BaT - Bus and Train project (was UBAT, was no CRR)

[BrizCommuter]

The top deck will just be a pedestrian walkway soon!
It couldn't handle the weight of a horse and cart.

[aldonius]

I think official confirmation is required with regards to the top deck.
The Dutton Pk fiasco is silly. A small busway stop would be very useful, would allow 196 etc to use the busway.

Agree to both. Getting Dutton Park 'busway' functional wouldn't take much and can be done later.

... It is so flawed now with cut cut cut that it is seriously compromised.   If built it will be a major issue down the track.   
It is shaping up as a classic ' half baked ' Queensland project, something done oh so well here.

This is what future MRs on the topic need to emphasise.



Look, I'm well and truly over the 'bus component enables BCC waste' viewpoint. It does, but the current BT network paradigm is going to collapse in on itself eventually regardless of what we do. Nobody is going to get anywhere opposing BaT on that basis.

I've, personally, come around to being fine with the top deck being for buses. It gets them off the city streets in large volumes, which is a worthy thing in and of itself.

If BaT-context rubber-tyre-metro means souped up trolleybuses - that's OK and even good in a way, because then upgrades to the busway will be backwards-compatible.

[pandmaster]

I asked about tunnel stubs - the southern ones are super easy, northern ones much less so. With no Trouts Rd tunnel project at any stage of planning, they can't justify it, basically.

It is hard to tell what the worst part of BaT is, but this is up there. Trouts Road is a great way to relieve the NCL between Roma Street and Bald Hills. Once MBRL is built it is the only Northside line on the agenda. The planning may not have been done but at some stage there will need to be increased capacity on that part of the NCL and the options will be to upgrade the existing corridor at horrendous cost or serve new  areas with rail transit via Trouts Road. If the stubs can not be justified now, how will they be justified in the future?

Regarding future conversions: Any 'rubber-tyre-metro' is essentially going to have to be a multi-artic trolleybus. The upper deck won't be able to take anything heavier.

Which officially cancels any goodwill I have for this project as of right now.

The political class truly has no idea how anything works.  We are giving toddlers the keys to the LHC.

BaT's only saving grace and it is gone.

[pandmaster]

I just had a look at the changes. My main (new) concern is with the changes to Roma Street Station/Brisbane Transit Centre. As far as I can see only one entrance (from what seems to be the street) to the underground station will be built. There does not seem to have been much consideration about incorporating the new station into the existing one. I would like to see the pedestrian overpass on Roma Street retained or rebuilt and extened across George and possibly to Herschel Street to improve pedestrian access to the station, especially since I imagine there will be an increase as the two BaT stations are pretty poorly located. I have always felt the existing transit centre is poorly integrated with the train station. Perhaps an overpass linking the parklands with the BaT station and Roma Street overpass via the current rail and bus platforms could be incorporated (a link to the existing subway I imagine would be prohibitively expensive and not provide as good a link). This would also be a good opportunity to fix up the numbering of the platforms at Roma Street (e.g. two platform 2; 3 and 3a).

I never felt the transit centre was ugly, it is pretty well covered by the adjacent buildings. It is horribly dated on the inside, but that hardly necessitates demolishing it. It would not surprise me if whatever "temporary" coach facility is built becomes rather permanent... Perhaps the new terminal could be linked to the INB (difficult to do for outbound buses but with all the construction going on I imagine it would be doable) if there will be sufficient capacity on the busways (with network reform and the splitting of buses from the South-East amongst the two routes I imagine there would be). Coaches would probably not cause much disruption as they would not stop at any stations along the busway. It would be handy for coaches to the North, South and airport to use the busway and coaches to the West could use Legacy Way and the INB.

TL;DR: The underground station is poorly integrated into the existing station. I am not confident a demolished coach terminal would be rebuilt. Rebuilding the coach terminal would provide a good opportunity to link it with the INB and allow coaches to utilise the busway network and thus promoting PT use.

[James]

I asked about tunnel stubs - the southern ones are super easy, northern ones much less so. With no Trouts Rd tunnel project at any stage of planning, they can't justify it, basically.

Short-sightedness! Trouts Rd will probably end up existing exclusively as a road to complete the 'missing link' in Brisbane's 'ring road' between Toowong and Bracken Ridge. While I support there being a ring road there, rail is also going to be needed in that corridor.

Regarding future conversions: Any 'rubber-tyre-metro' is essentially going to have to be a multi-artic trolleybus. The upper deck won't be able to take anything heavier.

Maybe in times of lower demand perhaps BCC can run these on the bus level.

Regarding the layover area down at Kent St: that was originally going to be a little busway station to replace Dutton Park. To fit in platforms on the eastern side would require resumptions, so has been left out for now. Pax for UQ from the express southern lines are going to need to transfer at Woolloongabba (or just walk from Dutton Park?).

More examples of how the 'no resumptions' thing borders on the stupid. South Brisbane is a safe Labor seat. Pax are just going to go back to walking from Dutton Park - something people did before the busway was even built! Only in Queensland do we actually provide a solution which encourages us to go backwards.

Unfortunately I think the best way to stop BaT is to vote the LNP out. I hate to say this because I think they have done relatively well with PT (well, compared to the ALP, which had CRR delivered in 20?? and were planning to continue to hike fares), but the BaT shambles leaves me lost for words...

[ozbob]

There are serious concerns with BaT in many of the transport bureaucracies however people are afraid of speaking out.  Threatened with dismissal etc.

So Brisbane ends up with a half baked solution.  That is polyticks Oz style.  Fortunately in Victoria, madness down there was halted by strong campaigning.  The same thing can happen here, just have to have some faith and committment.

Yes, you are correct James.  I too have reached the point that the best thing is that the assets lease agenda fails.   Project stalls.  Eventually there will be another transport enlightenment at the federal level.  Commonsense then prevails.

[#Metro]

There are serious concerns with BaT in many of the transport bureaucracies however people are afraid of speaking out.

So it really is a BUM project eh? Maybe it can be renamed FLOP (Failed LNP Overturned Project)

[STB]

Regarding future conversions: Any 'rubber-tyre-metro' is essentially going to have to be a multi-artic trolleybus. The upper deck won't be able to take anything heavier.

Which officially cancels any goodwill I have for this project as of right now.

The political class truly has no idea how anything works.  We are giving toddlers the keys to the LHC.

Agreed, I remain highly unconvinced of the merits of the project, despite spending quite a bit of time yesterday with the Planners and Engineers at the consultation.  Bus will end up being more expensive overall in the long term, and this project will just fix it permanently.

I get that there are different markets, and that our current rail network is rather c%ap currently, but I'd rather see a much better set up that sets up bus and rail for the long term, with a consideration to moving towards a trunk and feeder system where possible.

My only compromise to the project is to move the tunnel further south to around Clapham while keeping the bus and train part of the project if they absolutely insist on leaving the bus and train parts.  At least this will then could potentially provide a Park Road station as originally planned under Cross River Rail.

In terms of no stubs.  I get that there is a risk that Trouts Road would never be built, but I'd rather see them actually have provision for stubs to be provided, than no chance at all.

As a side note, they did agree with me that it will most certainly become a political issue, and that the project is currently no where near the point where they can fund it, it's yet to be properly costed, let alone planned and passed by the Co-ordinator General.

[ozbob]

http://mysunshinecoast.com.au/articles/article-display/treasurer-needs-to-explain-tunnel-bungle,36741#.VIZbpKtS07Y.twitter

Treasurer needs to explain tunnel bungle

Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk says Treasurer Tim Nicholls and Transport Minister Scott Emerson need to reveal how much taxpayers may be out of pocket to buy back a former government office block as part of the Newman Government's poorly planned and unfunded bus and train tunnel.

"The Opposition has been advised the Newman Government must now buy back the 63 George Street building it offloaded cheaply just last year as part of the asset sales it has already undertaken without voter approval," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"I want Treasurer Nicholls and Mr Emerson to tell taxpayers what the deal is with 63 George Street; if the government is buying it back; what are the conditions of the deal; and how much will taxpayers be out of pocket."

Ms Palaszczuk said in April 2013 Tim Nicholls announced the sale of seven government office blocks including 63 George Street as part of changes the Newman Government made to departmental accommodation after sacking government workers.

"It also sold off the seven office blocks to justify its indulgent new Executive Building for the Premier and Ministers," she said.

"An Auditor-General's report late last year showed Tim Nicholls sold the seven office blocks at $237 million less than their total book value. (Report No.11 for 2013-14 page 76)

"According to the Auditor-General, the rent for 1 William Street and the rent for the seven buildings sold to justify it are not a saving to taxpayers but 'a risk to the operating sustainability' of the state's finances.

"In November 2013 the LNP Government announced it would build its own $5 billion bus and train tunnel from Dutton Park to Herston with a new CBD underground station beneath the current 63 George Street.

"The $5 billion tunnel is still unfunded and its size and scope keeps changing and now we find taxpayers may be hit hard by the LNP's poor planning.

"I want to know on behalf of taxpayers how much this bungle by Tim Nicholls is costing.

"How can any Treasurer in a government that promised better planning of projects support an unfunded $5 billion tunnel then make taxpayers buy back a building he has already sold at less than its value?

"This deal highlights the arrogant and self-indulgent attitude of the Newman LNP Government.

"Mr Nicholls clearly doesn't care that he inflicted a $237 million loss on taxpayers by selling off seven buildings they once owned but will now need to rent at what the Auditor-General says will be $1.2 billion over 10-15 years.

"He also clearly doesn't care that taxpayers must now foot the bill for his own government's slipshod planning by buying back the same building," Ms Palaszczuk said.

Office of the Leader of the Opposition
9th of December 2014

[STB]

Forgot to mention...I did a little pop quiz to several of the general public who turned up to the BaT consultation yesterday, and at first they were saying that it is a brilliant idea to have bus and train in the same tunnel.  After I pointed out the flaws in the project and how it is more expensive to do this overall, they very quickly changed their minds. 

There were a few who didn't even realise that there would be no underground platforms at Park Road...they were not impressed after it was pointed out to them.

[ozbob]

Forgot to mention...I did a little pop quiz to several of the general public who turned up to the BaT consultation yesterday, and at first they were saying that it is a brilliant idea to have bus and train in the same tunnel.  After I pointed out the flaws in the project and how it is more expensive to do this overall, they very quickly changed their minds. 

There were a few who didn't even realise that there would be no underground platforms at Park Road...they were not impressed after it was pointed out to them.

Interesting ... the bloggers on MSM seem very aware of the limitations of the BaT project.

It may not be the lay down misere that some seem to think it is hey ...   

[dancingmongoose]

I'm getting a little sick of Anna bagging the BaT particularly with regards to funding. The whole reason this is being built proposed instead of CRR is because it's cheaper, and she claims she's going to reinstate CRR if elected. There's literally a million other flaws that could be pointed out without looking like a hypocrite.

[Stillwater]

It boils down to value for money.  The CRR project had a rigorous benefit-cost analysis undertaken to justify its construction cost.  The CRR BCR was positive.   We have been told that the BaT is cheaper, the assumption being that its BCR is higher than CRR, but may not be the case, and certainly isn't.  We should be calling for a full BCR analysis of the BaT, if only the government will stop fiddling with its design for five minutes.  It seems very much like a thought bubble that continues to change shape ... and scope, and cost, and impact, and relevance.

[dancingmongoose]

That's the thing though, is she's not saying anything about value for money and she should be. All she's saying is "They can't fund it, whinge whinge whinge", well you can't fund CRR either then. BaT has many design flaws and will not deliver the same returns, but for some reason she seems completely oblivious to them and insists on pointing out the one flaw that both projects have, the lack of funds.

[ozbob]

It boils down to value for money.  The CRR project had a rigorous benefit-cost analysis undertaken to justify its construction cost.  The CRR BCR was positive.   We have been told that the BaT is cheaper, the assumption being that its BCR is higher than CRR, but may not be the case, and certainly isn't.  We should be calling for a full BCR analysis of the BaT, if only the government will stop fiddling with its design for five minutes.  It seems very much like a thought bubble that continues to change shape ... and scope, and cost, and impact, and relevance.

Was this a message for the BaT from '66  Stillwater?     Is it prophecy? 

[hU0N]

That's the thing though, is she's not saying anything about value for money and she should be. All she's saying is "They can't fund it, whinge whinge whinge", well you can't fund CRR either then. BaT has many design flaws and will not deliver the same returns, but for some reason she seems completely oblivious to them and insists on pointing out the one flaw that both projects have, the lack of funds.

That's the key point.  Both the Queensland Government and BCC face enormously difficult inner city capacity issues on the QR and Busway networks respectively.  And both have identified that the best solution involves underground multi-platform stations with underground approaches (CRR and Suburbs2City). 

The urgent need for both these projects is undeniable.  Signalling improvements and bus network reform are also necessary and might buy a few years each, but (as has been pointed out amply in this thread) neither is a solution beyond the short term because the capacity problems are worst in peak when load factors are very high and headways are very low.

Each project, considered on it's own merits is a better solution for it's particular problem than BaT.  But each project on it's own is basically unaffordable without federal money that simply won't be forthcoming.  On the other hand, if both the council and the state government pool their resources they might be able to build one project that serves both needs less adequately.

Whatever BaT is not, it IS more likely to be built than CRR.  Because cost.  Because the state government clearly believes it cannot, on it's own, afford even $5B worth of CRR lite, let alone $8B worth of original CRR.  Because the council is interested in sharing part of the cost of BaT, something they wouldn't do with CRR.  Because at the end of the day, $10B+ worth of CRR and S2C is far less likely to ever be funded than $5B worth of BaT.

Make no mistake, if the ALP win the next election and resurrect CRR, you can kiss any inner city transit infrastructure goodbye for at least a generation.  Because while CRR and S2C is the infrastructure we need, BaT is the infrastructure we can afford.  Sure, we should advocate for best practice design of BaT, but we should also be asking ourselves this:  are we shooting down a project that might manage to get built because we saw a fantasy that realistically was never going to come to pass?

[#Metro]

Whatever BaT is not, it IS more likely to be built than CRR.  Because cost.  Because the state government clearly believes it cannot, on it's own, afford even $5B worth of CRR lite, let alone $8B worth of original CRR.  Because the council is interested in sharing part of the cost of BaT, something they wouldn't do with CRR.  Because at the end of the day, $10B+ worth of CRR and S2C is far less likely to ever be funded than $5B worth of BaT.

Bingo.

[ozbob]

I don't think we have seen the final form of BaT yet ... 

CRR as originally planned is essentially dead.  Could see a new modified version which overcomes some of the rail limitations and retains Bus component. 

The future of BaT as presently proposed depends clearly on the Queensland election outcome. 

Still a policy vacuum on this from the ALP and other oppostion players.  Time will tell ...

It is quite possible that the Queensland Election could deliver a Govt of ALP and other minor parties and independents.  Gee, that will be interesting but not sure how sage for transport planning ...

[ozbob]

Also would BCC be keen to part fund BaT if BT is not successful in the competetive bus tendering?  Probably not ...

[SurfRail]

CRR absolutely did not cost $8bn.  The cost ended up being $6.4bn including provision for doing Trouts Rd.  Take that out and the cost is LESS than BAT at around $4.4bn.  The design refinements which have occurred as a consequence of work carried out on BaT would probably reduce that further.

CRR also included 19km of additional capacity enhancements to the rest of the rail network.  BaT does zippo.

No other city in the world is so obssessed with bus tunnels.  This leads me to conclude Brisbane is doing something patently wrong and the bus nonsense Council keeps coming up with is nowhere near as essential as is being claimed.

If Council loses its bus services through the tendering process, they will have no political imperative to keep coming up with this junk.

[aldonius]

Surf, your first sentence implies the cost of provision for Trouts Rd was $2B all on its own... 

[STB]

Speaking about the buses part, they confirmed with me at the consultation too that there is still a project team involved in looking at a 3rd platform at Cultural Centre, which harks to the days when there was an idea internally mooted about turning Victoria Bridge into a busway itself, and divert the cars via the William Jolly Bridge.

Not sure what this means though for BaT, although I would've thought that this would be a better idea (with modifications to the bus network, and junction to turn into Cultural Centre, plus the current layout of the intersection).

I would suspect that they would be nervous about the political implications of kicking the cars off Victoria Bridge.

[pandmaster]

Speaking about the buses part, they confirmed with me at the consultation too that there is still a project team involved in looking at a 3rd platform at Cultural Centre, which harks to the days when there was an idea internally mooted about turning Victoria Bridge into a busway itself, and divert the cars via the William Jolly Bridge.

This could be good for the Go Between Bridge. Transurban would encourage this. Maybe they can make a donation to the LNP?

[SurfRail]

Surf, your first sentence implies the cost of provision for Trouts Rd was $2B all on its own... 

I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the $2bn was for Roma St to Alderley.  Remember that Connecting SEQ 2031 (which is technically still in effect) indicated a surface connection between Strathpine and Alderley to allow trains to go via Bowen Hills, which would have been accounted for separately but given the nature of the project the bit inbound of Alderley could have been done at the same time as BaT.

[aldonius]

The CRR reference design certainly doesn't say anything about doing the RomaSt-Alderley tunnel as part of CRR, just leaving provision (i.e. stubs).

[ozbob]

Twitter

Bus & Train Project ‏@BATProjectBris

Don't forget to have your say on the BaT project's Revised Reference Design by 5pm this Friday, 19 December 2014 http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/projects/bat/yoursay/index.html ...

[SurfRail]

The only thing I would disagree with in Chris' post is that "becoming" is not the right question.  It's self-evident that the place is already rooted.

I think the single biggest problem we face as a state for transport and infrastructure is not the lack of money, but the lack of intelligent governance.  The processes for planning, coordination and the like in this state are so munted it buggers belief.  Far too many silos, different pieces of piecemeal legislation and the like.

The whole thing needs to be thrown out the door so we can start again, by copying somewhere that actually works.  I don't think we will see any meaningful reform until the governance is fixed. 

A properly governed state would not have come up with BaT, so calling them on it is pointless.  Then you get chimpanzee-poo flinging local authority charlatans like the Deputy Mayor of Brisbane who is too busy finding political reasons to get stuck into people rather than engage intelligently with their material.  Senior executive level carpetbaggers ignoring legitimate concerns raised by stakeholders about major decisions.  Incompetent public engagement and consultation.  Moronic interference by unelected and non-PS constrained political "advisers" whose principal qualification is branch-stacking student elections at St Lucia.

The whole edifice of transport planning in this State is a stinking t%rd that needs to be flushed post haste.  Unfortunately, this is Queensland, and the nightsoil man has this week off.

[red dragin]

 

[pandmaster]

An exceptional article. Summed up perfectly in such a short article.

The only thing I would disagree with in Chris' post is that "becoming" is not the right question.  It's self-evident that the place is already rooted.

I think the single biggest problem we face as a state for transport and infrastructure is not the lack of money, but the lack of intelligent governance.  The processes for planning, coordination and the like in this state are so munted it buggers belief.  Far too many silos, different pieces of piecemeal legislation and the like.

The whole thing needs to be thrown out the door so we can start again, by copying somewhere that actually works.  I don't think we will see any meaningful reform until the governance is fixed. 

A properly governed state would not have come up with BaT, so calling them on it is pointless.  Then you get chimpanzee-poo flinging local authority charlatans like the Deputy Mayor of Brisbane who is too busy finding political reasons to get stuck into people rather than engage intelligently with their material.  Senior executive level carpetbaggers ignoring legitimate concerns raised by stakeholders about major decisions.  Incompetent public engagement and consultation.  Moronic interference by unelected and non-PS constrained political "advisers" whose principal qualification is branch-stacking student elections at St Lucia.

The whole edifice of transport planning in this State is a stinking t%rd that needs to be flushed post haste.  Unfortunately, this is Queensland, and the nightsoil man has this week off.

Do not forget vested interests and corporate money!

State governments largely or entirely rely on Canberra to fund major projects. When that money is not forthcoming it is very difficult to get big-ticket essential infrastructure off the ground. Since the states largely lost the power to impose taxes it makes it difficult to fulfil their obligations.

[#Metro]

A few comments and critiques from my dogbox:

1. It's not just a Brisbane thing. Victoria has the East-Waste Link (now shut down) and NSW has the Wasteconnex. It is clear that at the state and federal levels there is a  level of central co-ordination. I was on holiday in Melbourne at the start of this year and on my travels came across a blue team media release - it read almost as if the same people wrote it. It even attacked red team 3/4 the way down the text, which is where we've all come to expect the attack paragraph to be.

2. Not sure what Chris is talking about re: charges. They seem to still be around, just at council level? http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/applying-post-approval/infrastructure-charges.

Overseas (i.e. Auckland) the council does control rail and extends it (usually with grant money from the govt' above). In the Auckland case, which is a mirror image of Brisbane in terms of city area, city population and organisational structure & budget) Auckland council controls both the rail network and the bus network through Auckland Transport.

In the Brisbane case, you have odd things like BCC removing Coronation Drive bus lanes, sinking huge money (700+ million) into Clem 7, and ensuring that housing developments have density barely able to support the most basic bus services (i.e. Cedar Woods density cut in half, 7.5 houses/ha: In addition there seems to be prejudice against townhouses, etc which were banned from the development! Townhouses and duplexes are often very modest in height, and often a great way to increase density without building towers).

3. Attention span: Now I know that when Light Rail proposals came into the area and a green bridge was mooted, it was strongly rejected by West End. There were claims that the bridge might be open to cars at a later time, hence, this is why West End has no green bridge.

Proof: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/15_03_Turner.pdf

The prospect of a river crossing from West End to the University of Queensland St.
Lucia campus. This became a major project hurdle. During the mid-1990s, river crossings had
become a politically emotive issue. Inner city communities opposed additional river crossings in
order to protect local amenity from the unwanted incursions of through traffic. BCC supported
these views. West End was one such community that made its views known very stridently.

The term of government needs to change from a three year cycle to a four year cycle IMHO. This makes impetus for stunt-based planning a little less. Bus network needs to be fixed - it doesn't have the time constraint or expense that large infrastructure projects do, but will return huge benefits.

Then you get chimpanzee-poo flinging local authority charlatans like the Deputy Mayor of Brisbane who is too busy finding political reasons to get stuck into people rather than engage intelligently with their material.

Yes, but you have to look at incentives to explain why people and groups act the way they do. BCC is quite happy to do whatever it likes as it runs the bus network, and the state is picking up 3/4 of the bill. Any bad things that happen can be sheeted home to the state level, while good things it can credit to itself. I think if one had the chance to have their cake and eat it too, they'd do both!!

This also explains how BCC is able to say that 'it is not responsible for public transport, that is the responsibility of TransLink' and then suddenly announce without warning, Blue and Maroon CityGliders.

[ozbob]

The only thing I would disagree with in Chris' post is that "becoming" is not the right question.  It's self-evident that the place is already rooted.

I think the single biggest problem we face as a state for transport and infrastructure is not the lack of money, but the lack of intelligent governance.  The processes for planning, coordination and the like in this state are so munted it buggers belief.  Far too many silos, different pieces of piecemeal legislation and the like.

The whole thing needs to be thrown out the door so we can start again, by copying somewhere that actually works.  I don't think we will see any meaningful reform until the governance is fixed. 

A properly governed state would not have come up with BaT, so calling them on it is pointless.  Then you get chimpanzee-poo flinging local authority charlatans like the Deputy Mayor of Brisbane who is too busy finding political reasons to get stuck into people rather than engage intelligently with their material.  Senior executive level carpetbaggers ignoring legitimate concerns raised by stakeholders about major decisions.  Incompetent public engagement and consultation.  Moronic interference by unelected and non-PS constrained political "advisers" whose principal qualification is branch-stacking student elections at St Lucia.

The whole edifice of transport planning in this State is a stinking t%rd that needs to be flushed post haste.  Unfortunately, this is Queensland, and the nightsoil man has this week off.

Well put SurfRail! 

[ozbob]

It is an observation of mine that many of the former based Brisbane transport/urban academics have moved to Melbourne eg. Messrs. Hale, Gleeson, & Dodson.

Not hard to understand why is it?

[Stillwater]

In a nutshell, SurfRail.  So true.   

[ozbob]

Feedback received.

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

Good afternoon,

As stakeholders interested in public transport I have sent you a copy of my submission in response to the Revised Reference Design for the Queensland Governments proposed Underground Bus and Train (BaT) project.

I have also included a copy of my original submission to the EIS. I am an experienced professional in transport systems and have spent most of the last 10 years working in rail and public transport planning. The attached submission, together with my original submission, highlight a number of flaws in the BaT project that raise serious questions about the effectiveness and justification for the project.

I am a firm believer that if you want to deliver a quality project then you need to start with two fundamental questions

1.       What transport outcomes and services do we need in the future?

2.       What infrastructure is required to deliver those services?

When you ask these two questions you will end up with a project that that delivers the right outcomes for the people of SEQ.

These important principles have been completely ignored in the EIS and continue to be ignored in the Revised Reference Design.

The project shows considerable obvious flaws that need to be scrutinised and questioned to ensure that Queensland doesn't end up with another white elephant infrastructure project.

I hope that you will take the time to consider the issues I have raised and examine the EIS documentation for yourself.

Please also feel free to forward this email and attachment to any other people who have an interest in this project and also in ensuring that the State Government doesn't waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money on its pet white elephant.

Kind Regards,
Phillip Stewart

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

Submissions:

Latest  --> here! PDF 0.7 MB

First --> here! PDF 1.1 MB

[#Metro]

Maybe a copy of all this should be forwarded to Alan Davies at the Urbanist. He has a BA in Sociology and Economics and then went on to do architecture. Can analyse this stuff and pull it all apart.


What can we learn from the East West Link debacle?

The public release of the business case for the East West Link demonstrates the importance of transparent and rational assessment of infrastructure proposals rather than faith-based advocacy

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2014/12/17/what-can-we-learn-from-the-east-west-link-debacle/

[Stillwater]

Is BaT a Claytons project simply for show during an election campaign?  The LNP government will cry crocodile tears when Infrastructure Australia knocks back federal funding due to a very shaky 1.16 BCR.  The cry then becomes 'the feds have caused a delay [helps the government bottom line] and they will cost Queenslanders dearly, as we have to revert to CRR [Lite or some variation].  The art of politics is to convince the electorate you have things in hand, even if you don't.  It doesn't matter that you don't, what matters is the perception.

[Jonno]

Great feedback on this ridiculous farce of a project.  It is another East-West Link!!! Political project pushed despite it being the wrong thing to be building.  It robs rail to pay for poor bus network design.

[ozbob]

Great feedback on this ridiculous farce of a project.  It is another East-West Link!!! Political project pushed despite it being the wrong thing to be building.  It robs rail to pay for poor bus network design.

Indeed ... 

[#Metro]

Where did you get the BCR from?

I would reserve judgement on this. We need to see numbers.

EXPLICITLY:

1) The BCR. Sources and definitions of 'benefits' broken down by category and with and without WEBs. Note 'job creation' is not a benefit, but a cost in the same way that you going down to the supermarket to be served by the cashier is expenditure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit%E2%80%93cost_ratio

2) NPV. The BCR is useful but is a ratio so can't tell you anything about whether the benefits are big or small. The NPV can do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

3) Sensitivity tests for the discount rates. (because people value $100 now more than $100 in 20 years time)

I would also like to see BCR/NPVs for Bus Reform. That requires no new heavy infrastructure at all, so the benefits from that would be off the scale IMHO.

A lot of people may describe this exercise as short sighted bean counting, but I assure you, when 1 + 1 = 5 you KNOW something is dead wrong. Simplest and most reliable way to detect BS IMHO.

[#Metro]

For a crash course in infrastructure financials, see here ---> http://www.finance.gov.au/finframework/docs/Intro_to_CB_analysis.pdf

CBA is a quantitative analytical tool to aid decision-makers in the effi cient allocation of
resources. It identifi es and attempts to quantify the costs and benefi ts of a programme or
activity and converts available data into manageable information. The strength of the method
is that it provides a framework for analysing data in a logical and consistent way. CBA helps
managers answer questions such as:

• Does the proposal provide a net benefit to the community as a whole?
• Should the proposed project, programme or policy be undertaken?
• Should the project or programme be continued?
• Which of various alternative projects or programmes should be undertaken?