Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament Hansard

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2020/2020_08_12_DAILY.pdf

Questions Without Notice

Cross River Rail

Mrs FRECKLINGTON (10.20 am): My first question is to the Premier. Yesterday in relation to
Cross River Rail's billion dollar blowout the Minister for State Development said any cost overrun would
be taken from the existing budget allocation. Can the Premier tell the House which part of Cross River
Rail will be scrapped to fund Labor's billion dollar blowout?

Ms PALASZCZUK: From the outset, I reject the imputation in the question that the Leader of the
Opposition has asked. As we said clearly yesterday, the government has gone with the intermodal
solution which will benefit people coming in from the eastern part of the line otherwise they would have
had to walk.

Mr Mander: At what cost?

Ms PALASZCZUK: I say to the member for Everton that it was publicised back in, from memory,
September 2017 that the Boggo Road station would be the intermodal solution. There is nothing new.

Mrs Frecklington interjected.

Ms PALASZCZUK: I am very pleased the member for Clayfield is here because if we want to
talk about cost blowouts let us look at 1 William Street. As the minister said yesterday, in the budget
papers there is an allocation of $5.4 billion. That will be met by the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority
which has now been absorbed as part of government. The minister for Cross River Rail is responsible
for the development.

Mr Nicholls interjected.

Ms PALASZCZUK: Member for Clayfield, 1 William Street is your legacy. The selling of assets
and wanting to sell assets—

Mr Bleijie interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Kawana will cease his interjections.

Ms PALASZCZUK: Let me say very clearly—I said this yesterday and I will say it in the House
again: in Victoria we have a situation where only 25 per cent of construction workers are undertaking
construction work at the moment due to the lockdown. We have just seen Auckland go into lockdown.

Mr Nicholls interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Clayfield.

Ms PALASZCZUK: We have construction happening here in Queensland because we have
made the tough decisions to keep Queenslanders safe and allow our recovery to continue.

Mr Nicholls interjected.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Pause the clock! Member for Clayfield, despite your earlier comedic efforts these
ones are not appreciated. You are warned under the standing orders.

Ms PALASZCZUK: The member for Clayfield might want to give the member for Nanango some
very clear advice on how to pay for her unfunded election commitments. We can talk about the $7 billion
or $8 billion they are up to at the moment, but if we add in the new Bradfield scheme it is $23 billion.
The only way they can find that money is to sell Queensland assets. That is what the opposition's secret
plan is. The secret plan to open the borders to Victoria and the secret plan—
(Time expired)

====

Cross River Rail

Mr MANDER: My question without notice is to the Minister for State Development. I table part of
a secret briefing note to the Minister for State Development which states that the Cross River Rail
delivery partner Pulse was ordered to stop work on 26 February 2020, some 168 days ago—and Pulse
can claim $2 million for every day that work is delayed.

Tabled paper: Extract, undated, from briefing note referenced CRRDA Ref: D2020/34264.

Can the minister confirm that taxpayers could be slugged $336 million for delay payments to
Pulse alone?

Ms JONES: I thank the member for the question because it gives me an opportunity to reinforce
and clarify comments I made yesterday. We are working through that detailed design. I can assure all
Queenslanders that, as I said yesterday, no matter where we built the station—and we examined both
stations—we would have to tie the—

Mr Hunt interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Nicklin is warned under the standing orders.

Ms JONES:—old rail network into the new rail network. That was always in the design. That was
always in the cost of the project. Therefore, I stand here today to reiterate that Pulse, in the contract
that the state government has signed, must deliver this within the $5.4 billion budget allocated for the
project. I cannot be any clearer than that.

Mr Mander: Not if the government delays them.

Ms JONES: You are right. That briefing note, I believe, is dated in April. We are now here, and I
can advise the House that I have weekly meetings with Cross River Rail. We are working through this
issue with the great work of Queensland Rail to get the detailed design right. I have even personally
met with engineers who are working on this project. I can assure every single member in this House
that we have almost concluded that detailed design work. It will be delivered within the $5.4 billion
envelope as per the contract signed with the state.

====

Cross River Rail

Mr MINNIKIN: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. In the House
yesterday in relation to Labor's Cross River Rail billion dollar blowout, the minister said the decision to
overrule expert advice was considered cost neutral. I table a page from leaked cabinet briefing notes
which state, 'The option Labor rejected had cost benefits compared to Labor's chosen option.' Will the
minister apologise to the House and correct the record?

Tabled paper: Document, undated, titled 'Consideration of Proposed Innovation'.

Mr BAILEY: I welcome the first question to me from the member for Chatsworth since 2018.
Congratulations! I thought he had retired, but he is still here. I do love a lecture from somebody who
was the assistant minister for public transport—

Mrs Frecklington interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will put her comments through the chair.

Mr Crisafulli interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Pause the clock. Member for Broadwater, you will put your comments through
the chair. You are warned under the standing orders after previous cautions.

Mr BAILEY: I love a lecture from the former assistant minister for public transport under Campbell
Newman, who ordered trains manufactured overseas that were not disability compliant. They cut the
Cross River Rail project altogether. We would be opening it this year if it had not been for the cuts from
the LNP. They did nothing on light rail and nothing on heavy rail. They have an appalling record on
public transport. That was the Newman government record.

Anyone who understands this issue knows full well that the hospital is well-serviced by the Dutton
Park station. That is where staff get off. It is 100 metres away. The option put forward for the new Dutton
Park station would have disconnected two train lines, so let us be very clear what the LNP is advocating.
They are saying that we should spend $5 billion and disconnect two train lines. It is bizarre. Currently
when people change lines they have a nine-second walk across platforms at Park Road. The LNP is
saying they should walk nine minutes in the hot summer sun after we invest $5 billion. It is absurd!
Their record on public transport is appalling, and it continues to this day in this chamber right
now. It is very clear that the proposal would have decreased intermodal opportunities and it would have
been a disincentive for people to take the train line. They do not understand public transport. They cut
this project once and they would cut it again, and we know that.

Mr Hart interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Burleigh will cease his interjections.
Mr BAILEY: We would be opening this project if it had not been cut by the member for
Chatsworth, Campbell Newman and the member for Nanango. They cut this project eight years ago.
We would be opening it right now if it had not been for them cutting, sacking and selling. We know what
their record is.

Mr Minnikin: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order on relevance. The minister is not answering
the question. I would ask that the minister answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: There were a number of parts to the question, but I do ask the minister to come
back under standing order 118B.

Mr BAILEY: Let me be very clear: Queensland Rail has provided in-principle support for the
current redesign of the southern portal alignment because it is the best outcome for passengers. The
revised design has resolved curvature issues and is compliant with the project specifications—

Mrs Frecklington: Safety?

Mr Minnikin: Mind the gap!

Mr BAILEY: They do not want to know the answer but I will give it to them anyway. The revised
design has resolved design curvature issues and is compliant with the project specification and
technical requirements in relation to vertical and horizontal curvature, and the agencies will continue to
work together on the detailed design process. As Minister Jones outlined in the House yesterday and
today, any costs associated with the detailed design and alignment must be absorbed within the existing
budget. That is the fact.

Mr Hart interjected.

Mr BAILEY: We are building a project that will enhance public transport when we know—
(Time expired)

====

Cross River Rail

Dr ROWAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for State Development. In relation to
Labor's decision to overrule experts about the location of the Dutton Park station and the Cross River
Rail billion-dollar blowout, the minister said it would save some commuters a nine-minute walk. I ask:
can the minister tell the House how long it will take a disabled patient to travel from Boggo Road station
to the Princess Alexandra Hospital, and is the route planned to be fully compliant with the Disability
Discrimination Act?

Ms JONES: I thank the honourable member for the question, because once again I will be writing
to you, Mr Speaker. I have repeatedly said in this parliament now—four times, if not five—that the cost
of fixing the existing rail line to connect to the new Cross River Rail line will be absorbed within the
budget. I have said that repeatedly—

Mrs Frecklington: Keep saying it.

Ms JONES:—tonnes of times, so I will be writing to you, Mr Speaker, because there is no
blowout. If they bothered to read paragraph 35 of the briefing note—I know it is the last page so it would
have taken you a bit of time to get to that—it says that we are in negotiations with Pulse right now
resolving these matters within the existing framework and budget. I stand by these comments.
That is why you have contracts. You enter into contracts with companies to build things—
because we build things—and you say within that contract, 'You must build it within the $5.4 billion
allocation.' That is our contract. That is what we are negotiating with Pulse as we speak. I stand here
on my feet in the parliament promising every single one of you—and I say promise—that we will deliver
this within that $5.4 billion framework.

Mrs D'Ath interjected.

Ms JONES: I take the interjection from the member. It is ironic that those opposite, who ordered
cheap trains from India that did not meet the disability specifications of Australia or Queensland, all of
a sudden care about people with a disability using the train network. Give me a break! We are very
proud that a lot of the work that the Minister for Transport is doing—

Mr Minnikin interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Chatsworth will cease his interjections.

Ms JONES:—is with regard to upgrading all of our train stations along the network to meet
disability standards. Unlike those opposite, every single station that will be delivered as part of Cross
River Rail will absolutely meet the requirements of people with disability. We have a working group we
have already engaged. Our experience centre in the city has already had a disability network team
examining those stations. We have been working very closely with the disability sector. We have
learned from the mistakes of the LNP, who did not negotiate or work with people with disability, and we
have embedded that from day one in our negotiations.
There is someone who does not always agree with the government. Everyone knows about
Robert Dow, who goes on the radio and talks about rail more than the minister. He said, 'Certainly the
Boggo Road'—

Mr Minnikin interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Chatsworth is warned under the standing orders.

Ms JONES: The LNP like to hold him up as the expert. Why don't you hold him up today? Last
night he said, 'Certainly Kate Jones has got this right. Certainly the Boggo Road interchange with Park
Road is definitely the best location from a passenger perspective.'
(Time expired)

====

Road and Transport Infrastructure

Mr POWER: My question is for the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Will the minister
update the House on the recent milestones of the Palaszczuk government's record roads and transport
investments in South-East Queensland?

Mr BAILEY: I thank the member. Has there ever been a greater advocate for the Mount Lindesay
Highway than the member for Logan? He has been relentless about it. We have kept on with our
investment in the Mount Lindesay Highway and our infrastructure throughout the COVID pandemic. We
are seeing 100 per cent of the construction rolling on—jobs—because the Premier and the Chief Health
Officer made the right decisions to protect our economy. Whether it is Cape York or Mount Lindesay,
they are continuing uninterrupted.

What we are seeing is a new phenomenon. It is called the Palaszczuk government infrastructure
photo fan club. We see the member for Burleigh and the member for Mudgeeraba have been getting
pictures on the M1 because they did not upgrade the M1; they did not spend a dollar. We saw the
member for Bonney at the opening of the light rail, Broadbeach to Burleigh, because they did not do
anything in light rail; he was trying to get into the photo.

We have a new candidate. This is a cracker. The member for Scenic Rim was complaining about
not enough going on in the Mount Lindesay Highway. One would think that in illustrating that point he
would be careful about the background in his photo. However, here is a photo of him in front of—get
this—a $20 million upgrade of the Mount Lindesay Highway by the Palaszczuk government. There are
trucks, gravel, bitumen and big, heavy loaders. It is an absolute pearler. The member for Scenic Rim
now becomes a member of the Palaszczuk government infrastructure photo fan club. I look forward to
more members from the opposite side joining our fan club because we are getting infrastructure done.
I will add to my answer that I have received an email from Rail Back on Track's Robert Dow.

He states—

[RAIL Back On Track supports the decision to build the Cross River Rail underground station at Boggo Road.
If you want to understand the importance of this station, all you need to do is look at a map.

The touted alternative of building a station off by itself ... lacks efficient connectivity with other lines, damaging the ability of CRR
to unclog transport bottlenecks and inconveniencing passengers. PA Hospital already has its own Busway station.

...

For public transport to work, it needs to be fast. Introducing long hot/wet walks when changing modes is a non starter.
RAIL Back On Track supports the current plan to build what is necessary to ensure Boggo Road station functions as an efficient
interchange with rail and busways.

What an embarrassing question from the member for Moggill, who thinks that the Boggo Road
station is the nearest station to the PA Hospital. Everyone knows that Dutton Park station is the nearest
station to the PA Hospital. It is 100 metres away. The LNP does not understand the basics of public
transport, and it is evident in this question time. Why make that huge investment and disconnect two
lines that are already connected? It is a nine-second walk across the platform at Park Road to change
lines. It would be a nine-minute walk in the hot summer sun under the LNP.
(Time expired)

[Gazza]

http://tv.parliament.qld.gov.au/?reference=0Mba20200812_102121

2:16:55

[ozbob]

http://tv.parliament.qld.gov.au/?reference=0Mba20200812_102121

2:16:55

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

13th August 2020

Re: Call for proper public scrutiny of the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority

Good Morning,

The OIC Audit report – Disclosure logs - Queensland Government departments
https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/about/news/audit-report-disclosure-logs-queensland-government-departments
is interesting reading.

We note the the Couriermail has slammed the Labor Government for ' major failures with RTI documents '
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-government/labor-slammed-for-major-failures-with-rti-documents/news-story/fd4c352f3950853f3f88e9177b86d54d

Today the Couriermail has again highlighted issues with the RTI obfuscation.
'Release the numbers: What have the Palaszczuk Government got to hide?' https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/release-the-numbers-what-have-the-palaszczuk-government-got-to-hide/news-story/ba0cfa709ee8568a1b2be462c8accd22

We certainly think that the CRRDA should be much more accountable and transparent publicly.  Please remove the RTI exemption for CRRDA.  What is there to hide? More rail failure??

Best wishes,
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

Call for proper public scrutiny of the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority

31st July 2020

Good Morning,

RAIL Back On Track Members are concerned that the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (CRRDA) is not subject to the Right To Information Act 2009.

From  https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2009-013#sch.2

Reprint current from 18 November 2019 to date (accessed 28 July 2020 at 16:18)

Schedule 2

Entities to which this Act does not apply:

"the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority established under the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Act 2016, section 8, in relation to its functions, except so far as they relate to community service obligations under that Act"

Further more the old Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Board was replaced with a board comprised of Senior Public Servants April 2020.
The current Cross River Rail Delivery Board was appointed on 14 April 2020.

Membership of the Board is:
Mr Damien Walker, Director-General, Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation (Chair)
Mr Dave Stewart, Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Ms Rachel Hunter, Under Treasurer, Queensland Treasury
Mr Neil Scales OBE, Director-General, Department of Transport and Main Roads
Ms Liza Carroll, Director-General, Department of Housing and Public Works
Dr Sarah Pearson, Deputy Director-General, Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation
Mr Matthew Longland, Deputy Director-General, Department of Transport and Main Roads

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/about/our-people/

We have concerns that the Board is no longer independent in our opinion.

The Department of the Premier and Cabinet Roles and responsibilities ( https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/policies-and-codes/handbooks/welcome-aboard/public-employee-roles/responsibilities.aspx ) states where public service employees are members of Government Boards this in part:

" When appointed to a Government Board in an official capacity, the public service employee should be aware of the government's policy imperatives and should not present a personal opinion or position that is contrary to either the Minister's directives or the government's policy agenda. "

We are therefore rightly concerned that activities of the CRRDA are not subject to proper public scrutiny.  We call on all political parties to consider amending legislation to remove CRRDA from Schedule 2 of the RTI legislation and make it subject to proper scrutiny.

Consideration should also be given to replace the board with members, that are in our opinion, seen to be independent of the Government of the day.

There has been a recent history of major problems with rail and rail related projects in SEQ, expensive to fix.

The last thing we need is another one.

Best wishes,

Robert

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

====

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1293575260193697792

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/SteveMinnikinMP/status/1293719966101860352

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament Hansard

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2020/2020_08_13_DAILY.pdf

Questions Without Notice

Cross River Rail

Mr HART: My question without notice is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works, Minister
for Digital Technology and Minister for Sport. Given the concerns raised by the CFMMEU about Minister
Jones and the treatment of Queensland tradies by the Labor government, will the minister advise if the
Cross River Rail Delivery Authority has complied with the government's procurement best practice
principles?

Mr de BRENNI: I thank the member for Burleigh for the question. I know he is a big fan of the Buy
Queensland policy, which has seen record amounts spent with Queensland businesses. I cannot speak
for the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority. That is matter for the relevant minister.

All statutory authorities, government owned corporations and government agencies comply with
our Buy Queensland policy. In the House yesterday I spoke about the significant outcomes from
supporting Queensland jobs with the Buy Queensland policy. In fact, $900 million extra went to
Queensland businesses under the Buy Queensland policy in its first full financial year compared to
2016-17. We are delivering confidence for Queensland small businesses. Not only that, we are making
sure that small businesses are paid on time, in full, every time. We have a comprehensive suite of
policies to ensure the success of Queensland businesses. That is why the Palaszczuk government was
creating jobs at the rate of over 1,000 new jobs in this state each and every week before COVID-19 hit.
That is why we continue to have an unwavering focus on ensuring that we support Queensland
businesses through our economic recovery plan.

We have invested $6 billion into Queensland's economic recovery plan and the delivery of Cross
River Rail is a $5.4 billion investment. Those opposite were deadset against the project. They did not
want the Cross River Rail project and they did not want the North Queensland stadium or the Cairns
Convention Centre project. All we hear from those opposite is whingeing about the Buy Queensland
policy. Queenslanders will not forget that the member for Burleigh came into this House, along with the
rest of them on that side of the House, and voted against our policy that unashamedly prefers
Queensland businesses delivering on those projects.

On the Cairns Convention Centre project we had an 85 per cent target for local businesses to
deliver that project and we are exceeding that target. We exceeded the target on the North Queensland
stadium project. I am confident that the minister for Cross River Rail will ensure that the target is
exceeded on that project as well. Only the Labor government in this state has backed in Queensland
businesses to create jobs for now and the jobs of the future.

====

Cross River Rail

Mr MINNIKIN: My question is to the Minister for State Development. It has been 169 days since
the Palaszczuk Labor government directed the construction contractor for Cross River Rail to stop work
on the Dutton Park and Boggo Road stations. Given the $2 million-a-day penalty taxpayers face—now
more than $330 million for this delay—on what date will the design be finalised and work started?

Ms JONES: I thank the honourable member for the question. I would like to clarify a number of
things. Firstly, no construction has started on that station. Construction starts in 2021, as per the
schedule. The stop-work order was in relation to design works. As we have said from day one, no matter
where you build a station on the south side of the river, what we are constructing is a brand new system
that will be an underground system that has to link in with the existing rail system. No matter where we
built a station, we would have to tie those two together. That is a complex piece of engineering work. It
is always going to be included in the $5.4 billion project cost, as I keep saying, as I have said repeatedly
and as members opposite choose to ignore. I can absolutely say that there has been no penalty cost.
I also said to parliament on Tuesday—it was reported in the paper on Tuesday—that those
complex design works are underway. Engineers are working on it and we are hoping to have that
finalised soon. No penalty payment has been paid. We are negotiating within the contract, as per the
contract. As I said on Tuesday and Wednesday and will say here on Thursday, unlike those opposite
we are committed to building this infrastructure because we know that it is going to be a game changer
for Queensland. It is infrastructure that is absolutely needed. We know that the gridlock over the river
comes into effect in 2022. If the LNP had been elected last time then this would not be getting built,
which means we would have had absolute gridlock on the rail network.

I give the commitment that I gave on Monday, on Tuesday and on Wednesday and give again
today, on Thursday: these complex engineering design works are happening through a steering group
which includes the best and brightest engineers not only from the consortium but also from Cross River
Rail, TMR and Queensland Rail. They are working through it as we speak. As I said on Tuesday,
yesterday and today, we are hoping to have this finalised soon.

I am very proud to be part of a government that is delivering the infrastructure that is sending pay
packets home to Queensland families through the coronavirus pandemic. As the Premier said on
Tuesday, we have seen what has happened in Victoria because they did not close their borders. If we
had listened to the Leader of the Opposition - 64 times - we would not be seeing construction happening
on Cross River Rail. Right now we have thousands of workers on this project taking pay packets home
to their families because we have been able to get on with this construction job. It is on track, it is on
budget and we are delivering this.

Opposition members interjected.

Ms JONES: You heard it. I said it because it is true.

Mr Minnikin: On track and on budget.

Ms JONES: Yes, on track and on budget - and I am standing in parliament.

Honourable members interjected.

Ms JONES: That is right; they do not have any.

Opposition members interjected.

Ms JONES: I said it because I knew you would react that way. I said it because it is true.
(Time expired)

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Everton is warned under the standing orders. Comments will
come through the chair.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1293993151435165696

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - is there a rail service plan? Where is it please?

16th August 2020

Good Morning,

RAIL Back On Track and its Members have been strong and constant advocates for Cross River Rail.  This advocacy history since 2009 can be reviewed on our forum here https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.0

We still strongly support Cross River Rail.  We have a major concern  that the 'Concept of Operations' (the rail service plan) for the project is not available publicly.

Before a project such as Cross River Rail can be built there must be planning as to how the network is going to be operated.  In the case of SEQ Citytrain network what lines will be paired, what lines will be routed through CRR and what will be routed through the existing CBD route.

We accept that exact frequencies are not yet able to be determined but the line pairings and general concept of operations must be known for the project to be constructed.  The planners must  know how the line pairings and how trains would run because that is important in making sure the track layouts north and south of the tunnel will be optimal and operational.

CRRDA published the diagram below for the AM Peak in 2017.   We can guess as to what the line pairings are in that diagram but I am sure it has been revised since then.



We would like know what the current ' Concept of Operations ' (rail service plan) is for the project please.  We have a very keen interest in these matters.  Uncertainty leads to a lack of confidence.  There has been a recent history of major problems with rail and rail related projects in SEQ .  We need to be sure that this project is on track.  We need to see the actual Concept of Operations (rail service plan), not only hear words of promise and hope.

We need, and reasonably expect as citizens of Queensland, hard evidence.

Yours sincerely,
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - is there a rail service plan?

19th July 2020

Good Morning,

We note the ongoing advertising campaign for Cross River Rail.  Is this wise expenditure of public money?

Today for example, on page 21 of the Sunday Mail (19th July 2020) is promoting " ' CHECKMATE ' Find out what Cross River Rail means for you."



If the reader goes to ' CHECKMATE ' ( https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/my-journey-benefits ) and finds out the benefits for their location what results is generic spin essentially.

Some examples:

Go to checkmate, put in 4300 (Goodna)

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Centenary Highway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future infrastructure upgrades and service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support a future rail link to Ripley

Put in Nambour

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Bruce Highway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support the future, committed Beerburrum to Nambour rail upgrade

Put in Ferny Grove

TURN-UP-AND-GO TRANSPORT
With more trains, more often during peak, across the whole of South East Queensland

UNLOCKING THE BOTTLENECK
Better access to Brisbane with connections to five new inner-city stations

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as Samford Road

Put in Varsity Lakes

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Pacific Motorway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future infrastructure upgrades and service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support a future rail link to the Gold Coast Airport

====

All also come up with 5 new stations:

Albert Street Station
Boggo Road Station
Exhibition Station
Roma Street Station
Woolloongabba Station

Nothing about real service levels (train frequency) and operational plan (routing and line pairings).

What is needed is the publication of a rail service plan that indicates the real frequency, routing and line pairings that will be operating on the SEQ Citytrain Network when Cross River Rail is commissioned.

For example Melbourne is presently constructing a rail tunnel, the Melbourne Metro Tunnel.  The proposed service plan is available for all to see at https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF

There is no comparable publicly available document for Cross River Rail. Where is it?  Is there one, or is it being deliberately withheld because the service levels are not significantly different from now? Are planned routing changes being kept secret in a hope that people will not be influenced before the election?

It is time for Minister Kate Jones to direct CRRDA to publish a proper service plan for Cross River Rail.  Generic spin, and a lack of meaningful information is not acceptable.

Thank you.

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

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1294665150864056320

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

Good Morning Lurkers ... 

Having a good day?

[ozbob]

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/infrastructure-priority-list

Cross River Rail does not get a mention in the Infrastructure Australia Current Infrastructure Priority List

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-08/current_priority_list_august_2020.pdf

Confirms the State Government has given up.  Too incompetent to resubmit a revised improved business case.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1294764399521959936

[Stillwater]

In hindsight, having regard for the scrutiny of large taxpayer funds it controls or recommends to be spent, Infrastructure Australia was wise to reject the original Business Case from the state government re CRR. IA was seeking additional information and information and costings and the state government was saying merely 'you have our plan, just give us some money'. IA was being asked to recommend federal funding for a project which, at the time, was half-baked, with final design unfinished and not all cost estimates tested. The feds were being asked to fund a pig in a poke.

Amid the argy bargy, the state went it alone on funding CRR and plans to claw back significant revenue from the private sector development that will occur along the route, involving sale of state land and 'virtual land' above Roma Street Station etc.

That said, it behoves the federal government to be generous to Queensland in finalisation of the postponed SEQ City Deal, which will provide necessary infrastructure in support of the state's Olympic Games bid -- assuming, of course, that we are not hit too badly by the pandemic. This state government should reveal what is on its 'wish list' for the new City Deal.

[timh]

The city deal and Olympic bid should be used as (and spun as in the media) a corona virus recovery stimulus

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

In hindsight, having regard for the scrutiny of large taxpayer funds it controls or recommends to be spent, Infrastructure Australia was wise to reject the original Business Case from the state government re CRR. IA was seeking additional information and information and costings and the state government was saying merely 'you have our plan, just give us some money'. IA was being asked to recommend federal funding for a project which, at the time, was half-baked, with final design unfinished and not all cost estimates tested. The feds were being asked to fund a pig in a poke.

Amid the argy bargy, the state went it alone on funding CRR and plans to claw back significant revenue from the private sector development that will occur along the route, involving sale of state land and 'virtual land' above Roma Street Station etc.

That said, it behoves the federal government to be generous to Queensland in finalisation of the postponed SEQ City Deal, which will provide necessary infrastructure in support of the state's Olympic Games bid -- assuming, of course, that we are not hit too badly by the pandemic. This state government should reveal what is on its 'wish list' for the new City Deal.

A point of clarification Mr Speaker.

The first business case (original) was granted ready to proceed status by IA in 2011/12.
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/cross-river-rail-2012

Unfortunately it was stalled due to politics and the form that it was in originally lost.

The 2017 CRR business was a poor effort, the project having been truncated from Yeerongpilly back to Dutton Park, and lightweight track arrangements as well dubious BCR and patronage forecasts.  This was rejected by IA and the state Government was unable to to convince IA (with an improved business case) to advance the status at IA.  This causes me great concern as to the true robustness of the present project. 

It would appear the Palaszczuk Government has given up with regard to a CRR business case for IA. 

As far as the Olympics being a driver for other infrastructure.  Be careful, other actors are in play for the games.  Olympics would be nice but infrastructure must proceed regardless.

[BrizCommuter]

Given that at opening CRR will only increase services from the North by 4tph max (and this could be achieved by ECTS alone), and from the South by 12tph max (though this may not be achievable) then the business case must be pretty poor!

[ozbob]

^
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/20170727-Cross-River-Rail-Summary.pdf

Evaluation of the business case for Cross River Rail July 2017

Summary

Infrastructure Australia has retained Cross River Rail as a High Priority Initiative on the Infrastructure Priority List.
This rating recognises that the emerging problem of rail capacity into and through Brisbane's CBD is a nationally
significant infrastructure problem which will need to be addressed.

Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure
Priority List at this time. Infrastructure Australia considers that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the
business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to
exceed its benefits.

Infrastructure Australia would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case which addresses our
concerns with benefit estimation, and clarifies 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 from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks.

[Jonno]

^
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/20170727-Cross-River-Rail-Summary.pdf

Evaluation of the business case for Cross River Rail July 2017

Summary

Infrastructure Australia has retained Cross River Rail as a High Priority Initiative on the Infrastructure Priority List.
This rating recognises that the emerging problem of rail capacity into and through Brisbane's CBD is a nationally
significant infrastructure problem which will need to be addressed.

Infrastructure Australia has not included the current proposal for Cross River Rail as a Project on the Infrastructure
Priority List at this time. Infrastructure Australia considers that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the
business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to
exceed its benefits.

Infrastructure Australia would welcome the opportunity to consider a revised business case which addresses our
concerns with benefit estimation, and clarifies 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 from the proposed project, and potential benefits from better integration of Brisbane's rail and bus networks.

Interestingly they don't make the same claim with regard to major road projects despite reality post-construction showing benefits to be grossly over-rated and costs significant under-estimated!! So why call it out on this project?

[ozbob]

https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf

CRR Business case 2017  page 174

6.4.1.3 Modelled Transport Network

The modelled transport network includes both existing and future rail, bus and road network infrastructure
across the study area for both the 'with' and 'without' cases. Model inputs are based on current TMR and
local government project commitments and were informed by documents such as the Queensland Transport
and Roads Investment Program.

The CRR Project was included in the model for the 'with' project case. The Reference Project consists of two
parallel tunnels extending from Dutton Park to the Exhibition Loop at Spring Hill, via the Brisbane CBD. It
includes new underground rail stations at Boggo Road, Woolloongabba, Albert Street, Roma Street and an
upgraded Exhibition station.

The transport network assumptions underpinning the assessment of the CRR Project were developed prior
to the release of information regarding BCC's Brisbane Metro proposal. While this proposed enhancement to
the busway is therefore not included in the transport modelling undertaken for the CRR Project, a qualitative
assessment of the complementary benefits of Brisbane Metro and the CRR Project is discussed in Section
6.4.7.

For the base case ('without' project), indicative train service plans were developed to meet demand using
available infrastructure capacity. Service plans and operating strategies for the 'without' case were kept
consistent with existing operations on the rail network but maximised to make best use of existing
infrastructure and the additional capacity benefits of the European Train Control System (ETCS) – Inner City
Project on the main lines. This includes consideration of the service planning policy and supporting measures
such as encouraging peak spreading and improved efficiencies due to further sectorisation of the rail
network.

For the 'with' project case, train service plans maximise the use of additional new infrastructure. This
enables a higher frequency of rail service to meet projected increases in passenger demand. The 'with'
service plans provide for 18 trains per hour (tph) in the morning peak hour (northbound) in 2026 in the CRR
tunnel.

In the southbound direction, the CRR Project is able to meet passenger demand for 12tph in 2026. Beyond
that the ability to utilise the ultimate capacity of the tunnel (24tph) would be dependent on further
augmentation of the connecting surface network to the north and south of the project. The CRR Project
would also support north–south sectorisation with Nambour, Caboolture and ultimately Caloundra in the
north able to run through the city and connect with Varsity Lakes (Gold Coast) in the south. In the future, the
CRR Project would be able to accommodate longer trains (i.e. equivalent length nine-car train sets) however
these have not been modelled as they are beyond the timeframes of the evaluation period.

Indicative future service plans for 2026 and 2036 'with' CRR are shown in Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12.

[timh]

https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf

CRR Business case 2017  page 174

6.4.1.3 Modelled Transport Network

The modelled transport network includes both existing and future rail, bus and road network infrastructure
across the study area for both the 'with' and 'without' cases. Model inputs are based on current TMR and
local government project commitments and were informed by documents such as the Queensland Transport
and Roads Investment Program.

The CRR Project was included in the model for the 'with' project case. The Reference Project consists of two
parallel tunnels extending from Dutton Park to the Exhibition Loop at Spring Hill, via the Brisbane CBD. It
includes new underground rail stations at Boggo Road, Woolloongabba, Albert Street, Roma Street and an
upgraded Exhibition station.

The transport network assumptions underpinning the assessment of the CRR Project were developed prior
to the release of information regarding BCC's Brisbane Metro proposal. While this proposed enhancement to
the busway is therefore not included in the transport modelling undertaken for the CRR Project, a qualitative
assessment of the complementary benefits of Brisbane Metro and the CRR Project is discussed in Section
6.4.7.

For the base case ('without' project), indicative train service plans were developed to meet demand using
available infrastructure capacity. Service plans and operating strategies for the 'without' case were kept
consistent with existing operations on the rail network but maximised to make best use of existing
infrastructure and the additional capacity benefits of the European Train Control System (ETCS) – Inner City
Project on the main lines. This includes consideration of the service planning policy and supporting measures
such as encouraging peak spreading and improved efficiencies due to further sectorisation of the rail
network.

For the 'with' project case, train service plans maximise the use of additional new infrastructure. This
enables a higher frequency of rail service to meet projected increases in passenger demand. The 'with'
service plans provide for 18 trains per hour (tph) in the morning peak hour (northbound) in 2026 in the CRR
tunnel.

In the southbound direction, the CRR Project is able to meet passenger demand for 12tph in 2026. Beyond
that the ability to utilise the ultimate capacity of the tunnel (24tph) would be dependent on further
augmentation of the connecting surface network to the north and south of the project. The CRR Project
would also support north–south sectorisation with Nambour, Caboolture and ultimately Caloundra in the
north able to run through the city and connect with Varsity Lakes (Gold Coast) in the south. In the future, the
CRR Project would be able to accommodate longer trains (i.e. equivalent length nine-car train sets) however
these have not been modelled as they are beyond the timeframes of the evaluation period.

Indicative future service plans for 2026 and 2036 'with' CRR are shown in Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12.

That's the first time I've seen that Fig 6.12. cool to see the line extensions, but disappointing to see a few things
- 2 tph to Doomben in 2036??
- Springfield-Ripley line only extends to School road
- CAMCOS only to Caloundra.

I know it's only a rough guide, but i would have thought by 2036 those extensions should by a bit further along. And that Doomben frequency is still woeful

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

Don't forget that due to changes to track layouts at Mayne, those diagrams are now out of date.

[ozbob]

Don't forget that due to changes to track layouts at Mayne, those diagrams are now out of date.

Even with the original layout at Mayne I think the ' rail service plans' were more delusional than even aspirational let alone achievable.

As we all know the frequencies are simply not deliverable in many cases, until various network improvements are achieved.

[BrizCommuter]

Don't forget that due to changes to track layouts at Mayne, those diagrams are now out of date.

Even with the original layout at Mayne I think the ' rail service plans' were more delusional than even aspirational let alone achievable.

As we all know the frequencies are simply not deliverable in many cases, until various network improvements are achieved.

Totally agree. The general operating paradigm has now now changed as the split paradigm in the diagrams would be very difficult to achieve with the new track layout at Mayne. Shame no one told the auditor-general!

[ozbob]

[MTPCo]

Shame no one told the auditor-general!

Someone did tell the Coordinator-General, however, at length, as part of RfPC4 last year.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - how will the rail network work?

19th August 2020

Good Morning,

The last information published by CRRDA (or any government body) on the proposed operations for Cross River Rail can be found in the 2017 business case. That business case, which was criticised by Infrastructure Australia, described the AM peak hour operating plans for both 2026 and 2036 (1).

These plans showed a total of up to 30tph coming from the Caboolture and Kippa-Ring lines, with the Caboolture and Sunshine Coast trains connected to the Gold Coast by CRR, and the Kippa-Ring trains connected to Ipswich and Springfield via the existing Mains. However, the information released by the Coordinator-General in Requests for Project Change 4 (June 2019) and 7 (June 2020) show infrastructure detail which can no longer allow this operating plan, and limits the total capacity for these lines to a maximum of 24tph. Immediately this reduction of 20% in capacity from the northern growth corridor means that the benefits of CRR must also be reduced.

However, the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority has so far refused to publish any new information as to how the network will operate. Their "Check Mate" web tool used to provide indicative frequencies for each station on the network, but even this has been removed. Moreover, the CRRDA has been protected against Right To Information requests, and listing activities as "commercial-in-confidence". There is nothing commercial about the proposed operation of the network, detailing which lines connect via which corridors. What this amounts to is a $6bn public project using public funds with no mechanism for the public to access the information has to how that money is being spent and what benefits it will bring (if any). There is a complete lack of transparency.

Requests to view the operational plans by community organisations including RAIL Back On Track have been met with obfuscation, with responses stating that the 'operational readiness' will not occur until close to the time of opening, with exact service frequencies not available until the middle of the decade. Notwithstanding the fact that this is being deliberately opaque, it misses the key point that operational readiness is completely separate to a "concept of operations" – or ConOps -which every major rail infrastructure project must be based upon. While the ConOps varies between projects depending on scale, for something like Cross River Rail it would be expected to include the operating plans and service patterns for each period of the day – AM peak, interpeak, PM peak – for a year "-1" (just before opening), a year 1 (at opening) and potentially a year 10 and/or end-state which describes the operations some time in the future. These plans nominate the connection between lines (e.g. Cleveland to Shorncliffe via Suburbans), the frequency of service, the train type and length, and the movements to and from stabling yards such as Mayne and Clapham. A ConOps is therefore required to determine the way in which new infrastructure is built, the size of the stabling facilities, and the number of trains required to operate the service.

A refusal to release the operating plans for CRR can lead to only one of two conclusions. Either the outcome is so poor that the CRRDA do not want to release the operating plan publicly for fear of ridicule, or alternatively construction of CRR has begun with no ConOps in place which means that there is no understanding of how the finished project should operate. Either of these outcomes would be a massive scandal given the scale of funding allocated to the project.

To give context as to how common the publication of ConOps documents, or at least generalised operational plans, is, consider this range of contemporary examples: - The Melbourne Metro tunnel, a project similar in scale and nature to Cross River Rail, has its concept of operations publicly available. The plan details network maps showing the line structure and connectivity, describes in words the future connection between lines of the existing network, and defines the service frequency for each of the lines in the effected area by the AM peak hour, interpeak, contra-peak, and all other times. Further than this, it describes the same information for a future extended state of the network, taking into account the project's role towards a long-term network vision (2).

- The Auckland City Rail Link displays a before-and-after network map for peak frequencies, showing the change in line connectivity and frequencies from each station in both scenarios (3).

- London's Crossrail (which Cross River Rail seems to have plagiarised the logo) has its operational plan available online. This operational plan details through six stages of integration and expansion the level of service and connectivity across the southeast of England, including the train types and responsible parties for each component throughout the project's lifecycle (4).

- Even Queensland used to provide operational plans – the 2017 business case for Cross River Rail described the AM peak hour operations across 2026 and 2036. Even Connecting SEQ 2031 described the tiers of services and how the connected, envisioning (for example) a CoastLink service connecting the Gold and Sunshine Coasts via CRR and a Trouts Road Corridor.

It is therefore common practice for major rail projects to publish their operational plans, and they are often used as a form of promotion because the enhanced operations are where the benefits of the project are found. To hide and obfuscate the operations suggests that the benefits will not be forthcoming, or not worthy of the $6bn expenditure.

All of these problems are ultimately rooted in the lack of a long-term rail strategy for the Brisbane and SEQ region. Connecting SEQ 2031 appears to have been dis-endorsed, and there is no guiding framework for which to hold transport investment to account. Not only is it unclear as to how Cross River Rail will provide any benefit in the short term with the way it has been designed, but there is no long term plan for it to contribute towards. Investments in rail of the scale of CRR should ultimately be leading to delivering a vision for the rail network in SEQ, but there is no evidence that CRR is being designed to meet either the short or long term requirements of the region, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

References:

1.  Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12 https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf page 174
2.  https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF
3.  https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/crls-benefits
4.  https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1L-001-09_Management-Plan-Volume-4-Operations-Rev-1.0.pdf

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - is there a rail service plan? Where is it please?

16th August 2020

Good Morning,

RAIL Back On Track and its Members have been strong and constant advocates for Cross River Rail.  This advocacy history since 2009 can be reviewed on our forum here https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.0

We still strongly support Cross River Rail.  We have a major concern  that the 'Concept of Operations' (the rail service plan) for the project is not available publicly.

Before a project such as Cross River Rail can be built there must be planning as to how the network is going to be operated.  In the case of SEQ Citytrain network what lines will be paired, what lines will be routed through CRR and what will be routed through the existing CBD route.

We accept that exact frequencies are not yet able to be determined but the line pairings and general concept of operations must be known for the project to be constructed.  The planners must  know how the line pairings and how trains would run because that is important in making sure the track layouts north and south of the tunnel will be optimal and operational.

CRRDA published the diagram below for the AM Peak in 2017.   We can guess as to what the line pairings are in that diagram but I am sure it has been revised since then.



We would like know what the current ' Concept of Operations ' (rail service plan) is for the project please.  We have a very keen interest in these matters.  Uncertainty leads to a lack of confidence.  There has been a recent history of major problems with rail and rail related projects in SEQ .  We need to be sure that this project is on track.  We need to see the actual Concept of Operations (rail service plan), not only hear words of promise and hope.

We need, and reasonably expect as citizens of Queensland, hard evidence.

Yours sincerely,
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - is there a rail service plan?

19th July 2020

Good Morning,

We note the ongoing advertising campaign for Cross River Rail.  Is this wise expenditure of public money?

Today for example, on page 21 of the Sunday Mail (19th July 2020) is promoting " ' CHECKMATE ' Find out what Cross River Rail means for you."



If the reader goes to ' CHECKMATE ' ( https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/my-journey-benefits ) and finds out the benefits for their location what results is generic spin essentially.

Some examples:

Go to checkmate, put in 4300 (Goodna)

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Centenary Highway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future infrastructure upgrades and service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support a future rail link to Ripley

Put in Nambour

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Bruce Highway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support the future, committed Beerburrum to Nambour rail upgrade

Put in Ferny Grove

TURN-UP-AND-GO TRANSPORT
With more trains, more often during peak, across the whole of South East Queensland

UNLOCKING THE BOTTLENECK
Better access to Brisbane with connections to five new inner-city stations

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as Samford Road

Put in Varsity Lakes

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Pacific Motorway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future infrastructure upgrades and service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support a future rail link to the Gold Coast Airport

====

All also come up with 5 new stations:

Albert Street Station
Boggo Road Station
Exhibition Station
Roma Street Station
Woolloongabba Station

Nothing about real service levels (train frequency) and operational plan (routing and line pairings).

What is needed is the publication of a rail service plan that indicates the real frequency, routing and line pairings that will be operating on the SEQ Citytrain Network when Cross River Rail is commissioned.

For example Melbourne is presently constructing a rail tunnel, the Melbourne Metro Tunnel.  The proposed service plan is available for all to see at https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF

There is no comparable publicly available document for Cross River Rail. Where is it?  Is there one, or is it being deliberately withheld because the service levels are not significantly different from now? Are planned routing changes being kept secret in a hope that people will not be influenced before the election?

It is time for Minister Kate Jones to direct CRRDA to publish a proper service plan for Cross River Rail.  Generic spin, and a lack of meaningful information is not acceptable.

Thank you.

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

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1295745994743660546

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

Good morning Lurkers! 

Incoming ... keep your heads down ... 

[ozbob]

Adept Economics --> Demystifying Brisbane's Cross-River Rail: a PPP, an alliance, and a traditional procurement

Due to integrity questions facing its temporarily sidelined chief conductor, Deputy Premier-Treasurer Jackie Trad, Brisbane's Cross-River Rail (CRR) Public-Private Partnership (PPP) has been steamed in the press recently. The mega-project has attracted a large amount of controversy over the years, but supporters would argue the CRR is a creatively financed, innovative solution to Brisbane's growing population strains. The Queensland Government is progressing a $6.9 billion project while only committing $5.4 billion to its financing, with the remaining $1.5 billion supplied by the private sector.  Whichever side of the debate you may be on, to fully understand Brisbane's CRR, you need to know a little bit about PPPs.  ...

Interesting article.  Good background reading.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1295872024116486145

[Arnz]

As I've posted earlier, splitting 12tph between Caloundra/Nambour/Caboolture (with 6tph from Caloundra to CENTRAL) and the other 6tph combined between Caboolture/Nambour to Albert Street in 2036 already has 'flaws' and just makes the northern timetable in 2036+ convoluted.

IMO, I'd say they'd be still talking whether a "Caloundra line" will be built in 2036.  Otherwise, It'll be more ideal to convert the Nambour/Gympie North trains to a more frequent Gympie North-Beerwah shuttle (with a 3rd platform at Beerwah) in 2040+.  Converting to shuttles in 2036+ would free up slots for Caloundra and the peak "Caboolture short-runners" 

[BrizCommuter]

As I've posted earlier, splitting 12tph between Caloundra/Nambour/Caboolture (with 6tph from Caloundra to CENTRAL) and the other 6tph combined between Caboolture/Nambour to Albert Street in 2036 already has 'flaws' and just makes the northern timetable in 2036+ convoluted.

IMO, I'd say they'd be still talking whether a "Caloundra line" will be built in 2036.  Otherwise, It'll be more ideal to convert the Nambour/Gympie North trains to a more frequent Gympie North-Beerwah shuttle (with a 3rd platform at Beerwah) in 2040+.  Converting to shuttles in 2036+ would free up slots for Caloundra and the peak "Caboolture short-runners" 

Until NWTC is constructed the max limit of trains from Caboolture, Sunshine Coast, and Redcliffe combined is 24tph.

[ozbob]

G'day Lurkers ... a nice rendition of 'Fox on the run'  for you to enjoy!

" With foxes we must play the fox. "  Criminal Minds 

#youarewelcome

[paulg]

On the Dutton Park Station issues, it appears there is a clue to what they're considering for their design solution in this construction notification:
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/cross-river-rail/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/24155517/188_BOG_WN_Dutton-Park-station-geotech-investigation_FINAL-1.pdf
The existing plans don't include any major underground work or excavation at that location, so it appears they are considering a realignment of the rail through the Dutton Park area, perhaps an underground station or perhaps a straighter alignment with a rebuild of the Annerley Road bridge (or maybe a cut-and-cover tunnel)?

[verbatim9]

^^Sounds promising

[ozbob]

 

Want a job?

====

https://smartjobs.qld.gov.au/jobs/QLD-QLD-350444

Operational Readiness Advisor

Cross River Rail Delivery Authority

The position will work within the Operational Readiness workstream of the Network Integration and Operations branch and are responsible for working closely with TransLink and Queensland Rail to manage business, network, project and customer readiness through the staging of delivery of Cross River Rail. The position reports to the Operational Readiness Manager and will facilitate and coordinate across key delivery partners to ensure that the CRR is operational ready as assets are delivered and the project opens. The successful candidate will need to have strong collaboration and stakeholder engagement skills, have experiencing delivering operational readiness activities on other projects and be able to drive delivery and operational outcomes.

[ozbob]

Resent 21st August 2020.

The lack of transparency with Cross River Rail will no doubt be an issue leading into the Queensland State election.

====

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - how will the rail network work?

19th August 2020

Good Morning,

The last information published by CRRDA (or any government body) on the proposed operations for Cross River Rail can be found in the 2017 business case. That business case, which was criticised by Infrastructure Australia, described the AM peak hour operating plans for both 2026 and 2036 (1).

These plans showed a total of up to 30tph coming from the Caboolture and Kippa-Ring lines, with the Caboolture and Sunshine Coast trains connected to the Gold Coast by CRR, and the Kippa-Ring trains connected to Ipswich and Springfield via the existing Mains. However, the information released by the Coordinator-General in Requests for Project Change 4 (June 2019) and 7 (June 2020) show infrastructure detail which can no longer allow this operating plan, and limits the total capacity for these lines to a maximum of 24tph. Immediately this reduction of 20% in capacity from the northern growth corridor means that the benefits of CRR must also be reduced.

However, the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority has so far refused to publish any new information as to how the network will operate. Their "Check Mate" web tool used to provide indicative frequencies for each station on the network, but even this has been removed. Moreover, the CRRDA has been protected against Right To Information requests, and listing activities as "commercial-in-confidence". There is nothing commercial about the proposed operation of the network, detailing which lines connect via which corridors. What this amounts to is a $6bn public project using public funds with no mechanism for the public to access the information has to how that money is being spent and what benefits it will bring (if any). There is a complete lack of transparency.

Requests to view the operational plans by community organisations including RAIL Back On Track have been met with obfuscation, with responses stating that the 'operational readiness' will not occur until close to the time of opening, with exact service frequencies not available until the middle of the decade. Notwithstanding the fact that this is being deliberately opaque, it misses the key point that operational readiness is completely separate to a "concept of operations" – or ConOps -which every major rail infrastructure project must be based upon. While the ConOps varies between projects depending on scale, for something like Cross River Rail it would be expected to include the operating plans and service patterns for each period of the day – AM peak, interpeak, PM peak – for a year "-1" (just before opening), a year 1 (at opening) and potentially a year 10 and/or end-state which describes the operations some time in the future. These plans nominate the connection between lines (e.g. Cleveland to Shorncliffe via Suburbans), the frequency of service, the train type and length, and the movements to and from stabling yards such as Mayne and Clapham. A ConOps is therefore required to determine the way in which new infrastructure is built, the size of the stabling facilities, and the number of trains required to operate the service.

A refusal to release the operating plans for CRR can lead to only one of two conclusions. Either the outcome is so poor that the CRRDA do not want to release the operating plan publicly for fear of ridicule, or alternatively construction of CRR has begun with no ConOps in place which means that there is no understanding of how the finished project should operate. Either of these outcomes would be a massive scandal given the scale of funding allocated to the project.

To give context as to how common the publication of ConOps documents, or at least generalised operational plans, is, consider this range of contemporary examples: - The Melbourne Metro tunnel, a project similar in scale and nature to Cross River Rail, has its concept of operations publicly available. The plan details network maps showing the line structure and connectivity, describes in words the future connection between lines of the existing network, and defines the service frequency for each of the lines in the effected area by the AM peak hour, interpeak, contra-peak, and all other times. Further than this, it describes the same information for a future extended state of the network, taking into account the project's role towards a long-term network vision (2).

- The Auckland City Rail Link displays a before-and-after network map for peak frequencies, showing the change in line connectivity and frequencies from each station in both scenarios (3).

- London's Crossrail (which Cross River Rail seems to have plagiarised the logo) has its operational plan available online. This operational plan details through six stages of integration and expansion the level of service and connectivity across the southeast of England, including the train types and responsible parties for each component throughout the project's lifecycle (4).

- Even Queensland used to provide operational plans – the 2017 business case for Cross River Rail described the AM peak hour operations across 2026 and 2036. Even Connecting SEQ 2031 described the tiers of services and how the connected, envisioning (for example) a CoastLink service connecting the Gold and Sunshine Coasts via CRR and a Trouts Road Corridor.

It is therefore common practice for major rail projects to publish their operational plans, and they are often used as a form of promotion because the enhanced operations are where the benefits of the project are found. To hide and obfuscate the operations suggests that the benefits will not be forthcoming, or not worthy of the $6bn expenditure.

All of these problems are ultimately rooted in the lack of a long-term rail strategy for the Brisbane and SEQ region. Connecting SEQ 2031 appears to have been dis-endorsed, and there is no guiding framework for which to hold transport investment to account. Not only is it unclear as to how Cross River Rail will provide any benefit in the short term with the way it has been designed, but there is no long term plan for it to contribute towards. Investments in rail of the scale of CRR should ultimately be leading to delivering a vision for the rail network in SEQ, but there is no evidence that CRR is being designed to meet either the short or long term requirements of the region, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

References:

1.  Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12 https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf page 174
2.  https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF
3.  https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/crls-benefits
4.  https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1L-001-09_Management-Plan-Volume-4-Operations-Rev-1.0.pdf

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - is there a rail service plan? Where is it please?

16th August 2020

Good Morning,

RAIL Back On Track and its Members have been strong and constant advocates for Cross River Rail.  This advocacy history since 2009 can be reviewed on our forum here https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.0

We still strongly support Cross River Rail.  We have a major concern  that the 'Concept of Operations' (the rail service plan) for the project is not available publicly.

Before a project such as Cross River Rail can be built there must be planning as to how the network is going to be operated.  In the case of SEQ Citytrain network what lines will be paired, what lines will be routed through CRR and what will be routed through the existing CBD route.

We accept that exact frequencies are not yet able to be determined but the line pairings and general concept of operations must be known for the project to be constructed.  The planners must  know how the line pairings and how trains would run because that is important in making sure the track layouts north and south of the tunnel will be optimal and operational.

CRRDA published the diagram below for the AM Peak in 2017.   We can guess as to what the line pairings are in that diagram but I am sure it has been revised since then.



We would like know what the current ' Concept of Operations ' (rail service plan) is for the project please.  We have a very keen interest in these matters.  Uncertainty leads to a lack of confidence.  There has been a recent history of major problems with rail and rail related projects in SEQ .  We need to be sure that this project is on track.  We need to see the actual Concept of Operations (rail service plan), not only hear words of promise and hope.

We need, and reasonably expect as citizens of Queensland, hard evidence.

Yours sincerely,
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - is there a rail service plan?

19th July 2020

Good Morning,

We note the ongoing advertising campaign for Cross River Rail.  Is this wise expenditure of public money?

Today for example, on page 21 of the Sunday Mail (19th July 2020) is promoting " ' CHECKMATE ' Find out what Cross River Rail means for you."



If the reader goes to ' CHECKMATE ' ( https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/my-journey-benefits ) and finds out the benefits for their location what results is generic spin essentially.

Some examples:

Go to checkmate, put in 4300 (Goodna)

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Centenary Highway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future infrastructure upgrades and service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support a future rail link to Ripley

Put in Nambour

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Bruce Highway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support the future, committed Beerburrum to Nambour rail upgrade

Put in Ferny Grove

TURN-UP-AND-GO TRANSPORT
With more trains, more often during peak, across the whole of South East Queensland

UNLOCKING THE BOTTLENECK
Better access to Brisbane with connections to five new inner-city stations

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as Samford Road

Put in Varsity Lakes

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Pacific Motorway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future infrastructure upgrades and service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support a future rail link to the Gold Coast Airport

====

All also come up with 5 new stations:

Albert Street Station
Boggo Road Station
Exhibition Station
Roma Street Station
Woolloongabba Station

Nothing about real service levels (train frequency) and operational plan (routing and line pairings).

What is needed is the publication of a rail service plan that indicates the real frequency, routing and line pairings that will be operating on the SEQ Citytrain Network when Cross River Rail is commissioned.

For example Melbourne is presently constructing a rail tunnel, the Melbourne Metro Tunnel.  The proposed service plan is available for all to see at https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF

There is no comparable publicly available document for Cross River Rail. Where is it?  Is there one, or is it being deliberately withheld because the service levels are not significantly different from now? Are planned routing changes being kept secret in a hope that people will not be influenced before the election?

It is time for Minister Kate Jones to direct CRRDA to publish a proper service plan for Cross River Rail.  Generic spin, and a lack of meaningful information is not acceptable.

Thank you.

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

^

G'day Lurkers!   I've got a plan.  Have you?

Have a nice day 

[ozbob]

Resent 21st August 2020.

The lack of transparency with Cross River Rail will no doubt be an issue leading into the Queensland State election.

====

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - how will the rail network work?

19th August 2020

Good Morning,

The last information published by CRRDA (or any government body) on the proposed operations for Cross River Rail can be found in the 2017 business case. That business case, which was criticised by Infrastructure Australia, described the AM peak hour operating plans for both 2026 and 2036 (1).

These plans showed a total of up to 30tph coming from the Caboolture and Kippa-Ring lines, with the Caboolture and Sunshine Coast trains connected to the Gold Coast by CRR, and the Kippa-Ring trains connected to Ipswich and Springfield via the existing Mains. However, the information released by the Coordinator-General in Requests for Project Change 4 (June 2019) and 7 (June 2020) show infrastructure detail which can no longer allow this operating plan, and limits the total capacity for these lines to a maximum of 24tph. Immediately this reduction of 20% in capacity from the northern growth corridor means that the benefits of CRR must also be reduced.

However, the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority has so far refused to publish any new information as to how the network will operate. Their "Check Mate" web tool used to provide indicative frequencies for each station on the network, but even this has been removed. Moreover, the CRRDA has been protected against Right To Information requests, and listing activities as "commercial-in-confidence". There is nothing commercial about the proposed operation of the network, detailing which lines connect via which corridors. What this amounts to is a $6bn public project using public funds with no mechanism for the public to access the information has to how that money is being spent and what benefits it will bring (if any). There is a complete lack of transparency.

Requests to view the operational plans by community organisations including RAIL Back On Track have been met with obfuscation, with responses stating that the 'operational readiness' will not occur until close to the time of opening, with exact service frequencies not available until the middle of the decade. Notwithstanding the fact that this is being deliberately opaque, it misses the key point that operational readiness is completely separate to a "concept of operations" – or ConOps -which every major rail infrastructure project must be based upon. While the ConOps varies between projects depending on scale, for something like Cross River Rail it would be expected to include the operating plans and service patterns for each period of the day – AM peak, interpeak, PM peak – for a year "-1" (just before opening), a year 1 (at opening) and potentially a year 10 and/or end-state which describes the operations some time in the future. These plans nominate the connection between lines (e.g. Cleveland to Shorncliffe via Suburbans), the frequency of service, the train type and length, and the movements to and from stabling yards such as Mayne and Clapham. A ConOps is therefore required to determine the way in which new infrastructure is built, the size of the stabling facilities, and the number of trains required to operate the service.

A refusal to release the operating plans for CRR can lead to only one of two conclusions. Either the outcome is so poor that the CRRDA do not want to release the operating plan publicly for fear of ridicule, or alternatively construction of CRR has begun with no ConOps in place which means that there is no understanding of how the finished project should operate. Either of these outcomes would be a massive scandal given the scale of funding allocated to the project.

To give context as to how common the publication of ConOps documents, or at least generalised operational plans, is, consider this range of contemporary examples: - The Melbourne Metro tunnel, a project similar in scale and nature to Cross River Rail, has its concept of operations publicly available. The plan details network maps showing the line structure and connectivity, describes in words the future connection between lines of the existing network, and defines the service frequency for each of the lines in the effected area by the AM peak hour, interpeak, contra-peak, and all other times. Further than this, it describes the same information for a future extended state of the network, taking into account the project's role towards a long-term network vision (2).

- The Auckland City Rail Link displays a before-and-after network map for peak frequencies, showing the change in line connectivity and frequencies from each station in both scenarios (3).

- London's Crossrail (which Cross River Rail seems to have plagiarised the logo) has its operational plan available online. This operational plan details through six stages of integration and expansion the level of service and connectivity across the southeast of England, including the train types and responsible parties for each component throughout the project's lifecycle (4).

- Even Queensland used to provide operational plans – the 2017 business case for Cross River Rail described the AM peak hour operations across 2026 and 2036. Even Connecting SEQ 2031 described the tiers of services and how the connected, envisioning (for example) a CoastLink service connecting the Gold and Sunshine Coasts via CRR and a Trouts Road Corridor.

It is therefore common practice for major rail projects to publish their operational plans, and they are often used as a form of promotion because the enhanced operations are where the benefits of the project are found. To hide and obfuscate the operations suggests that the benefits will not be forthcoming, or not worthy of the $6bn expenditure.

All of these problems are ultimately rooted in the lack of a long-term rail strategy for the Brisbane and SEQ region. Connecting SEQ 2031 appears to have been dis-endorsed, and there is no guiding framework for which to hold transport investment to account. Not only is it unclear as to how Cross River Rail will provide any benefit in the short term with the way it has been designed, but there is no long term plan for it to contribute towards. Investments in rail of the scale of CRR should ultimately be leading to delivering a vision for the rail network in SEQ, but there is no evidence that CRR is being designed to meet either the short or long term requirements of the region, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

References:

1.  Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12 https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf page 174
2.  https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF
3.  https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/crls-benefits
4.  https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1L-001-09_Management-Plan-Volume-4-Operations-Rev-1.0.pdf

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - is there a rail service plan? Where is it please?

16th August 2020

Good Morning,

RAIL Back On Track and its Members have been strong and constant advocates for Cross River Rail.  This advocacy history since 2009 can be reviewed on our forum here https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.0

We still strongly support Cross River Rail.  We have a major concern  that the 'Concept of Operations' (the rail service plan) for the project is not available publicly.

Before a project such as Cross River Rail can be built there must be planning as to how the network is going to be operated.  In the case of SEQ Citytrain network what lines will be paired, what lines will be routed through CRR and what will be routed through the existing CBD route.

We accept that exact frequencies are not yet able to be determined but the line pairings and general concept of operations must be known for the project to be constructed.  The planners must  know how the line pairings and how trains would run because that is important in making sure the track layouts north and south of the tunnel will be optimal and operational.

CRRDA published the diagram below for the AM Peak in 2017.   We can guess as to what the line pairings are in that diagram but I am sure it has been revised since then.



We would like know what the current ' Concept of Operations ' (rail service plan) is for the project please.  We have a very keen interest in these matters.  Uncertainty leads to a lack of confidence.  There has been a recent history of major problems with rail and rail related projects in SEQ .  We need to be sure that this project is on track.  We need to see the actual Concept of Operations (rail service plan), not only hear words of promise and hope.

We need, and reasonably expect as citizens of Queensland, hard evidence.

Yours sincerely,
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - is there a rail service plan?

19th July 2020

Good Morning,

We note the ongoing advertising campaign for Cross River Rail.  Is this wise expenditure of public money?

Today for example, on page 21 of the Sunday Mail (19th July 2020) is promoting " ' CHECKMATE ' Find out what Cross River Rail means for you."



If the reader goes to ' CHECKMATE ' ( https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/my-journey-benefits ) and finds out the benefits for their location what results is generic spin essentially.

Some examples:

Go to checkmate, put in 4300 (Goodna)

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Centenary Highway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future infrastructure upgrades and service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support a future rail link to Ripley

Put in Nambour

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Bruce Highway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support the future, committed Beerburrum to Nambour rail upgrade

Put in Ferny Grove

TURN-UP-AND-GO TRANSPORT
With more trains, more often during peak, across the whole of South East Queensland

UNLOCKING THE BOTTLENECK
Better access to Brisbane with connections to five new inner-city stations

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as Samford Road

Put in Varsity Lakes

MORE TRAINS, MORE OFTEN
Added network capacity means more trains running to, from and through Brisbane

MORE SEATS
Because more trains, more often means more seats during peak travel times

EASED ROAD CONGESTION
Eased pressure on major roads such as the Pacific Motorway

CAPACITY FOR NETWORK GROWTH
Cross River Rail, together with future infrastructure upgrades and service initiatives, creates the capacity and network growth to support a future rail link to the Gold Coast Airport

====

All also come up with 5 new stations:

Albert Street Station
Boggo Road Station
Exhibition Station
Roma Street Station
Woolloongabba Station

Nothing about real service levels (train frequency) and operational plan (routing and line pairings).

What is needed is the publication of a rail service plan that indicates the real frequency, routing and line pairings that will be operating on the SEQ Citytrain Network when Cross River Rail is commissioned.

For example Melbourne is presently constructing a rail tunnel, the Melbourne Metro Tunnel.  The proposed service plan is available for all to see at https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF

There is no comparable publicly available document for Cross River Rail. Where is it?  Is there one, or is it being deliberately withheld because the service levels are not significantly different from now? Are planned routing changes being kept secret in a hope that people will not be influenced before the election?

It is time for Minister Kate Jones to direct CRRDA to publish a proper service plan for Cross River Rail.  Generic spin, and a lack of meaningful information is not acceptable.

Thank you.

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