Infrastructure Australia - Annual report and ramifications

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Re: SEQ misses the bus, train and boat ...

6th June 2011

Greetings,

They have missed the boat, train and bus in SEQ.  The reality is only X amount of dollars in IA.  The delaying of CRR is a disaster not only for the project but for the rail network generally.  We have warned for some time that delays with CRR may well result in the major rail projects down south getting the moolah .... well guess what folks?

Enjoy the congestion and failing transport network.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

=============================

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Melbourne's underground beats out Brisbane

Quote
Melbourne's underground beats out Brisbane
Tony Moore
July 6, 2011

Brisbane's underground rail project faces stiff funding competition from a very similar underground rail project in Melbourne.

Infrastructure Australia this week released its priority projects for Australia and strongly encouraged new funding sources as Australia's infrastructure building program slipped.

They consider Melbourne's underground rail project as closer to being "shovel ready", while Brisbane's $7.7 billion Cross River Rail project is several years from starting.

Melbourne's $4.9 billion Metro 1 project is classed as "ready to proceed", while Brisbane's underground rail is a rung lower as a "threshold" project with "real potential".

The Metro 1 project includes an eight-kilometre rail line with six underground rail stations running from Sunbury to connect to St Kilda Road.

Brisbane's Cross River Rail project, deferred for two years after January's floods, is an nine-kilometre rail link from Salisbury to Bowen Hills, including five kilometres of underground rail and three underground stations.

Infrastructure Australia national infrastructure co-ordinator Michael Deegan described the two projects as competing projects, but not rivals for funding.

"We have competing projects right around the country, we have projects competing for very few dollars," he said.

Mr Deegan said the conflict between Melbourne and Brisbane's underground rail projects was "more of a timing issue" than a direct competition.

"We think the Queensland Cross River Rail project is very well done piece of work. We are very keen on it," he said.

Mr Deegan said Cross River Rail was now finalising its costs and benefits, so the final analysis can be completed.

"It is a lot of money, but it is a very, very important project for Brisbane," he said.

Mr Deegan said the community needed to accept that it had three choices if it wanted modern infrastructure; either governments sold assets to raise money for infrastructure, consumers paid higher taxes and charges, or commuters paid tolls.

"That debate needs to open up; these are things that we are prepared to pay for, but we are not prepared to pay for these," he said.

"There have to be some decisions made by the community about where the investment dollars go."

The top-rated project in Queensland is a "managed motorways" project with New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, where computer systems guide vehicles around national highways.

"There is a whole series of information technology solutions which is cheaper than building new roads," Mr Deegan said.

He said the technology used road sensors, cameras and signals was used in Europe and the United States and had been trialled in Melbourne.

The next stage of Brisbane's Eastern Busway project, which ultimately will run from the University of Queensland to Capalaba, is also classed as a "threshold" project.

The current $466 million phase between Buranda and Main Avenue at Coorparoo will be completed in early 2012.

The next stage, costed at $685 million, will run between Main Avenue and Bennetts Road at Coorparoo.

The preferred option for this work is for a dedicated busway, with a tunnel from Main Avenue to Coorparoo Junction.

Infrastructure Australia chairman Sir Rod Eddington on Monday said government reforms to infrastructure delivery was "frustratingly slow."

"As the rate of productivity has slowed over the past decade - to a point below the average of OECD nations - the need for policy reform has grown," he said.

"Productivity has slowed as a direct result of infrastructure shortfalls- time lost in travel, delays at ports, lost production due to water restrictions."

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/melbournes-underground-beats-out-brisbane-20110705-1h0hd.html

[somebody]

Tunnel to Salisbury?  Has there been scope creep with this project?

[ozbob]

Tunnel to Salisbury?  Has there been scope creep with this project?

No tunnel to Salisbury, just the rail link component has always been Bowen Hills <-> Salisbury, the tunnel is as planned AFAIAA

Brisbane's Cross River Rail project, deferred for two years after January's floods, is an nine-kilometre rail link from Salisbury to Bowen Hills, including five kilometres of underground rail and three underground stations.

[ozbob]

ABC News AM  --> http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3261040.htm

Infrastructure delays threaten productivity

[ozbob]

Another sign of the failure at the state level, is the silence from Government and Opposition to recent IA developments ...

Shocker ...

[Fares_Fair]

From the AM Interview link above.

PETER RYAN: So to ease the bottlenecks and to get things moving, are you suggesting that Australians would have to pay more taxes?

MICHAEL DEEGAN: It's very frustrating for someone sitting in the traffic this morning, particularly in some of our busy cities - Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane - where they can see the congestion. They think that the answer may be more or wider roads, etc. Are they prepared to pay more taxes or would they look some other systems to deal with that? And user pays is one option in that discussion, there's also need to increase the capacity of our public transport.

I'm thinking .... Beerburrum bottleneck for freight.
Think how many large trucks could be pulled from the Bruce highway and the resultant savings in road maintenance and construction.
Would there be a sufficient corridor space saving on the road to stave off extra lanes ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

He has got some balls, ill give him that.

Its not going to happen in this political climate though.
Both state and federal liberal partys are pretty much pro road transport and will crucify labor if they even look twice at a quote stating they should move another way

Indeed, just heard the Minister for Main Roads bleating on the radio that there would no tolls on the Bruce, 'over my dead body'  etc. ....   lol

No hope with this mob.

[Golliwog]

He has got some balls, ill give him that.

Its not going to happen in this political climate though.
Both state and federal liberal partys are pretty much pro road transport and will crucify labor if they even look twice at a quote stating they should move another way

Indeed, just heard the Minister for Main Roads bleating on the radio that there would no tolls on the Bruce, 'over my dead body'  etc. ....   lol

No hope with this mob.

LNP was doing the same.

[Golliwog]

The state government has been caught  ‘cooking up’ the benefit-cost ratio.  It has not allowed for any contingency (an amount set aside for any cost increases during construction), the costings do not include cost associated with train stabling or with additional rolling stock requirements.

Only half right. It hasn't allowed for contingency in the cost for additional rolling stock. It has however allowed contingency elsewhere. The first paragraph in the overall summary also suggests they do have additional costs for rolling stock, however these are not yet fully validated. Part of the problem with the validation appears to be from the fact that the tender process for QR's next generation of rolling stock is still in progress so they can't release those details just yet and are working off an assumed value that QR has told them is within range of what they expect the final cost to be ($2.7M per car?). On page 2 there is also a cost specific question about stabling and maintenance facilities with the response being that it was included in the T&T cost plan.

Also, from point 7, column 5:

Rolling stock
T&T have used a unit cost of $2.7 million per car. 146 additional 3 car sets are therefore an additional $1,158 million in costs.

Confirmation should be sought from other industry sources as to the appropriateness of a unit cost of $2.7 million. ATC guidelines provide very broad unit costs which appear to align with these unit costs. However, experience from other states suggests this figure could be low.

Furthermore, given concerns raised around escalation of capital costs, the rate of escalation used for rolling stock should be clarified. Clarification should also be provided around whether contingency / risk costs have been included and whether escalation has been applied to these contingency / risk costs for the rolling stock procurement).

Peer review does not appear to include rolling stock cost review.

Subsequent information provides rolling stock benchmarks of 12 other domestic and international rolling stock costs have been used to support the $2.7 real costs. However, this benchmarking document indicates that in Australia the average cost per car is $3.7 million / car and in Qld, the average cost is $3.4 million / car. As these are observed rolling stock costs contingency, profit etc is included within this cost. Proponents have undertaken to provide current QR rolling stock procurement costs / car.

Proponents indicate rolling stock costs have been reviewed taking into account current macroeconomic conditions and the efficiencies expected to be provided by the "highly competitive New Generation Rolling Stock (NGR) procurement process" undertaken in Queensland. This NRG team has not been able to provide CRR with actual cost estimates due to the commercially sensitive nature of the procurement process, but "confirm that the Cross River Rail rolling stock estimate is reasonable, particularly from a whole of life costs used in the financial and economic evaluations"

Stabling & Maintenance facilities
No stabling cost appears to have been included in the T&T cost or have been reviewed in the Evans &Peck peer review. There may be sufficient stabling within the current system, however an additional 143 – 3 car train sets is likely to stretch any additional capacity.

It is also possible that additional rolling stock of this magnitude would mean there is a requirement for additional maintenance facilities.
Both these costs should include land acquisition, escalation and contingency and be have undergone the same peer review process as other costs.

T&T cost report indicates $91 million worth of stabling facilities has been included in out-turn costs.

[dwb]

BCRs are from my perspective the bain of modern society, given that the old boys are running the show still, contemporary society too.

Let's rip out all possible costs so the project is isolated, then calculate its benefit, but don't worry about that 10% you cut out that will in 10 years save you a LOT of money and provide significant opportunity.

NWTC is so important, perhaps the Govt should just explicitly include it in stage 2 works and put a date on them, that is before 2056!

[Stillwater]

Actually, Golli, these are the words that stood out:

"Many of the technical aspects raised in the initial review have undergone a sensitivity analysis.  Adjusting these resulted in a lowering of the BCR by a margin of up to 12%. When considering all these technical aspects,  it implies that the BCR may be revised downwards by as much as around 25%.

"However, this would still result in the BCR falling within the plausible BCR range set by the initial sensitivity analysis.

"Concerns still exist over the specification of the base case and treatment of the NWTC (an input into the appraisal). Subsequent sensitivity analysis by the proponent doesn't fully address these concerns (given there was inadequate time to re-run the demand model). This is an area that should continue to be explored due to major potential cost and demand implications.

"While many of the original cost queries have been addressed, revised data received on April 12 indicates that the PV of capital costs has been reduced by 12% (the primary driver behind the increasing of the BCR: 1.26 to 1.42). Further clarification from T&T and peer review from Evans & Peck should be sought if these revisions are to be included in the core outturn costs."

From the above, the true BCR may be as low as 1.065.

[Golliwog]

Yes, it may be that low. But isn't that what a sensitivity analysis is about. Saying, "What if, worst case scenario, we double* the cost and halve* the benefits? Would it still be worth doing?" It's still saying that even if such a scenario were to occur, the benefits would outweight the costs. How likely it is that such a scenario would occur isn't mentioned.

**no idea what factors they actually use, but you get the idea.

Also, if I am reading it correctly, the costs they are using include $1.5B for a connector tunnel from Roma St to Alderley for the NWTC. From my reading that $1.5B doesn't appear to be strongly supported by the same studies into ground conditions, etc as the rest of CRR so I can see that changing, however if you dropped that out then the cost of the project would drop from $9.123B to $7.623B and your BCR would be 1.699.

The part we should be more concerned about is that if they don't include the connector tunnel to NWTC then they lose 7% of their expected CBD alightings. I have no idea what that expected alighting is so can't work that through IA says "Specific attention may need to be focused on the impact of the NW Transit Corridor in the demand forecasts –while it reduces CBD alighting by 7%, an assessment of how much this assumption influences the economic appraisal should be undertaken. Conservative assumptions have been made by keeping land use fixed between the base case and option."

Another important question is how dedicated are they to doing the NWTC and when do they expect it to go in. Would it be worth while joining the projects?

[Stillwater]

Golli, from your perspective, would the NWTC link into the proposed rail line through the Trouts Road corridor?  What is the timing of each and, hence, what is the criticality of the NWTC versus the rest of CRR?

[O_128]

He has got some balls, ill give him that.

Its not going to happen in this political climate though.
Both state and federal liberal partys are pretty much pro road transport and will crucify labor if they even look twice at a quote stating they should move another way

Indeed, just heard the Minister for Main Roads bleating on the radio that there would no tolls on the Bruce, 'over my dead body'  etc. ....   lol

No hope with this mob.

LNP was doing the same.

"There will be no carbon tax"  Julia Gillard 2010

[dwb]

This report is one in a whole process, this is not the end of CRR. The EIS is still underway and no doubt will answer many of these questions.

It is also important to remember, that when they tender the thing, the tenderer will be able to vary the project, so the calculated BCR will change again and again and again. Life is actually quite complex, and as much as engineers might tell you they can, they CANNOT calculate the future. The point of a BCR is as much the process, than just the outcome, and for me what this is saying is that the project should be varied to explicitly include NWTC as a defined stage 2 of CRR. The tunnel component near BGS should be designed and built for easy adaptation to final design.

[dwb]

Oh and is anyone wondering if they published the future fares table so help the business case... although that would seem odd if only $4 in revenue was coming in for each passenger using CRR, given most of them will be coming from the coasts.

[Golliwog]

Golli, from your perspective, would the NWTC link into the proposed rail line through the Trouts Road corridor?  What is the timing of each and, hence, what is the criticality of the NWTC versus the rest of CRR?

The NWTC is the Trouts Rd corridor. Or thats the vibe I'm getting the report. The report appears to reference 3 main things, the NWTC, the tunnel connecting NWTC to CRR, and CRR, but within CRR there are various mentions of either staging it (Stage 1 was Salisbury to Roma St), just a base case or base case plus various things. As far as I could see it never made it quite clear what was and wasn't included in the base case, and which scenario the BCA was for (though, one would assume the base case?)

From what I'm getting from the report, the connecting tunnel is obviously critical for NWTC as it's either that, terminate and transfer passengers at Alderley (not going to be overly popular with passengers, and you would be unlikely to get many passengers from the Sunshine Coast (the express services I assume are planned to use it) happy about having to transfer to an already crowded FG train, OR you would run them in on the Ferny Grove line, but that still has issues with clogging up the suburbans, except if done post CRR then the suburbans would be freed up by having Shorncliffe trains swich to the mains just past the CRR exit. Actually thinking it through, that last scenario isn't that bad, but would end up with some limitations on frequencies, and also mixes long distance express trains with short all stations FG trains.

What I'm getting from this is that CRR is more critical than NWTC and needs to be done first, but if you're going to be doing the NWTC at the same time, or just after CRR then adding in that connecting tunnel would most certainly be useful, as it will eventually be needed to relieve capacity, and if you've got the tunneling equiment and machinery down in there already to dig the first tunnels, why not continue using it to dig the second tunnel on to Alderley?? Other than a lack of funds of course.

I see little, if any, point in doing NWTC before CRR as all that would do is take whatever express services from the Caboolture/SC line and then squish them in on the suburbans which are already pretty full, or will be post stage 2 timetable change. We are of course assuming stage 2 comes before either of these projects

[Stillwater]

The state government deferred CRR due to the floods, although it is doubtful whether any money will be saved through postponement because of inflationary and escalating construction cost pressures.  While that may be a problem in itself, the government made the crucial mistake of taking its foot off the accelerator in respect of the business case preparation.  It took the decision to slow down the imperative to push the business case to finalisation, convincing itself that it had another two years to get it right.

Meanwhile, other states have now got ahead of us, Victoria in particular.  That state's top project has shot ahead of ours in circumstances where there is a limited pot of money for IA to dole out.

IA seems to be saying it would like to invest in Queensland projects, and sees CRR as a likely candidate, but the reality is that we have no 'shovel ready' projects available for IA to fund.  Other states, especially Victoria, get this so right.  Whenever Canberra says it wants to put more money into transport infrastructure, Victoria already has a project at full-development, ready-to-go-stage.  In such circumstances, our state government yells that it was robbed, or 'it was our turn for a project'.

It only has itself to blame in the case of the CRR project business case.  Yes, the state may have had to postpone CRR construction, but it should not have gone slow on the business case finalisation.  Queensland may have missed the funding slot for this worthwhile project.

[dwb]

The state government deferred CRR due to the floods, although it is doubtful whether any money will be saved through postponement because of inflationary and escalating construction cost pressures.  While that may be a problem in itself, the government made the crucial mistake of taking its foot off the accelerator in respect of the business case preparation.  It took the decision to slow down the imperative to push the business case to finalisation, convincing itself that it had another two years to get it right.

Meanwhile, other states have now got ahead of us, Victoria in particular.  That state's top project has shot ahead of ours in circumstances where there is a limited pot of money for IA to dole out.

IA seems to be saying it would like to invest in Queensland projects, and sees CRR as a likely candidate, but the reality is that we have no 'shovel ready' projects available for IA to fund.  Other states, especially Victoria, get this so right.  Whenever Canberra says it wants to put more money into transport infrastructure, Victoria already has a project at full-development, ready-to-go-stage.  In such circumstances, our state government yells that it was robbed, or 'it was our turn for a project'.

It only has itself to blame in the case of the CRR project business case.  Yes, the state may have had to postpone CRR construction, but it should not have gone slow on the business case finalisation.  Queensland may have missed the funding slot for this worthwhile project.

CRR was never really delayed, it was just a media stunt to take the pressure off them as some community members might asked what about this big project. The project itself was never going to start before that date anyway, and as far as I know the EIS is not at all late, we are only 7 days into "mid 2011" with almost 3 months before we become "late 2011".

The IA report is part of a back and forward process, and anyway, they only provide recommendations to Govt about where to spend money, they don't doll it out. There is plenty of time to get CRR right.

Further, commentators completely disagree with your assertion Victoria is on the ball - actually they've got nothing going AT ALL at the moment with IA. So really they're the ones who've dropped the ball.


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/time-for-inert-baillieu-government-to-get-its-act-together-over-major-projects-20110706-1h2dp.html

Time for inert Baillieu government to get its act together over major projects
July 7, 2011
Comments 27
Ads by Google

Public Sector CRMwww.esavvy.com.au
Specialists in Federal, State, and Local Goverment CRM Solutions
Victoria is asleep at the wheel on infrastructure projects.

PETER Ryan might be advised to do his homework before shooting off at the mouth.

The state government is smarting from revelations it failed to submit a single proposal to Infrastructure Australia for independent scrutiny. Since January, the federal authority has received 59 submissions from all states and territories except Victoria.

Fair or not, the news, buried in an appendix of Infrastructure Australia's annual report to state and federal governments, seemed to reinforce claims that the Baillieu government has been asleep at the wheel for the past seven months. Defending his government against such charges, acting Premier Ryan this week suggested there was little point submitting Victoria's policy proposals because the major projects umpire had no money. ''We haven't snubbed the Infrastructure Australia process,'' Ryan said. ''In fact, there is no money in Infrastructure Australia at the present time. They've run out of dough.''

Advertisement: Story continues below
Actually, Infrastructure Australia never had any ''dough'' to run out of. Ryan is either poorly informed, or has deliberately misrepresented Infrastructure Australia's role to squirm out of a tight spot. His comments certainly raised a few eyebrows in Canberra, with one senior federal source describing them as ''breathtakingly ignorant''. The statutory authority was set up not to hand out money, but to make recommendations to the federal government.

As Infrastructure Australia's Michael Deegan notes, his organisation has no control over federal government finances. ''We advise, governments decide,'' Deegan told The Age.

A generous interpretation of Ryan's comments is that he was referring to the federal government's Building Australia Fund, which has, indeed, dried up. State and federal budgets are under pressure and this has made funding major projects more challenging at the very time Australia badly needs to lift its flagging productivity performance, which has fallen to a level below the average for the developed world.

Depressingly true to form, Australian governments are now squabbling and pointing fingers. Infrastructure Australia chairman Sir Rod Eddington has had enough.

Eddington this week warned that infrastructure planning and delivery in Australia had been ''frustratingly slow''. The fact that there is no cash in the Building Australia Fund does not mean it is pointless handing in plans for major projects. The government is wrong to suggest the fund represents the only pool of money.

There is also something called the federal budget. In this year's budget, for example, the federal government provided $750 million in new money to help duplicate unfinished sections of the Pacific Highway. Victoria, on the other hand, was unfairly denied previously promised funding for the regional rail project.

By extension, the state government's logic would suggest there is no point handing in proposals for major projects for independent scrutiny until the Building Australia Fund is replenished. This could take years.

Ryan and his colleagues would be wise to remember the plight faced by the former New South Wales Labor government, which was widely criticised because its Infrastructure Australia submissions were either bad or non-existent. One would hope that the state government's failure to respond to Infrastructure Australia's request for submissions reflects diligence and prudence rather than inaction.

As Ryan notes, it is no good submitting major projects in a ''Mickey Mouse'' fashion. Better to take the time to get them right to avoid the mistakes of the past. A decision by the Brumby government to build the Frankston bypass, also known as Peninsula Link, provides a case in point. A recent report by Auditor-General Des Pearson raises doubts about whether the project stacks up, with the benefits potentially overstated, costs ignored, and questions about the wisdom of using a public-private partnership to fund it.

Nevertheless, the Baillieu government now has just months to get its act together or Infrastructure Australia will be unable to assess its projects until 2013, by which time it really will be too late. Instead of squabbling, Australia needs to quickly reassess its approach to infrastructure funding. As Eddington points out: ''We particularly need to bridge the gap between expectations and reality ... between the unrealistic notion that governments should fund more infrastructure, while at the same time cutting taxes, reducing debt, avoiding asset sales, and opposing the application of user charges.''

In other words, time for a bit of mature debate.

Josh Gordon is The Age's state political editor.

[Stillwater]

VICTORIA'S IA 'PIPELINE' PROJECTS

1. WestLink
2. Truck Action Plan
3. Western Interstate Freight Terminal and Donnybrook Interstate Freight Terminal
4. Melbourne International Freight Terminal
5. Planning for the Port of Hastings
6. Peninsula Link Rail Freight Corridor Development
7. North East Link
8. Green Triangle Road and Rail Package
9. Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel – Stages 1 and 2
10. Melton duplication and electrification

http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/DOI/DOIElect.nsf/$UNIDS+for+Web+Display/60F24D42DB72B18DCA25768000814D34/$FILE/IA-Submission-2009.pdf

[dwb]

VICTORIA'S IA 'PIPELINE' PROJECTS

1. WestLink
2. Truck Action Plan
3. Western Interstate Freight Terminal and Donnybrook Interstate Freight Terminal
4. Melbourne International Freight Terminal
5. Planning for the Port of Hastings
6. Peninsula Link Rail Freight Corridor Development
7. North East Link
8. Green Triangle Road and Rail Package
9. Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel – Stages 1 and 2
10. Melton duplication and electrification

http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/DOI/DOIElect.nsf/$UNIDS+for+Web+Display/60F24D42DB72B18DCA25768000814D34/$FILE/IA-Submission-2009.pdf

All prior to the change of Government no? And what are this government's priorities?? Nobody knows

[ozbob]

CRR was never really delayed

CRR was delayed --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5341.0

[dwb]

CRR was never really delayed

CRR was delayed --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5341.0

Thanks bob that's really helpful, not, I'm well aware of the press releases.

Did anyone have the money, did they have a project plan, did they have a tenderer, no no no no no. So basically something that they were talking up as needing now, that was going to take quite a few years to deliver, won't be delivered now? Like I said, it is hardly a delay, its more like a more realistic timing readjustment.

[ozbob]

Thanks bob that's really helpful, not, I'm well aware of the press releases.

Only being helpful.

[ozbob]

"Cross-river rail has a cost of some $7.7 billion and was our number one priority submitted to Infrastructure Australia, with the project needing a 75% contribution from the federal government.

"The reality is that funds are not going to be available to commence on the original timetable."

"This year's Budget would have incorporated funding to commence work - that will now have to wait.

http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=73439

[Derwan]

Thanks bob that's really helpful, not, I'm well aware of the press releases.

The sarcasm isn't necessary.

For the record I tend to agree with dwb.  I think the floods were a convenient excuse for the "delay" and that the truth is that CRR would have never been ready to proceed as planned anyway.

[ozbob]

The delay is real enough.  It is a moot point whether or not had the momentum been maintained it would still be on the original time line.

In view of the failure of LNP to clarify the recent change in position on CRR by the LNP Leader, should the LNP assume government at the next state election it may well never be built.

Best case might it see in position by 2022 if we are lucky.  Hey doesn't Tennyson look good?  LOL

[Fares_Fair]

Are there any other (whether cheaper or smaller) options that could stave off the Cross River Rail and allow improvements to be made ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[dwb]

Are there any other (whether cheaper or smaller) options that could stave off the Cross River Rail and allow improvements to be made ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I would think that we'll need to (continue to) invest in buses in (the short term in) Brisbane CBD
and to quote another user "*dons fireproof suit*"

[dwb]

The sarcasm isn't necessary.

You're probably right, but I'm sure Bob understood what I'd written.

[SurfRail]

Are there any other (whether cheaper or smaller) options that could stave off the Cross River Rail and allow improvements to be made ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

In-cab and moving block signalling, selective level-crossing elimination and more services via Tennyson is about all you can do.

[Fares_Fair]

sorry, what's in-cab ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

Are there any other (whether cheaper or smaller) options that could stave off the Cross River Rail and allow improvements to be made ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Some suggestions here --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5341.0

Might be time to revisit that.  I know that transport types in Brisbane are looking at what can be done in the short and medium term.  It seems there is an increasing feeling of pessimism around.  Even if we went the metro route and just kept the existing heavy rail network, the capacity constraints for the wider network are not addressed.  The carbon tax, might lead to more funding for public and active transport, but it is a big might.

[SurfRail]

sorry, what's in-cab ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Hi FF,

In-cab signalling is effectively a continuous repeater signal (ie those signals you see on the track-side with a big yellow 'P' on them which are positioned ahead of the main signal, which may be obscured).  It incorporates some form of display inside the driver's cab which confirms what the next signal aspect is, and on some networks it also will show allowable speed and other conditions.

[Stillwater]

The original point is that, irrespective of the available funding for CRR and its construction timing, the business case preparation was fully funded. All the money that required is available for bringing the business case to fruition according to the business case preparation timetable, is there to be used.  It is important to separate out the time requirements for preparation of the business case and the deferred CRR construction start, which the government pushed out.

There was no need to go slow on the business case.  It would appear to have at least a further six months of planning work to go.  It could be more.

Because the business case is not complete, CRR has a 'treshold' status within IA, not a 'construction ready to go' status.  If and when the next round of money becomes available to IA to fund new construction projects, it will go to the 'ready to go' list of projects and fund those, not the threshold' projects, for they have further work to do.

Queensland has made a mistake in not completing the CRR business case by now.

[ozbob]

Queensland has made a mistake in not completing the CRR business case by now.

Yes, agree.

[somebody]

sorry, what's in-cab ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

As opposed to what we have now which is termed "line side signalling".

In cab has advantages in that the blocks involved can be much smaller without needing to pay for so many line side signals.  The other problem with line side signals is that they have a limited number of aspects: Go/Medium/Caution/Danger.  CityRail add "Low Speed" to some signals.  This is the reason why freight trains are restricted in their speeds through the CBD as the signals are too close together and they may not be able to stop between receiving a medium and the danger signal if run faster.  You can have "distance clear to run" at a given speed.

Colinw might be able to explain it better than that, but I think it's about right.

[mufreight]

sorry, what's in-cab ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

As opposed to what we have now which is termed "line side signalling".

In cab has advantages in that the blocks involved can be much smaller without needing to pay for so many line side signals.  The other problem with line side signals is that they have a limited number of aspects: Go/Medium/Caution/Danger.  CityRail add "Low Speed" to some signals.  This is the reason why freight trains are restricted in their speeds through the CBD as the signals are too close together and they may not be able to stop between receiving a medium and the danger signal if run faster.  You can have "distance clear to run" at a given speed.

Colinw might be able to explain it better than that, but I think it's about right.

And for the down side rolling block in cab signalling is more equipment intensitive so it therefore costs more to either install as an independent system or overlay over an existing lineside system such as is presently in operation in a number of variants at the present time.
The other problem is that being more complex a minor failure takes the whole system out and nothing runs, with the track record of failures of the comparitively simple existing signalling system and the operating delays due to the time it currently takes to rectify simple faults to enable trains to move and the potential for major safety issues with a rolling block system as an overlay over the existing system with trains being operated under a mix of both systems with a mix of trains such as suburban commuter services and 3000 tonne freight services.
The simpler the sysyem the greater the reliability and if further proof of that is required compare the reliability of the old manual block systems with manualy operated signals and points with the systems in use at present.
Far better to spend the required money on the basic infrastructure for an utcome that not only gives the needed capacity but also the reliability factor by providing a level of redundency.
All of which makes it more expensive.

[somebody]

The major reason I see to go down the CRR path rather than this one is the upgraded alignment and station locations.  That combined with the fact that upgrading the signalling will likely not extend the life of the infrastructure by enough.

You obviously would/do have a different opinion but we are all entitled to our opinions aren't we?

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

8th July 2011

AUSTRALIANS WANT TRUCKS OFF OUR ROADS

Greetings,

Strange silence from the State Government and Opposition concerning Infrastructure Australia and the failure to have any projects 'shovel ready' in Queensland, except from the self serving road bleats.

Reality:

==========================

http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Media%20Releases/11-07-06_TrucksOffOurRoads.pdf

Embargoed until 1am Wednesday 6 July 2011

POLL: AUSTRALIANS WANT TRUCKS OFF OUR ROADS

Almost 70 percent of Australians want truck movements restricted to non-peak periods and 50 percent of Australians want large trucks banned from cities, according to polling released today by a public transport and health coalition.

The poll, of 1500 Australians was released at a Parliament House Summit addressing the issues of carbon pollution, road congestion, our growing population, and public transport.

The Auspoll survey also found that more than 80 percent of Australians want the Federal Government to be more involved in the strategic funding and planning of our public transport systems.

Bryan Nye, CEO of the Australasian Railway Association (ARA) says the polling confirms that Australians are tired of wasting time in traffic jams and want the Government to act.

"Traffic congestion costs Australians more than $15 billion a year through time wasted in traffic, delays and disruptions to businesses, associated health problems and road accidents. Our congested roads are a result of poor planning. It impedes Australia's productivity and liveability of our cities. Australians want a solution," said Mr Nye.

"This is not an argument about road or rail. However, if we are to relieve road congestion and make our roads safer, there is only one solution and that is the better use of our rail networks."

According to the poll, 87 percent of Australians support improving public transport to reduce traffic congestion. If we are to achieve this, the Federal Government's role is critical.

"Rail has been experiencing significant growth in major cities and regional areas. Over the past two years, passenger numbers have increased by 60,000 each week," said Mr Nye.

"Our rail networks are reaching or exceeding capacity, particularly during peak periods. The Federal Government must take the lead in increasing capacity and planning for public transport across Australia. It must increase infrastructure funding and assist State Governments to deliver more services where they are needed," continued Mr Nye.

Relieving capacity constraints in our transport systems will help position public transport as a key solution to road congestion, reducing carbon emissions, and minimising our dependence on imported oils.

"With the overwhelming number of Australians seeing a bigger role for the Federal Government in enhancing our public transport system, the Government must step up and take the challenge. The problems of congestion, carbon emissions and fuel vulnerability will only get bigger every day. We need to act now to secure a better and brighter future for all Australians," concluded Mr Nye.

The poll was initiated by a coalition of seven key bodies; the ARA, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Local Government Association, Bus Industry Confederation, Cycling Promotion Fund, Heart Foundation, and International Public Transport Association.

-ENDS-

==========================

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org