Article: New north-west line might cause cuts to others, says rail advice

[somebody]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/new-northwest-line-might-cause-cuts-to-others-says-rail-advice-20110215-1av7l.html

New north-west line might cause cuts to others, says rail advice
Jacob Saulwick
February 16, 2011

THE COALITION'S pledge to prioritise Sydney's north-west rail link could lead to service cuts on other lines, including connections to the north shore and central coast, if it does not also invest in extra rail capacity, says an analysis prepared inside Transport NSW.

A departmental briefing note requested by the Transport Minister, John Robertson, says that only two trains per hour would be able to run from a new north-west link - a string of stations connecting Rouse Hill to Epping - to the central business district without timetable changes and possible service cuts elsewhere.

The north-west line was Labor's policy for a decade. However, the government last year shifted priorities to the Epping to Parramatta line, alongside a new western express line into the city.

The government is expected to use the note, signed by the Director-General of Transport NSW, Les Wielinga, to highlight politically unpalatable choices the opposition may have to make to accommodate the new line.

The note presents four options that would allow extra trains into the city. One is to reduce services from the central coast, Hornsby, Berowra or Gordon that travel to the city through the north shore line.

If services from Hornsby and Gordon on the north shore line were reduced from 14 in peak hour to 10, it would create room on the north shore line for six trains per hour from the north-west to enter the CBD, the note, obtained by the Herald, says.

The north shore line already runs 18 trains into the CBD at peak hour, and has a current capacity of only 20 trains.

Another option is to shuttle trains from Rouse Hill to Epping and Chatswood. This would have the disadvantage of adding to crowding on existing lines, at Epping and Chatswood stations, and require passengers on the new link to change trains before arriving at the CBD.

A third option is to run trains from Hornsby though Strathfield to the CBD. But this would again require passengers north of Epping to change trains before arriving at Town Hall or Wynyard.

The final option would be to run trains from the north-west through Strathfield to the CBD, but that would also require patrons of the new line to change trains at Central.

''The scenarios highlight that, without the injection of major new capacity through the CBD, a range of timetable modifications will be required to accommodate the NWRL,'' the note says.

''This will require changes, and in some cases potential reductions, to services on the existing RailCorp network.''

The Herald's transport inquiry, headed by the state's former rail and roads chief, Ron Christie, recommended last year that planning start on a second harbour crossing to accommodate extra trains through the city.

Neither the government nor opposition have committed to a second crossing.

Will be interesting to see the electorates response to this one.

[#Metro]

I think we are at a point where Australian rail systems turn the corner.

The car policies that might have had ample land and room have run their course, every last bit of efficiency has been squeezed out of roads using all sorts of technologies and designs,
we are getting too big, there just isn't really much alternative IMHO. Funding unaffordable roads through the PPPs hasn't worked. The fact that the Go Between Bridge and Legacy way and
Kingsford Smith Drive are going to be funded out of public debt and not PPP in Brisbane shows a tacit acknowledgement that PPP approach does not work.

Brisconnections was a debarcle, Clem 7 is going to be an electoral hot-button,
and even putting the costs of these infrastructures on to public debt (public debt , that great big bogeyman) is going to raise the ire of the masses in a big way.

Public Transport will return in a big way in the next 10 years or so, something that we haven't seen in a long time.
Car will still be there of course, but I think that new capacity will be mostly on PT. It just won't be politically possible to do much else!

[Stillwater]

How will Clem 7 be an 'electoral hot button'?  And are there not hotter buttons?  One issue as we get closer to a state poll early next year is how trains, buses and public transport generally can become hot buttons in a number of Qld seats where candidates are made to feel the heat.

[#Metro]

Have you read today's Courier-Mail and Brisbane Times?
Anti-tunnel sentiment is running at fever pitch. People are going rabid at the billions being spent on roads.

[Stillwater]

The stand-off between Julia Gillard and the new Premier of NSW, Barry O'Farrell, about Sydney's proposed North-West railway line illustrates an important issue that has relevance to Queensland.  Those who portray the situation as 'political' are missing the point.

The Federal Government has committed 80 per cent of the cost of a Parramatta-Epping railway line, funds that Mr O'Farrell now wants switched to his North-West Line, which his Coalition promised during the election campaign.
Echoing the situation in Victoria with the cost of the regional rail link has ballooned, the cost of the Parramatta-Epping railway has now blown out to more than $3 billion.

The states and the commonwealth have a rough rule of thumb for major projects funding, based around the type of project, whether it serves national freight interests and weather it is on a national road and rail network where the federal government recognises it has a greater responsibility.  In the case of the Parramatta-Epping Line, the funding split is 80 per cent paid for by the Federal Government and 20 per cent from NSW.
Queensland Labor is looking for a similar split of costs for the Cross River Rail project.  It is false economy, under such circumstances, to be sloppy in estimating costs on the basis that the commonwealth is wearing most of the risk if the project cost escalates dramatically.

Mr O'Farrell is working the desperate line that the Federal Government is committed to 80 per cent of the now higher cost of Parramatta-Epping, and may be inflating that cost in the false hope that he can get more than the amount Gillard has promised.  He then hopes to apply that illusionary higher rate of federal subsidy to the more costly North-West railway line.

In Queensland, we have a state government that talks as though the $8.3 billion CRR is 'in the bag', with the Federal Government likely to pick up 80 per cent of the cost of construction.  The Federal Government has made no commitment to funding construction, just the planning only.

In Campbell Newman, the non-elected leader of the parliamentary LNP, we have a person who has publically repudiated the CRR in favour of a twin rail metro-style public transport network north and south of the Brisbane River, and may also be reallocating anticipated federal funds in his own mind to pet projects yet to be announced.

The Federal Government has been convinced of the worth of investing in the Parramatta-Epping line and has committed 80 per cent of the estimated cost provided by the NSW government.  Let's be clear – Gillard is committed to a dollar figure, and has budgeted for that amount.  She has not committed to '80 per cent of whatever it costs'.

The Queensland Government and Mr Newman would be foolish to contemplate that, in circumstances where the CRR cost went up, the yet to be announced commonwealth contribution, likewise, would escalate proportionally.
It is also false to assume that federal money allocated for projects such as Parramatta-Epping somehow becomes state money that can be reallocated at whim, according to promises the state government of the day has made to bolster its election chances.  We have built into the Connecting SEQ 2031 document a similar assumption that projects funded into the future will be financed by the commonwealth on a proportional basis.  There is absolutely no basis for this assumption.

As has been seen in Victoria and NSW, the potential for cost escalation for major infrastructure projects is great.  The likelihood that CRR will cost more than $8.3 billion is just as great.  A higher cost could mitigate against the value of the benefits expected to be achieved, in which case a need to look at alternative 'value-for-money' projects may be triggered.

Mr Newman -- and again it is worthwhile emphasising that he is non-elected to any public office after this weekend -- has unilaterally declared all LNP policy, including transport policy, 'null and void'.  Does he believe that a whole new suite of LNP policies can be worked up in just six months?  That is about the time he has to develop them.  Or, is his plan to clear the decks so he has carte blanch authority to go around Queensland promising whatever he likes?

When they examine the transport policies of the major parties at the next election, Queenslanders may be faced with the choice of an ambitious and unfunded Labor policy to 'fix things mainly in the period 2025-31' and a 'make it up as you go along' LNP policy.  Either way, that's not good.

[Gazza]

The likelihood that CRR will cost more than $8.3 billion is just as great.

No it won't, because the 8 bil figure is ridiculously inflated....Even $6 Bil is an inflated price for what the project includes.

[Stillwater]

Gazza, you're on.  A good bottle of red wine on the CRR costing more than $8.3 billion.

[Stillwater]

I'm talking a bottle of wine worth $50 plus, Gazza. 

People waste hours in this forum debating the cost of railway lines in Outer Mongolia, across the Steppes of Russia and through the plains of Patagonia and seek to relate that back to a Queensland experience.  It is all irrelevant.

CRR won't be built for $8.3 billion unless it is scaled back considerably from what's planned.

[#Metro]

No it won't, because the 8 bil figure is ridiculously inflated....Even $6 Bil is an inflated price for what the project includes.

So where's the fat???

[Gazza]

I'm talking a bottle of wine worth $50 plus, Gazza.  

People waste hours in this forum debating the cost of railway lines in Outer Mongolia, across the Steppes of Russia and through the plains of Patagonia and seek to relate that back to a Queensland experience.  It is all irrelevant.

What about in our own backyard, with the ECRL.

No, what will happen is that the tenders will all come in at a realistic price in line with what it actually costs to build an underground railway.
The government is clearly being overly conservative...They've never done a project like this, and It's safe to say they have put a fair bit of fat in the budget to absorb any possible overruns (In other words, 8 bil is the worst it could be, even if the project was plauged with issues)

CRR won't be built for $8.3 billion unless it is scaled back considerably from what's planned.

I hope so...Does Roma St really need fancy new wavy roof over the platforms for instance, considering the current renovation is only a bit over a decade old?
Do we really need to knock an entire hotel down at Albert street for a mere station entrance?

[Stillwater]

Following the GFC, construction costs got more competitive, but the start of construction of the CRR will coincide with, or follow on from, the flood reconstruction and a resetting of the residential construction market.  However, there may be a good price coming off the back of the surplus resources left over after the mole-ing of Brisbane by tunnels.  So, we will see.

[#Metro]

I don't know about this. Aren't there a lot of supporting projects as well as the actual tunnel?

Tunneling is always expensive. I'm in the "this project might blow out" camp.

[ozbob]

From news.com.au click here!

Alternate route to North West Rail Link has been rejected by the State Government

Alternate route to North West Rail Link has been rejected by the State Government

   Rhys Haynes Transport Reporter
   From: The Daily Telegraph
   May 16, 2011 12:00AM

AN alternative route for the $7 billion North West Rail Link has been rejected by the State Government, as federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese made it clear the Parramatta to Epping link should remain a priority.

Parramatta Council proposed the North West line be diverted to Parramatta instead of Epping to save the State and Federal Governments up to $2 billion.

Which line will go ahead - and how it will be funded - remains a major issue for Premier Barry O'Farrell after Canberra failed to allocate any funds to Sydney public transport infrastructure in last week's Budget.

Mr O'Farrell had demanded Prime Minister Julia Gillard shift the $2.1 billion she set aside for the Parramatta to Epping line over to his election promise to build the North West link.

A report by Sinclair Knight Merz for Parramatta Council last month proposed diverting the North West link from Rouse Hill via Castle Hill and connecting with express trains from Parramatta. It also included a shorter, cheaper version of the Parramatta to Epping link.

But a Transport NSW spokesman dismissed the idea, confirming the line would include "construction of new stations" at Cherrybrook, Castle Hill, The Hills Centre, Norwest Business Park, Kellyville and Rouse Hill.

Mr Albanese rejected suggestions funding should have been allocated for the North West project in last week's Budget.

[#Metro]

Just the cost of these things... its enough to make you fall over.

[Zoiks]

I don't see how the CRR will come close to 8 billion in net terms.

Considering the amount of tunnelling you get for 6 billion with airport link, I personally don't see it topping even 6 billion

[somebody]

Some details on the alternate proposal, if anyone is interested: http://www.parracity.nsw.gov.au/work/business_in_parramatta/strategy/parramatta_solving_sydneys_transport_problems

Basically run as present to Parramatta, and then go to Baulkham Hills and beyond.  Not sure if going to Castle Hill via Parramatta makes any sense though, so it has its own limitations, but does add value in the sense of aiding decentralisation.

[colinw]

The original line to Castle Hill & Rogans Hill was via Parramatta.  Junction at Westmead.  It was a flop, the first suburban line in Sydney to close.

[somebody]

The original line to Castle Hill & Rogans Hill was via Parramatta.  Junction at Westmead.  It was a flop, the first suburban line in Sydney to close.

Thanks, never knew about that one.  It only lasted 10 years as heavy rail (1922-1932), with up to two decades before that as a tram.  So even 30 years would count as something of a flop.  I think even the Carlingford line has lasted longer than that.