Public Transport on a low budget- what could be cut, and what should not be

[#Metro]

Make a few suggestions 

I suggest CRR is kept, line to Ripley and Flagstone is cut.

[colinw]

Make a few suggestions  

I suggest CRR is kept, line to Ripley and Flagstone is cut.

Ripley can definitely go, although Springfield to Ipswich corridor can be retained.  I didn't like the idea of building Ipswich to Ripley rather than a loop via Springfield anyway.

Flagstone should be reconsidered.  IMHO the Browns Plains / Greenbank bit is well worth having, but any benefit from going to Flagstone & Beaudesert is marginal and we shouldn't be putting 100,000+ people out there in the sticks anyway.

Eastern Busway can go, or be cut back to some bus priority measures.  Should be improving the Cleveland line anway.

Gold Coast - forget about going past Elanora for 10 or so years.

For now I suggest focusing on Springfield, Kippa-Ring, CRR and Landsborough duplication for the period through to 2018 or so.  The rest of the proposals are kite flying anyway, regardless of what happens.

The timing of most of the 2031 vision projects is fluid, and funding for them exceeded the capability of the state anyway.

CRR must proceed, Springfield & Kippa-Ring must proceed, the rest were strawmen anyway.

[ozbob]

I think public transport services should be increased, more off peak and wider peaks.  This will be more economical overall.  As far as cuts go, only the pipe dreams servicing pipe dream McMansion lots.

I have been very concerned with the plague of McMansions on flood plains, and have said so to council and others over a number of years.  What if I told you the whole recent scenario could be repeated in 3 or 4 weeks?

Our family motto when considering real estate in Brisbane.  Two important factors.  1.  Height above sea level  2. Proximity to a rail line.  The rest is merely window dressing ...

[colinw]

Our family motto when considering real estate in Brisbane.  Two important factors.  1.  Height above sea level  2. Proximity to a rail line.  The rest is merely window dressing ...

That is one sure way to buy real estate that will appreciate in value here in Brisbane, and is in fact the reason why I live where I do.

When we bought our home our thought processes went:

1. Does the property meet out needs (e.g. secure fencing for our dogs, etc.)
2. Do we have rail.  It had to be walking range to a station, as I don't drive.
3. Drainage plan and flood maps. What happened in 1974?

If we found our dream home in a flood area, we wouldn't buy.  If it wasn't on rail we would only buy if it had other high quality public transport. (But a bus route can be changed, rail is permanent barring complete stuff-ups like the 1964 closure to Southport).

It amazes me that developments are planned in obviously flood prone areas.  Even if people don't remember, the institutional memory is there and town planning should prevent some of these developments.

Speaking of which - most of the site for the Yeerongpilly TOD went under.

[skippy]

To free up some immediate funds scrap the 88 route. Transfer some of the buses to feed Darra while some stations on the Ipy out of action.

[somebody]

Regarding the Eastern Busway, I think the bit to Main Ave, Coorparoo needs to stay.  They've already started building it, so why stop now after money has been spent?

[Dean Quick]

I have heard that the transport minister has said that the CRR project may be shelved as a result of the enormous cost of flood repairs.

[#Metro]

I have heard that the transport minister has said that the CRR project may be shelved as a result of the enormous cost of flood repairs.

I don't see how it can be shelved. One of the reasons why it is rail and not bus is because the SE Busway will not be able to cope with the increasing demand. There is also demand from the Gold Coast and Browns Plains area for rail. Services over the Merivale Bridge are already at capacity, and the SE Busway is very close to capacity IMHO too.

Could the Eastern Busway could be re-designed IMHO to be a median busway running down the middle of the road, or it scrapped to- I don't know, all day transit lanes. It's not as good but at least it is still something.

An interchange at Indooroopilly would also make good use of buses rather than run all of them down Coronation Drive.

[colinw]

CRR wasn't funded anyway, and will need a lot of Federal funding.  I'd say it is way too premature to deem something that was never funded & approved in the first place to now be scrapped.  It would also be extremely stupid to run around canning necessary projects just because we had a disaster - because with the rebuild the economy will come back very strongly indeed and some of these projects will be more necessary than ever.  Just look at the way Brisbane developed in the decade after 1974 - now imagine the Government of the day had said "oh dear, we can't afford the Merivale Bridge or suburban electrification?".

What I will say 'though is that the Government will walk away from CRR - and thus any useful future for the SEQ rail system - at its own peril.  I for one am not going to vote on the basis of a good media performance by the premier during a single crisis. Overall performance of the Government is what counts, and CRR and public transport performance in general is one of the key issues that determine my vote.

Re-evaluation of projects should include culling some of the duds, and possibly altering schedules.  I seriously doubt CRR can be up & running by 2016 now, but to can it would be extremely irresponsible.

[Stillwater]

Story in today's Sunshine Coast Daily

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/01/18/sunshine-coast-floods-major-projects-doubt/

The floods highlight the absurdity of the integrity of a transport planning document that puts all the sexy projects way out in the future, and focusses unnecessarily on them and their benefits, knowing all the while that this government will never build them.

Fortunately, the floods will have the effect of redirecting and refoccusing resources to the practical and immediate (not necessarily a bad thing) and some incremental improvements that can make a real difference.  And the government should be upfront about costs and funding methods, not just the levels of government from where money will be sourced.

These methods are unstated at present, and remain the elephant in the room.  We are all big girls and boys because we have lived through a flood.  We should be told about government plans for revenue diversion and additional revenue-raising.  In fact, in the current circumstances, the government would lose face with Queenslanders if it did not continue with its remarkable open and honest approach of recent times.

The next version of the Connecting SEQ 2031, or whenever, should be split into three distinct sections -- immediate transport improvements that are or can be funded (next five years), medium term (the five years after that), where work is underway and funding is most likely guaranteed, then 'pie in the sky' (the following 10 years), which outlines what we would like in a perfect world and remains unfunded.  The overriding focus should be 'what can be funded' rather than 'what would be nice to have if we had the money.'

Nearly all the dreamboat projects are 20 years, or more, away.  The government has done itself a diservice by saying, in effect, look at what we will do for you in 2031, when, in reality this government won't be in power then.  It could be argued that projects beyond 2031 should not appear in the document.

The electorate looks cynically at a government that is not up front.  It is a simple proposition -- whats budgeted and doable, what's likely and can be paid for through identified measures, and what could be possible in an ideal world.

[#Metro]

The next version of the Connecting SEQ 2031, or whenever, should be split into three distinct sections -- immediate transport improvements that are or can be funded (next five years), medium term (the five years after that), where work is underway and funding is most likely guaranteed, then 'pie in the sky' (the following 10 years), which outlines what we would like in a perfect world and remains unfunded.  The overriding focus should be 'what can be funded' rather than 'what would be nice to have if we had the money.'

I agree. The three sections could be titled

1. Now
2. Next
3. Later

Ideally the "now" issues would be dealt with by the TransLink network plan, I don't know what TL published, but their network plan is not a network plan! Something that has a level of detail about it would be good. The Core Frequent Network hopes to address this... because it is what can be done now!

[colinw]

In which case it should be:

Now: Core frequent network, 15 minute trains where possible, more BUZ, eliminate wasteful duplication (route 88, I'm looking at you!)

Next: Springfield, Kippa-Ring, Landsborough, Gold Coast Light Rail, start CRR, finish committed bit of Eastern Busway, trains via Tennyson.

Later: Elanora/Coolangatta, Full CAMCOS, Browns Plains, Nambour Duplication beyond Landsborough, Trouts Road, more LRT on Gold Coast.

Even later: Flagstone, Ripley (thought bubble: maybe Ipswich via Springfield & Ripley should be built, as a "flood proof" Ipswich line?)

Never: that stupid metro / subway that is in the 2031 document.

[SteelPan]

Do NOT jump on the "projects have to be killed" bureaucrat driven band-wagon!  Once the projects are gone - you'll never likely get them back!

YES, some projects may have to be deferred - but, most of the large proposed rail expansion plans are some years off yet anyway.  Tell me this - do you see the ROAD lobby walking around today, saying, "well, we'll have to kill a range of upcoming road projects"?  NO, you don't, instead, their talking about road upgrades and improvements - well, we here at BOT want RAIL upgrades and improvements!  If you don't agree with me on this, sorry - but you've logged onto the wrong website!

Remember what Whitehouse Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual said - "Never allow a crisis to go to waste" and that's the line the boffins are trying now to use - firstly on RAIL - please, don't let them!  Some reasonable deferrals, YES.  Killing off projects - NO!

KEEP IT LOUD FOR PRO RAIL    - the roads lobby will for roads!

[colinw]

I honestly believe certain stupid projects DO need to be killed, across the board - not specifically in the area of rail.

In rail, the ones I mean are the subway/metro, and I don't particularly like the Ripley & Flagstone ideas either because they promote unsustaintable sprawl, although Ripley has merit if it is part of a flood proof alternative route to Ipswich.

If we are talking about killing off stupid projects 'though, we can start with NO MORE ROAD TUNNELS - Northern Link, Kingsford Smith Drive project both should go!  We can also start considering whether some of these ULDA promoted dumb ideas like Yarrabiliba should be scrapped (low density outer suburban sprawl, no sensible transport infrastructure anywhere nearby!)

However if they touch CRR, Springfield, Kippa-Ring, CAMCOS, Gold Coast to Coolangatta, Gold Coast LRT, rail to Browns Plains/Greenbank, etc., I for one will protest long & loud.

If any worthwhile projects get canned, be assured they will refuse to go away if there is a genuine need.  Kippa-Ring has been canned repeatedly, but because it has genuine merit it simply refused to go away.  There is likewise a strong sentiment in favour of a rail service for Browns Plains, and the issue re-appears repeatedly in the local newspapers out that way.  Even if the Government is stupid enough to walk away from the area, the need for it is not going to go away and it will just crop up again in a year or two.

I believe CRR is in this category as well.  There is simply no way we can get away with not building it.  If the Government tries to walk away from it then it will be signing its own death warrant, but the state will still have to build it eventually and at greater expense than if we just bit the bite the bullet & do it now.

This could be a genuinely useful crisis.  The public transport system has shown its value, rail in particular, and there is an opportunity to re-evaluate project priorities and land planning practices.

Note also that it is not the rail lines to Ripley & Flagstone that I advocate canning, but the entire concept of sprawling outer suburban developments such as are being proposed by the Government.  If Ripley & Flagstone DO proceed as urban developments with 100,000+ residents then both rail lines will have to go ahead, however what we are proposing is very outer settlements that will be necessarily highly car dependent even if we do provide them with rail, and will need very long & expensive rail lines to connect them.  Not good planning IMHO.

[#Metro]

However if they touch CRR, Springfield, Kippa-Ring, CAMCOS, Gold Coast to Coolangatta, Gold Coast LRT, rail to Browns Plains/Greenbank, etc., I for one will protest long & loud.

I agree with your assessment. These places EXIST ALREADY and therefore should be prioritised above projects where people do not currently exist. There is a nice big rail line starting out at Rosewood and going into Ipswich. Likewise, there is a nice rail corridor with lots of land around it along the Kippa ring line.

The Flagstone/beaudesert one will have to be looked at. More branches on the rail network means the frequencies are split.

[colinw]

There is an opportunity here to reduce costs by changing planning policies to make better use of what we already have, rather than forcing development out into areas where there is no infrastructure at all.

Costs could also be reduced by actually bringing some rail projects forward - spend money on rail now to avoid spending even more money on roads.

[#Metro]

Do NOT jump on the "projects have to be killed" bureaucrat driven band-wagon!  Once the projects are gone - you'll never likely get them back!

YES, some projects may have to be deferred - but, most of the large proposed rail expansion plans are some years off yet anyway.  Tell me this - do you see the ROAD lobby walking around today, saying, "well, we'll have to kill a range of upcoming road projects"?  NO, you don't, instead, their talking about road upgrades and improvements - well, we here at BOT want RAIL upgrades and improvements!  If you don't agree with me on this, sorry - but you've logged onto the wrong website!

Remember what Whitehouse Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual said - "Never allow a crisis to go to waste" and that's the line the boffins are trying now to use - firstly on RAIL - please, don't let them!  Some reasonable deferrals, YES.  Killing off projects - NO!

KEEP IT LOUD FOR PRO RAIL   protest - the roads lobby will for roads!

I would agree with ColinW. Some projects do need to be looked at again. It is not true that the only way to improve public transport is to spend huge amounts of money on extensions and new infrastructure. Of course there needs to be new infrastructure, such as CRR, but this alone is not good enough. What is needed is proper integrated planning of those lines on a map so that they work together as a unified, co-ordinated whole.

In some cases (the metro) the large expenditure required would be better spent and have more benefits if it were spent on something cheaper (like buses and light rail) than trying to copy Paris and put a rail station on every street corner. We need to be wary of high-cost, low-benefit projects because rail gets a bad name as being "expensive" when it is not and also because of the opportunity cost- I would rather upgrade the current network (7 or so lines out of Brisbane) to provide metro-style frequencies (10 mins or better off peak) to 100+ stations than spend it on one line serving a handful of stations in an inner city area that already is well served by PT.

There are things that we can do now that are cheap, fast and highly effective. The Core Frequent network involves no constructions works whatsoever! It uses existing infrastructure to get high frequency services down existing arterial roads and on exisiting rail stations. In time, capital works such as duplication and triplication will be required to extend the 15 minute frequencies.

I feel that rail is getting a raw deal when I see multi-billions being poured into road tunnels for the lowest capacity transport mode - car. But their days are numbered. The public does not want to pay the huge amounts for these things, the government has tried by turning to the private sector to secure funds, but even here, the returns are totally illusory and it is the foolish investor who invests in PPP toll road
projects.

The BUZ has shown the way- low cost, rapid to get up and running and high-impact. Add a few more BUZ services, BUZify the rail system and then tie it all together by BUZing the GCL.

[Jonno]

Given the size of the repair bill for BCC surely all the tunnel plans should be shelved...and never revived.

PS. Hold strong on PT projects.  I can assure you the road lobby are not sitting around thinking about which projects can be deferred.  They will be whipping up all the spin doctors to push for more freeways to save us from the floods.

[SteelPan]

Given the size of the repair bill for BCC surely all the tunnel plans should be shelved...and never revived.

PS. Hold strong on PT projects.  I can assure you the road lobby are not sitting around thinking about which projects can be deferred.  They will be whipping up all the spin doctors to push for more freeways to save us from the floods.

WHY   :conf   stop funding the tunnel projects - which are absolutely essential to Brisbane's ability to keep its traffic flowing - they're not reliant upon exclusively the public purse and contrary to what others like to believe, super funds the world over, do like to invest in urban infrastructure.

People have to STOP putting the tunnel projects and the PT projects in a "one or the other basket".  Newman  , to his credit is able to achieve these tunnel projects - that the state govt struggles to deliver PT projects is a question you need target at George St    !    All the PT in the world will not stop the very substantial growth in both private and commercial vehicle use over the next 20yrs+, not only in little Brisbane, but right around the world!   Tunnels and PT are two very DIFFERENT beasts and I don't know why people keep looking for a common link.

[somebody]

Umm, isn't the Northern Link going to be funded by the Council exclusively?  State took over Airport Link.  Council built Go Between on its own.  Not sure about Clem7.  Possibly no public funds were spent on that, but I'd be surprised.

[#Metro]

$770 million of public money went into Clem 7, public money for Go Between and Northern Link. Mixed funding sources for KSD I would think, but hopefully they consider the Rail option and not just Roads, Roads, Roads.

The big bet is whether or not these assets have future value in a world where petrol has a carbon tax on it and is high.
Maybe people will go electric...

[ozbob]

To replace the petrol addiction with electric road based transport would require an increase in power generation capacities in the order of 8 to 10 times.  Never going to happen.  Electric vehicles I think are an option for local taxi services and local deliveries though.  Line haul freight and passenger will be electric rail.  This is because of the efficiency of rail.  Only the very well off will be able to afford electric personal transport machines in the new world.

Active transport will be big.

And of course as the fuel excise disappears there is going to be the introduction of a:  mileage based tolling on electric and other vehicles and/or b: very high charges for the electricity.  Costing on today's electricity prices are are flawed.   Do you think the governments can afford to lose the fuel excise revenue??

[#Metro]

Mass electric transport will require electricity- yes. But if people are willing to pay, then other people will be willing to provide. After all, someone has to power the city anyway, and the city is growing. Even Trams in the day required electricity, so Brisbane City Council set about building power stations across Brisbane, and the surplus power from the tram network was sold to homes.

Who knows where that electricity in the future will come from- a solar panel on every roof maybe? The task is large, but once upon a time there was no power in Brisbane, no phone, no sewerage, and today now almost everyone, has one. Power generation itself will probably change too.

It's huge, but possible. I think energy apocalypse-like scenarios where all the petrol runs out and everyone is left stranded, will not eventuate. Public Transport will undergo a revival (there is a limit to how wide you can make a road before you start losing votes!), I think that we will always have some form of personal transport, and there isn't anything wrong with that (so long as they pay for it!).

[Stillwater]

Politicians and industry leaders quoted in the Australian Financial Review of 21 January 2011 (in the light of the flood crisis):

Julia Gillard, Prime Minister – "There certainly will be cuts to government spending.  There will be spending cutbacks and there may also be a (flood) levy."

Brendan Lyons, Chief Executive of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia --  The states and federal government do not have the financial capacity to bridge the financial cost of the infrastructure rebuild that is required.  It will need the federal government to put in place policies to encourage investment by superannuation funds and others.  What is needed is further changes to reduce the high costs of bids for infrastructure projects, the creation of a common national market for such projects and improved access to skilled workers."

Andrew Fraser, Queensland Treasurer – "The state's $134 billion 20-year infrastructure program will have to be repriortised to tackle the rebuilding of critical infrastructure damaged in the state's worst natural disaster.  There is a large repair bill that will lead to some crowding of an otherwise crowded capital works program."

[#Metro]

Every time the money is around, the cost of the project seems to go even higher. 

[Stillwater]

TT, I draw your attention to the fine print in this document (page 8 footnote): http://www.cgc.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0007/17854/ACT_-_Submission_to_2010_Review-Capital-attachment_A_1.pdf

(and take heed)

'The Transport Portfolio expects that cost escalation is likely to continue at between 10% and 20% in the short to medium term' which the document defines as the period 2009-10 to 2013-14.

And that is compounded year on year.  The $8.5 billion CRR project aint $8.5 billion anymore.

[#Metro]

I hate to say this, but there is now the very real risk that Cross River Rail will not go ahead. The project cost of $8.5 billion is likely to escalate, as they always seem to, and IMHO could easily head north to $10 billion dollars. In this territory, we are talking about costs that are closer to Federal Projects like BER or NBN...

There really does not seem to be an alternative. Merivale Bridge duplication would add conflicts to the Ipswich line and the land and space really isn't there because the SE busway has taken up that land, along with the convention centre and other buildings.

And we haven't even considered the "extra" tunnel CRR2 from Toowong to CBD via West End yet. That's even more billions, and the billions required for metro on top of that- you can see now why IMHO some things within the Connecting SEQ 2031 plan are designed to fail IMHO. There is just no known way of funding something with an expenditure on that (combined) scale.

[#Metro]

I can only guess what Plan B must be... more trains via Tennyson!?

[ozbob]

I am not concerned.  There is a lot of gloom and doom, and melodrama around at the moment.  For example, sporting grounds at schools are now considered contaminated and they wish to rip up the surfaces and re-turf?  How absurd, top dress with a bit of lime and they will come good. As they did in '74.  Faecal contaminants are always there.

The reaction at the Government level with the recovery statutory authority is causing a lot of angst.  The micro decisions need to be made today, go ahead and reclaim your house if possible.  The macro moves will take time, don't confuse the two.

Increasingly the political potential is being worked in, just get on with it please.  Let the politics sort itself.

A federal government that can generate billions for dodgy roof insulation schemes  is not going to baulk at a recovery effort.  Many economists will tell you that this is a good thing economic wise.  It will generate a real bump in the economy down the track.  Rather than hang back, now is the time to move forward.

Whether we are up the challenge remains to be seen.  The early signs are not good, but increasingly I think wiser counsel will prevail. 

[ozbob]

In Australia's past at a number of crises there were war bonds.  How about Flood bonds?  These could be a vehicle for tapping into the huge reserves in super funds etc.

[#Metro]

In Australia's past at a number of crises there were war bonds.  How about Flood bonds?  These could be a vehicle for tapping into the huge reserves in super funds etc.

This is a great idea. On the other hand it adds to public debt/borrowings.
Now, I don't think there is anything wrong with public debt so long as it is used with caution. With debt-phobia and making balance sheets smiley, (even though the costs are not eliminated, merely shifted to somewhere else that doesn't appear on any paper balance sheet) being all the rage, it seems unlikely.

[colinw]

I can only guess what Plan B must be... more trains via Tennyson!?

More likely plan B is to keep dishing up the same old crap while denying there is a problem and blaming the council for the increasing congestion and slow decline of public transport mode share that will be inevitable if we do not fix the rail system.

I do not see an alternative to Cross River Rail.  We need a new north - south rail link with decent junction arrangements to bypass capacity constraints and flat junction conflicts caused by the existing connections from the southside system to the northside.

From a capacity viewpoint, Merivale duplication would be ok if you could do something with the Roma St junctions, and weren't limited to 4 tracks through Central & Fortitude Valley.  But the reality is that these restrictions DO exist, and would probably be as expensive as CRR to rectify, so a new corridor comes up as the preferred option.

Simply duplicating Merivale also loses out on reduced transit time to the CBD from Beenleigh & Gold Coast, and increased reach of the system by getting rail to Woolloongabba, the southern end of CBD, etc.

CRR is the key project for the region's public transport future, and plays a very important role in the Government's re-development & renewal plans at Yeerongipilly TOD, Boggo Road precinct, 'Gabba, southern end of CBD and the RNA site.  If we lose CRR then the whole edifice comes crashing down.

The Government will cancel CRR at its own peril, because in doing so it will have destroyed most of its plans for the inner part of Brisbane.

My attitude on this issue is hardening.  I do not see that we should be considering cancellation of ANY of the sensible public transport infrastructure projects in the 2031 vision.  Core frequent network, more BUZ, CRR, Springfield, Kippa-Ring, Busways, Gold Coast Light Rail, Beerburrum - Landsborough - Nambour, CAMCOS, Coolangatta, Salisbury - Browns Plain - Greenbank and Trouts Road MUST all go ahead as planned, because to cancel them would be to deny the reality of a rapidly growing region and looming oil crisis.

I am more open to cancellation of Flagstone & Ripley but only if the ridiculous ULDA promoted outer sprawl developments that require them are also cancelled.  If the people DO move out there, then the rail must follow.  If Ripley does go ahead, I believe the rail should be as a complete loop from Springfield to Ipswich, providing an alternative Ipswich route that bypasses the flood prone Goodna section. I did not like the idea of a Ripley spur from Ipswich alone.

In short - just because we have had a flood and major damage does not absolve the Government of its responsibility to plan and provide for the future of the region.  The flood does not mean that the infrastructure requirements for that future have changed. To use this crisis as an excuse to cancel financially unpalatable projects would be an abrogation of the Government's responsibilities.

CRR is the most sensible plan for the the future of the rail system that any Government of the last 30 years has produced, it cannot now be abandoned.

CRR must proceed.  

[Stillwater]

While CRR shouldn't be abandoned, it may have to be postponed while funds that otherwise would have been allocated to construct it are reallocated to urgent works following the floods.  Inflation and other factors mean that a two-year delay to start beyond the projected start date means that the likely cost would be of the order of $13-$14 billion, not $8.5 billion (it would be $10 billion in today's prices).  Benefit cost analysis and financial planning should be based on the higher figure, otherwise the business case becomes a farce.  The business case must be watertight, as should the tunnel.  Nothing is to be gained from starting the build based on an $8.5 billion figure only to discover halfway in that the money has been eaten up through higher construction costs.  What do you do with half a tunnel?  Nor do we want to see the project scaled back to fit an unrealistic budget.  Above all, we should avoid at all costs the situation where the aspirational desire to have the CRR lulls us into thinking it can be built for less than the most likely cost applying at the time it will be built.  And that is a key factor - at the time it will be built, not now. 

[mufreight]

It seems that logic and praticality have been lost here with an overdose of flood reaction.
Logic would dictate that if anything the commencment of construction for CRR should be brought forward rather than defered, the practical advantages in this is that it will provide employment opportunities sooner for the experienced tunnel worker from the current road tunnel projects with not only this skilled workforce but specialised equipment being put to continuing use which will help reduce the project start up costs.
There were major infrastructure works carried out in the aftermath of 74, the key difference here being a government that is incapable of chewing gum and walking forward at the same time.
To delay CRR now would just be a further example of the incompetence of this government to build infrastructure other than roads for the future.

[somebody]

I think mufreight might be right here.  If anything should be canned it is the somewhat dubious Northern Link.  Although every evidence from before the flood seems to be that it will proceed.

[O_128]

THis new levy will mow been that infrastructure doesn't have to be cut won't it

[Stillwater]

The federal and state treasurers have both said that government programs will have to be cut or reprioritised.  We will probably have an idea within a week or two.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/flood-levy-in-frame-as-wayne-swan-rules-out-cuts/story-fn59niix-1225994545370

http://www.smh.com.au/business/queensland-rules-out-floodrelated-tax-hikes-20110124-1a2kz.html