Article: New hospital heads wish list

[Fares_Fair]

Maroochy Journal
Friday 10 June, 2011
by Matt Johnston

New hospital heads wish list

This story is included for the rail infrastructure/public transport comments made by Sunshine Coast State MP's.

[Stillwater]

I wonder what would be he answer now if the Maroochy Journal went back to these MPs and asked the question they could not answer last time: "If you had $1 billion to spend on public transport, how would you spend it?"  The answer should not be: "I'd give ot to Campbell Newman to spend, and back his decisions."

[Fares_Fair]

I don't see any comments like that in this story, SW.
Peter Wellington MP, this time around has changed his answer to complete non-committal since the Maroochy Journal story re: $1b to spend.
Perhaps he is more privy to the budget than the opposition.

Everyone has changed their chairs for this one.

Andrew Powell MP, answered the question this way:
"The two major infrastructure projects for the Coast are the University Hospital and the rail network from Beerburrum through to Nambour"
Curiously, he then goes on to say "The rail network needs to be brought forward, not necessarily funded, but at least acknowledged because .. " of the planned date for completion.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

There would appear to be acknowledgement that the Beerburrum-Nambour track upgrading can be progressed (improving on what you have rather than build something new) in the interim while the CAMCOS project still lies on the books.  It is also agreed that a $1 invested in the SCL would benefit both passenger and freight rail, so buys more bang for the buck.  At the same time that Mr Powell is urging the state government to invest in duplication to Nambour, he is failing to convince his LNP Party to commit to this policy.  As to the comments that 'the rail network needs to be brought forward, not necessarily funded', they could be regarded as 'non-comments'.  Mr Powell wants to be seen to be pro-active in doing something that people want.  Yet, just as he did when asked the 'billion dollar question', he holds back from commiting the funds, or having his party make an election commitment in keeping with his sentiment.  We express disappointment with the state government over the unfunded elements of Connecting SEQ 2031 while praising the vision.  Consistent with that stance, we should be able to ask Mr Powell to 'show us the money'.  So far, the opposition has said it won't make such a commitment until it sees the updated forward forward estimates (details of revenue and expenditute over several years into the future).  They will be revealed in Tuesday's state budget.  At that time, the LNP will just about have run out of excuses, except the one that 'if we commit to this project the state government will steal our policy.'  That is also a furphy, as the Labor policy is spelled out in the Connecting SEQ document; so it's already there.  At least the state government has put a timeframe on when the Beerburrum-Nambour upgrade will occur if it wins government early next year.  The LNP has neither committed funds, nor stated a timeframe for construction. So its spokesperson, Mr Powell, stumbles for a get-out clause -- 'The rail network needs to be brought forward, not necessarily funded.'  Just where does that get us?

[Stillwater]

Politicians sniping at each other through the media is portrayed as a glatorial contest, when the real substance of debate over investment in the SCL lies at the policy-setting level.  In that regard, it is always good to see what advice QR, Translink and Transport is providing government.  The QR submission to the Productivity Commission Review of the Economic Costs of Freight Infrastructure and Efficient Approaches to Transport Pricing (page 94) is a case in point.

In 2006, QR undertook a cost-benefit analysis of investment in the North Coast line (Brisbane-Cairns).  Interestingly, the analysis took the approach that investment in rail, indirectly, is an investment in roads.  The analysis included an estimate of the future transport task (based on underlying market growth rate estimates).  It also identified economic benefits for government and society associated with investment in rail.

Here's what QR estimated in 2006 would be the benefit of a modest $300 million investment in 'below rail' projects on the North Coast Line:

- a transfer of 850,000 tonnues of general freight and containerised freight from road to rail (a lower rate of growth in heavy transport vehicles on the Bruce Highway)

- resultant savings of $43 million over 20 years due to fewer crashes on the Bruce Highway

- environmental gains valued at PV (present value) $23 million over 20 years

- road pavement maintenance savings of PV $94 million over 20 years from reduced heavy vehicle truck movements pounding our roads

- benefits associated with better trainsit times, improved service reliability and improved service availability, valued at PV $127 million over 20 years

- benefits to rail operators and customers valued at PV $143 million over 20 years

- potential reductions in rail freight costs in the range of 2 per cent to 6 per cent across NCL markets, provided the financial gains made by 'above rail' operators are passed on to customers

- an increase in GTK's on the NCL associated with additional containerised traffic of 34 per cent 'over and above' underlying growth.

Maybe politicians should resist going public with trivial and meaningless attempts at brinkmanship and do us all a favour by working hard behind the scenes on devising policy that argues the case for the SCL and NCL based on the facts.  Given the above, the case for additional investment in the NCL is compelling.  What's more, this is what QR is telling governments.

[Fares_Fair]

Thank you SW,

These submission details certainly help the case for the NCL. 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

And here is the link for the info SW posted: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/48577/sub053.pdf

First time, I have finally seen a business case.  Some points seem kind of hazy, but I would hope that the document expands on them.

[Fares_Fair]

And here is the link for the info SW posted: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/48577/sub053.pdf

First time, I have finally seen a business case.  Some points seem kind of hazy, but I would hope that the document expands on them.

Thanks Simon. 
Saved for reference.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

A former transport minister received internal advice from the department that a track duplication from Caboolture to Beerburrum would be a waste of money unless the full proposed duplication to Landsborough was done.  (The advice is in the public domain.)  There would be little gain by way of transit time improvements and efficiency gains unless track duplication and realignment was completed to Landsborough, the Minister was told.  Minister Paul Lucas, currently the deputy premier, went on the public record to 'promise' and 'guarantee' funding for duplication, yet the government inexplicably failed to follow through.  If I receive a warranty guarantee for my car or toaster that is not honoured, I have recourse through the legal system to seek compensation.  Not so when the government gives such an undertaking it would seem. 

The duplication stopped at Beerburrum and the TMR advice came true. 

Duplication to Landsborough would have opened up the opportunity for hourly passenger services Brisbane-Landsborough, there to link to the Sunshine Coast bus network.  With track duplication completed only as far as Beerburrum, this now can't occur.  Trains stop at Elimbah for up to five minutes to 'waste' the transit time saving achieved over the track between Caboolture and Beerburrum.  The government has an obligation to explain why it ignored departmental advice and did not spent our taxpayer funds more effectively.  Yes, duplication to Landsborough would have cost more (the money was 'promised'), but it would have delivered a public benefit.  Not following the advice has, in effect, wasted the money spent on the Caboolture-Beerburrum duplication.  As we have seen elsewhere, the job was half done.  This government continues a practice of undercooking projects (not including Ellen Grove station in the Springfield Line expansion is a case in point).  To rectify a situation subsequently, more money must be spent at a future date to achieve an outcome that could have been bought more cheaply at the outset. 

As we can see from the above, QR has told the government how it could spend $300 million effectively on the North Coast Line to achieve appreciable outcomes.  Apart from the political imperative, what competencies exist in the transport minister's office that allows it to over-ride with certainty and conviction advice it receives from the department and QR?  Further work is being prepared within TMR about efficiencies that could be gained for passenger rail through track improvements on the Sunshine Coast line to Nambour.  Let us hope that any advice flowing from this work is not ignored by the minister's office and recommendations are implemented as proposed.

[#Metro]

The government has an obligation to explain why it ignored departmental advice and did not spent our taxpayer funds more effectively.  Yes, duplication to Landsborough would have cost more (the money was 'promised'), but it would have delivered a public benefit.

HALF - BAKED!!!

This is like painting a room with a bucket of paint and then finding out that you only bought enough to paint half the room... leaving the other half the old colour!
This is even WORSE than doing nothing because you spend money and you get NO benefit back !!

[Fares_Fair]

A former transport minister received internal advice from the department that a track duplication from Caboolture to Beerburrum would be a waste of money unless the full proposed duplication to Landsborough was done.  (The advice is in the public domain.)  There would be little gain by way of transit time improvements and efficiency gains unless track duplication and realignment was completed to Landsborough, the Minister was told.  Minister Paul Lucas, currently the deputy premier, went on the public record to 'promise' and 'guarantee' funding for duplication, yet the government inexplicably failed to follow through.  If I receive a warranty guarantee for my car or toaster that is not honoured, I have recourse through the legal system to seek compensation.  Not so when the government gives such an undertaking it would seem. 

The duplication stopped at Beerburrum and the TMR advice came true. 

Duplication to Landsborough would have opened up the opportunity for hourly passenger services Brisbane-Landsborough, there to link to the Sunshine Coast bus network.  With track duplication completed only as far as Beerburrum, this now can't occur.  Trains stop at Elimbah for up to five minutes to 'waste' the transit time saving achieved over the track between Caboolture and Beerburrum.  The government has an obligation to explain why it ignored departmental advice and did not spent our taxpayer funds more effectively.  Yes, duplication to Landsborough would have cost more (the money was 'promised'), but it would have delivered a public benefit.  Not following the advice has, in effect, wasted the money spent on the Caboolture-Beerburrum duplication.  As we have seen elsewhere, the job was half done.  This government continues a practice of undercooking projects (not including Ellen Grove station in the Springfield Line expansion is a case in point).  To rectify a situation subsequently, more money must be spent at a future date to achieve an outcome that could have been bought more cheaply at the outset. 

As we can see from the above, QR has told the government how it could spend $300 million effectively on the North Coast Line to achieve appreciable outcomes.  Apart from the political imperative, what competencies exist in the transport minister's office that allows it to over-ride with certainty and conviction advice it receives from the department and QR?  Further work is being prepared within TMR about efficiencies that could be gained for passenger rail through track improvements on the Sunshine Coast line to Nambour.  Let us hope that any advice flowing from this work is not ignored by the minister's office and recommendations are implemented as proposed.

This document is very interesting indeed and I will incorporate its findings into my Federal and State proposals for the NCL duplication.
For a spend of $300m, there are $430m in savings (over 20 years) in areas that include:

road pavement maintenance (by reduction in heavy vehicles loads), save $94m (kerching !)

freight / containerised traffic transfer from road to rail of 850,000T,

road accident cost savings, save $43m (kerching !)

environmental gains, save $23m (kerching !)

better transit times, improved service availability, save $127m (kerching !)

benefits to customers and rail operators, save $143m (kerching !)

freight cost savings of 2%-6% across NCL markets if gains are passed on to customers.

And for the BIG one, an increase in Gross Tonnage Kilometres (GTK) on the NCL (additional containerised traffic) of 34% OVER and ABOVE underlying growth. 

Remember this is all from a submission to the Productivity Commission by Queensland Rail in 2006 !
Well done SW.

Regards,
Fares_ Fair.

[Stillwater]

In its 2006 report to the Productivity Commission, QR says: "QR has recently undertaken a cost-benefit study of investment in the North-Coast Line (Brisbane to Cairns). This study sought to identify the economic benefits from
investment in the North-Coast Line."

It would be interesting to do a FOI request to see the full report.

[Fares_Fair]

For the record, cost of an RTI (now Right to Information) is $38.00
Sounds like a great idea. I know someone who may help.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[tomato]

Not sure were to post this ( & I haven't even downloaded the document)....

•Sunshine Coast Regional Council Sunshine Coast Airport [PDF: 7068 KB]

from Infrastructure Australia

Home > June 2011 Report to COAG and Assessments > 2010/11 Submissions

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/submissions.aspx

One of 22 submissions (excluding "State Govt " submissions).... also one titled ....

•Rockhampton Regional Council Shoalwater Bay .... no other obvious Qld submissions

[Stillwater]

Queensland adopts a strategy of grouping projects for IA funding.  It does this because it does not want to rank projects in order .... 1, 2, 3 etc. for political reasons.  It will discuss its priorities 'off the record', but leaves the choice of projects to be funded to IA (which says very little is shovel ready in Queensland).  That way, the government can tell communities whose pet project did not receive funding something along the lines of the following: 'we put your project forward, but those anti-Queenslander southerners did not see fit to fund it.'  Queensland's failure to rank projects in order runs contrary to what other states are prepared to do and is viewed as a weakness. 

[O_128]

Queensland adopts a strategy of grouping projects for IA funding.  It does this because it does not want to rank projects in order .... 1, 2, 3 etc. for political reasons.  It will discuss its priorities 'off the record', but leaves the choice of projects to be funded to IA (which says very little is shovel ready in Queensland).  That way, the government can tell communities whose pet project did not receive funding something along the lines of the following: 'we put your project forward, but those anti-Queenslander southerners did not see fit to fund it.'  Queensland's failure to rank projects in order runs contrary to what other states are prepared to do and is viewed as a weakness. 

One thing I don't get is why things like CRR, SC coast duplication and CAMCOS arent shovel ready that way when funding comes it can be built in stages or in one hit rather than doing all the feasibility studies etc.

[Golliwog]

Not sure about the others, but I know with CRR it's not exactly a feasibility study, it started with looking at which route was the best in terms of value for money/passengers served/other criteria then worked its way to detailed design looking at where exactly the stations are going, what they look like, what they're made of. These are things you should be doing for every project. You can't just say, I want to build a railway from here to here, lets roll.

[O_128]

Not sure about the others, but I know with CRR it's not exactly a feasibility study, it started with looking at which route was the best in terms of value for money/passengers served/other criteria then worked its way to detailed design looking at where exactly the stations are going, what they look like, what they're made of. These are things you should be doing for every project. You can't just say, I want to build a railway from here to here, lets roll.

I get that but the gov keeps making these shiny plans every year, do the feasibility study, get it shovel ready rather than go we have the money it will be another 6 years.

[Stillwater]

IA has confirmed there are no 'shovel ready' projects not already started and capable of being funded.  So what is IA to do?  Not surprisingly, it looks to other states where there are 'shovel ready' projects with all pre-construction activities completed.  It is a national body and looks to get the best value for money, irrespective of where the projects are located.

Queensland has no specific right to a notional share of the unspent IA money.

Let's not forget that the feds have given Queensland the money specifically to prepare CRR to the 'shovel ready' stage.  Yes, CONSTRUCTION has been delayed due to the flood recovery effort, but all the means are in place for planning to construction ready status.  So why is Queensland draging the chain?

The revised date for completion date of the CRR feasibility study is the end of 2011.