before Cross River Rail was funded.

But Deputy Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington said the LNP agreed with IA's assessment the business case used "dud figures" and the costs of Cross River Rail was likely to exceed its benefits.

"The LNP supports another heavy rail crossing across the Brisbane River, but we need to get the infrastructure solution right," Ms Frecklington said.

An IA spokesman said it had completed an independent evaluation of the business case, following a "rigorous assessment process".

He said IA sent a draft evaluation summary to the Queensland government on Monday asking for a fact and commercial-in-confidence check.

"The Queensland government has not provided us with any specific feedback on the evaluation summary," he said.

"Infrastructure Australia will publish the final evaluation summary on its website shortly."

[ozbob]

Couriermail  --> Cross River Rail fail on Infrastructure Australia's rejection map

INFRASTRUCTURE Australia has panned the state's Cross River Rail plan in an assessment Infrastructure Minister Jackie Trad says is full of errors.

In a written assessment released today — which bizarrely includes an incorrect map of Brisbane with the CBD on the wrong side of the river and a new suburb of "Hill Gate" — Infrastructure Australia questions the passenger modelling, road traffic benefits and economic benefits of the $5.4 billion rail line.

It points out that the 2011 business projected patronage in 2016 would be some 374,000 passengers per day, but the 2016 business case projects patronage for the same year at 195.000 per day.

It also complains other rail infrastructure options were ruled out without quantitative evidence to support their ruling out.

They include 2011 Cross River Rail configuration, Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel, duplication of the Merivale Bridge and conversion of the Cleveland and Ferny Grove railway lines to light rail and heavy rail turn-back options.

A briefing note by the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority found IA's analysis contained "23 instances of unsubstantiated opinions, assertions and errors".

Ms Trad said the assessment didn't take into account any extra information sought by Infrastructure Australia and provided to it over recent months.

The state has declared it will build the 10.2km rail line without the help of the Commonwealth.

But Ms Trad said she hoped a future federal government would chip in.

" ... It also complains other rail infrastructure options were ruled out without quantitative evidence to support their ruling out. They include 2011 Cross River Rail configuration, Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel, duplication of the Merivale Bridge and conversion of the Cleveland and Ferny Grove railway lines to light rail and heavy rail turn-back options. ... "

All hail the ' Cleveland Solution '    If you were not sure about IA I bet you are now hey?   

IA  a politicised irrelevancy!

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/stevenwardill/status/890086539950252033

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/890095907546464256

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/890096210509541377

[#Metro]

Well, before I make a conclusion I want to see the actual documents that IA sent to the Queensland Government.

I have noticed that as the project evolved that attempts to cut the "headline cost" of the project did result in a major reduction

(~50% IIRC) of the Net Present Value - NPV). Because the cost base was actually reduced in each iteration of the project, it means

that the loss of value in the project must have occurred on the benefits side. In other words, it cannot be due to increased costs (as that

has gone down).


The question is then, what changes did the Queensland Government make to the project that resulted in a dramatic fall of the NPV?

I vaguely remember that perhaps the tunnel portal at Dutton Park was modified and this may slow down services or something, but

I do not remember the detail.


We must see the basis of the decision before we pass judgement on it. There is nothing on the IA website about the details that led

them to this conclusion. http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/2017/2017_07_26.aspx

MEDIA STATEMENT ON BUSINESS CASE FOR CROSS RIVER RAIL

26 July 2017

Infrastructure Australia has concluded its independent evaluation of the Queensland Government's current business case for Cross River Rail, following a rigorous assessment process.

As per our normal process, Infrastructure Australia sent a draft evaluation summary to the Queensland Government on Monday 24 July 2017 asking for a fact and commercial-in-confidence check.

The Queensland Government has not provided us with any specific feedback on the evaluation summary.

Infrastructure Australia will publish the final evaluation summary on its website shortly.

I will also say that the insistence of the inclusion of bus reform in the project is not automatically a negative thing. We have seen the

BCR and NPV for the Brisbane Metro case - it is extremely good because the choice of using buses means that costs are low but the same

or better level of benefits results. Applying that principle to the bus network, the cost to make the changes to the wider BCC bus network

is cost neutral, whereas the benefits realised from reorganising the bus network would be extremely high, so it would only

strengthen the case for CRR, not weaken it.


The Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council have been lazy on the bus network. They have let it rot for years and have not

made substantial changes to it. All the major conceptual work for a new bus network has already been done by RBOT

http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

[SurfRail]

What truly breathtaking stupidity.

[ozbob]

This is a ' get out of jail ' card for the state LNP by the Federal Coalition.  Nothing much else.

One can only hope the project gets started and to the point that even if the LNP were elected that project would continue.

Personally, I have had enough, after almost 10 years of this sh%t.

Build the fuking thing and it looks they will!  IA is a waste of space, as are the Feds.  They have approved transport projects without business cases and are funding massively in NSW for example.   Including road projects that simply do not stack up.

[#Metro]

MEDIA STATEMENT ON BUSINESS CASE FOR CROSS RIVER RAIL

26 July 2017

Infrastructure Australia has concluded its independent evaluation of the Queensland Government's current business case for Cross River Rail, following a rigorous assessment process.

As per our normal process, Infrastructure Australia sent a draft evaluation summary to the Queensland Government on Monday 24 July 2017 asking for a fact and commercial-in-confidence check.

The Queensland Government has not provided us with any specific feedback on the evaluation summary.

Infrastructure Australia will publish the final evaluation summary on its website shortly.

^^ I am a bit confused here.

They gave the Queensland Government two days notice to prepare a reply? Seems very short!

Or alternatively, did the Queensland Government just release the draft when they received it on Monday?

We need to see the documents. Firstly, we need to see the IA documents that are being talked about.

It does not make sense to draw conclusions without seeing that first. Secondly, we also need to see the actual business case for

Cross River Rail, the one that has been chained up in unusual levels of secrecy and has not been released now for something like

12 months. What is the reason for not publicly releasing it? So far we only have "the summary" of the business case.

[ozbob]

Hey #Metro.  The Brisbane Metro looks good largely because the major capital costs - the busways have already been built (paid for by the State). Imagine if they had to do that as part of the project.  Never happen.

Don't get too carried away.  But Malcolm not funding CRR at present is not all bad, he can toss in half a billion for the Brisbane Metro. 
I want to see both done.

[ozbob]

I cannot be bothered any more with IA, business cases, NPVs, BCRs and what ever.

Summaries are all we ever see at best.  The CRR Delivery Authority has identified 23 errors in the IA document. 

The whole process is a political abomination.  Just build the fukers!

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/RACQOfficial/status/890082615084163072

[#Metro]

Hey #Metro.  The Brisbane Metro looks good largely because the major capital costs - the busways have already been built (paid for by the State). Imagine if they had to do that as part of the project.  Never happen.

Don't get too carried away.  But Malcolm not funding CRR at present is not all bad, he can toss in half a billion for the Brisbane Metro. 
I want to see both done.

Yes, because it is efficient at using existing infrastructure, which is already paid for.

But one must remember that the SE busway did get approval to get built - as did other additions to the busway.

And that happened without metro vehicles. Just ordinary buses. Similar projects have got approval in Adelaide and Auckland.

(AKL also has a busway, inspired by our own SEB).


But I am not making a point about the metro. I am saying that we need to see the actual documents people are talking about.

- We need to see the response from IA in full

- We need to see the FULL business case, not some rubbish "the summary". Other projects have their full cases released, so why hold back on this one?

- Somebody needs to explain what changes happened so as to cause a huge fall in benefits to the project with each iteration. (With the
latest project iteration apparently causing a fall below viable). This has been completely unexplained.

- We need to see the list of "23 errors" (are the first two the map on the front page?) with the IA response from the Queensland Government.

Then we can see what it is all about.

Right now it seems like we are being asked to pass judgement on a decision based on unseen information. That will not do.

If IA has made a mistake, we can point that out and correct it.

Looking forward to seeing the detail. 

I cannot be bothered any more with IA, business cases, NPVs, BCRs and what ever.

Summaries are all we ever see at best.  The CRR Delivery Authority has identified 23 errors in the IA document. 

The whole process is a political abomination.  Just build the fukers!

Yes. I know a lot of people have this sentiment, but if you want to spend $6 billion then there is a process to do it properly.

Let us see what they said and why.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/9NewsQueensland/status/890090869839286272