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

[ozbob]

Fixing the bus network by network reform with bus lane implementation and re-institution would be very cost effective, probably not what was seen in Melbourne for the Doncaster BRT but probably in the order of 4 or 5 I would suggest.  This is why this project BaT needs to be fully tested before billions of $$ wasted.  It is not really a long term solution as is.  Rail network is still going be stuffed essentially and provides a limited short term fix for bus.

[dancingmongoose]

failing to address real problems including questions about how effective the services will be at meeting future demand and how the project fits into the long term plans for transport in South East Queensland

This is almost exactly what I said to them. There are planned to be 4 new rail lines open on the northside (MBRL, Trouts Road, Maroochydore, BB-NBR with the dramatic increase in services may as well be a new line)in the next 15 years and yet this project does nothing for the northside, completely failing to future proof the network for even 15 years.

[Stillwater]

We have not seen a Business Case for BaT, yet the process that assessed the CRR was rigorous and even won an award for excellence, if I recall.  A BaT BCR of 1.16 is tenuous, especially if there is a cost overrun, or the tunnelling machine strikes an underground stream or something that has not been budgeted for.

We are being sold benefits that are not proper to the project itself, such as removal of the 'ugly' Transit Centre, presumably at a cost that is not factored into the BaT costs and benefits.  (Can't it be changed with some murals and hanging gardens?)  Also, the BaT alignment will allow for some more high-rise apartment blocks around the Roma Street Parklands, essentially nothing to do with the transport efficiency quotient.  This is a project tailor-made for the white shoe brigade.

It is also time that the state government looks at a 'betterment tax'  -- a land tax on properties that benefit directly from upgraded PT close by.  That might curb the excesses of the WSB.

The government should be put on the spot during the election campaign across all northern Brisbane electorates -- if the BaT is for the southside services essentially and does nothing for rail to the north, what is the northern rail solution?  Trouts Road corridor?  How much?  When?  MBRL will be a game changer when it comes on line.  We know already that the freight rail sector is tearing its hair out at the lack of rail freight capacity to and through Brisbane to Acacia Ridge.

This government must release plans for rail freight yards to the north of Brisbane.  (Around Elimbah has been suggested.)  It also must spell out track augmentation plans on the northside, because that becomes the restricting factor in the peaks.

LOL, let's hope the on the FG and Caboolture Lines it doesn't get to the madness of the SCL, where the ubiquitous 'rail-bus' operates because the line is at capacity for much of the day.  Replacing trains with rail buses would be the ultimate sign of total failure.

[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

Well done Phillip.  It takes courage to stand up against the flawed ' BaT group think ' and do the right thing ..

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

19th December 2014

Real concerns with the Bus and Train Tunnel - the BaT

Greetings,

Increasingly experts who are not under the thumb and 'group-think dogma' of the Newman Government are finding the courage to question the charade that is the BaT.

This project needs a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation, outside the politics of Queensland.  It is a fact that Cross River Rail was exhaustively evaluated by Infrastructure Australia and stacked up.  The BaT has not had this rigorous analysis.

Interesting reading:

1.  Is Southeast Queensland becoming a 'failed state' on infrastructure and planning?
--> http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140904031848-82138563-is-southeast-queensland-becoming-a-failed-state-on-infrastructure-and-planning?trk=mp-reader-card

2. Submissions by Phillip Stewart (see below).

Latest  --> here! PDF 0.7 MB

First --> here! PDF 1.1 MB

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

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



Media release 14th September re-released 19th December 2014

SEQ: Will the BaT fly?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said there is growing concern with the lack of detailed public information on operational aspects of the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Our members have attended consultation sessions for the BaT. They have expressed concerns with the lack of detailed operational information on how this tunnel will work, particularly the bus aspects."

"From the outset there has been concerns from transport planners that the concept is flawed (1)."

"These concerns are not being addressed.  What future proofing is there for the bus component? Clearly single unit buses will not be able to meet the eventual passenger demands. This is a once in a generation opportunity and to paralyse future transport options for Brisbane and south-east Queensland on political whimsy is seriously flawed."

"Brisbane bus issues can be fixed by implementing proper network review, and establishing proper bus priority on the surface network. Why waste billions of dollars?"

"If the BaT goes ahead as it is seem to be planned for, the end point will be a conga line of buses in the bus component similar to the Victoria Bridge bus conga lines.  Really, is this getting anywhere for the longer term?"

"Eventually electric bi-artic buses, or even a rubber tyred metro system will need to operate in the bus component of the tunnel to handle the pax loads. This means there be multiple transfers for bus passengers, the bus network will be forced to operate as a trunk and feeder model. Meanwhile, rail passengers will have seamless rides into the new underground stations."

"A serious question is:  Why is there no combined bus and train tunnel anywhere in the world?"

"The answer is obvious.  No other jurisdiction has been as stupid as Queensland appears to be."

"Questions on the planned operational aspects need comprehensive and detailed explanations before wasting billions of dollars!"

References:

1. Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-and-rail-tunnel-all-show-and-no-substance-transport-expert-20131118-2xrab.html#ixzz3DDY3F0p7


Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

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

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  http://backontrack.org/docs/bat/Stewart2bat.pdf

First -- here! PDF 1.1 MB  http://backontrack.org/docs/bat/Stewart.pdf

[The Reaper]

Where did you get the BCR from?

LD, the BCR is on page 48 of chapter fourteen of the EIS and there are sensitivity tests on the following page 

[#Metro]

http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Underground%20Bus%20and%20Train/EIS/Volume%201%20Chapters/14_Socio-economic_impact.pdf

Awfully thin BCR at 1.16. This is barely above break even. Should really report the figure + or - an error range as well.

The NPV also looks a bit on the low side at around $641 million. Was the NPV for CRR larger? If it is CRR may have been a better project.

Dug up references:

The Cross River Rail Cost Benefit Analysis (BCA) results provide an acceptable
economic justification to proceed with Cross River Rail. At a discount rate of 7%,
the economic evaluation results show a positive economic return with a Net Present
Value (NPV) of $2.3 billion (2010 AUD) and a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.42.
The BCR further increases to 1.63 when the wider economic impacts for the Project
are included. The main contributor to the wider economic impacts is agglomeration
benefits.

Assuming it could be funded, BOTH the BCR and NPV are SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER for CRR than BaT. CRR is probably therefore the better project, with about 4x more benefits (as measured by comparing the NPV). BOMBSHELL!! 

This BaT project is cheaper, but has LOWER benefits. My guess is that this is due to the removal of Park Road station and possibly the northern connection as well.

MAJOR AMBER LIGHTS should be flashing here.

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/project/cross-river-rail/crr-eis.pdf

6.10.2. EIS findings, submissions and analysis
The EIS assessed the benefits and impacts of the project in both 2021 and 2031
compared with the base case, which was 2009 for patronage modelling purposes. The
EIS predicted a reduction in the number of vehicle trips compared to the 'without CRR'
scenario, and a potential reduction in the number of vehicle accidents. It is also
forecast to deliver an increase in transfers from bus to rail.

In terms of overall project benefit, the EIS identified that the project would deliver a net
present value (NPV) of $2.3 billion with a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1:42. The EIS also
predicted that this BCR would increase to 1:63 when the wider economic impacts are

- 108 - Environmental impacts

Cross River Rail project:
Coordinator-General's report on the environmental impact statement
included. In the agglomeration of benefits, the main contributor is largely accounted for
by labour supply benefits. Other benefits include reduced travel times, freeing up
dedicated rail freight paths and reducing road traffic congestion.

While the project is expected to deliver significant positive economic benefits, there will
also be direct financial costs associated with acquiring residential and commercial
properties to accommodate the portals and connections with the existing surface rail
infrastructure. There would also be an economic impact on businesses along the
corridor, and a small number of potential job losses as a result of businesses being
displaced.

While distressing to the individuals involved, the total initial loss in the availability of
residential accommodation would be insignificant, and the subsequent likely
intensification of residential and commercial development around the new station
nodes would offset this loss by many orders of magnitude.

[#Metro]

It would be VERY interesting to see what the BCR and NPVs for CRR + Bus Reform would be. My guess is that it would be OFF THE SCALE.

[SurfRail]

Is the 1.16 for BaT inclusive of the fuzzy bits (ie "wider economic benefits")?

[ozbob]

It would be VERY interesting to see what the BCR and NPVs for CRR + Bus Reform would be. My guess is that it would be OFF THE SCALE.

or real bang for the buck!  Looking forward to the election campaign, this is going to be a biggy I think CRR + bus reform vs BaT and failure ...

[pandmaster]

It is also time that the state government looks at a 'betterment tax'  -- a land tax on properties that benefit directly from upgraded PT close by.  That might curb the excesses of the WSB.

This government must release plans for rail freight yards to the north of Brisbane.  (Around Elimbah has been suggested.)  It also must spell out track augmentation plans on the northside, because that becomes the restricting factor in the peaks.

Both of these should be part of the debate in Queensland. A Northside freight depot is urgently needed. Geographically it makes so much sense. It is ridiculous that property developers benefit so much from infrastructure paid for by entirely the public purse (e.g. Springfield Line, South-West Rail Link).

[pandmaster]

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). 

Busway capacity issues are due to the direct service model and poor bus-rail integration. IMHO the Busway should never have run through to the CBD. Alas it does, so any capacity issues should be addressed by network reform and new infrastructure through the City should be rail only to maximise the number of people per vehicle and also even out loads (the issue with the Busway in the City). There is a reason no similar tunnel exists in the world.

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.

I do not think there is an urgent need for more bus capacity in the CBD. Rail can do a better job in terms of load distribution, passenger numbers and passenger experience (thus encouraging patronage).

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.

The ALP provided exactly what the Newman Government asked for in their last budget before losing office. Newman/Emerson turned it down, either because it was the ALP offering the funds or because what they asked for was deliberately not enough for the project: either way it was partisanship.

[pandmaster]

Regarding capacity for the Northside, why not just build CRR/BaT from Yeerongpilly/Dutton Park to Alderley and cut out the connection to the Exhibition line altogether? Trains could terminate at Alderley until Trouts Road is built (even if far into the future). Interfacing with the surface line there is good from a flexibility point of view but it is expensive to work around all the existing structures and creates issues with rail junctions: that money could go towards building the tunnel further and surfacing in a transport reserve, ready to build on to Bald Hills in the future. This could provide additional Northside capacity by diverting Caboolture/SC trains via Trouts Road and the tunnel as well as alleviate road and bus traffic along Kelvin Grove Road.

[#Metro]

Both of these should be part of the debate in Queensland. A Northside freight depot is urgently needed. Geographically it makes so much sense. It is ridiculous that property developers benefit so much from infrastructure paid for by entirely the public purse (e.g. Springfield Line, South-West Rail Link).

I think areas should be free to bind themselves to make a contribution. For example, Kippa Ring had Moreton Bay Council contribute and so did GCCC when LRT was put through. Improvements will increase the land value and rates anyway, so I don't see how this assists. It also runs the risk of not raising enough revenue anyway, and potentially turning people against a project.

Busway capacity issues are due to the direct service model and poor bus-rail integration. IMHO the Busway should never have run through to the CBD. Alas it does, so any capacity issues should be addressed by network reform and new infrastructure through the City should be rail only to maximise the number of people per vehicle and also even out loads (the issue with the Busway in the City). There is a reason no similar tunnel exists in the world.

The direct service model is a result of BCC, as explained by the Tanako paper and how they chose the mode. It's designed to be anti-transfer. I remember being shown maps comparing the busway and the railway and the presenter commenting 'most people who use the busway get on in the suburbs while at rail stations do not, busways have a larger catchment.'. And I remember thinking, what nonsense, this confuses modes with catchments, how does Toronto work then?

Had feeder bus services been operating properly, the catchments would be well equivalent regardless of mode, as has been demonstrated in Perth, WA. I think the busway should go to the CBD, where else was it going to go?

I do not think there is an urgent need for more bus capacity in the CBD. Rail can do a better job in terms of load distribution, passenger numbers and passenger experience (thus encouraging patronage).

BCC has known about the capacity crunch since 2007 with the Lord Mayor's Taskforce Report into public transport for Brisbane. EXPLICITY stated that the current operational paradigm was unsustainable into the future. Well 8 years later, the future is here and so is the problem. The buses have highly variable loads, would be good to reform the entire thing and bring in the 150+ pax superbuses. These don't need special busways and many cities overseas run these superbuses on surface streets in Class C ROW. Some retrofit may be required, such as the Melbourne Street Portal, but this is unlikely to be ca $5BN for heavy infrastructure works.

The ALP provided exactly what the Newman Government asked for in their last budget before losing office. Newman/Emerson turned it down, either because it was the ALP offering the funds or because what they asked for was deliberately not enough for the project: either way it was partisanship.

One of the sins of the Red Team was they were explicitly offered the entire Brisbane Transport bus network on a silver platter by the Lord Mayor (then Campbell Newman) and they just rejected it on contact, no thought whatsoever, dumb dumb dumb!!!

WORST DECISION EVER!!

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman has attempted to offload the responsibility of running Brisbane City Council's 1060-strong bus fleet to the State Government, after ongoing disputes over funding and the colour of the buses.

But the offer, which if accepted would have been a major shake-up in Brisbane's public transport network, was last night rejected by Transport Minister Rachel Nolan.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/i-dont-want-your-buses-bligh-tells-newman-20100310-pz6m.html

[Stillwater]

It is now obvious that all the chopping and changing around the BaT route, scale and design has been to get a positive BCR.  A lot of jiggery-pokery has gone on to get the BCR beyond 1:1.  The fundamental issues addressed by the superior CRR have been lost in the BaT concept.  One dollar spent on the BaT will return less value to the commuter and the taxpayer than $1 spent on CRR.  As the state government scrapes together the dollars for the BaT, it will divert money for years to come from a collection of smaller projects with a higher BCR that will have to be postponed now because we will empty the piggybank on the BaT.  Good, effective projects capable of delivering value for money will be foregone to chase a wafer-thin overall benefit provided by the BaT.

[#Metro]

It is now obvious that all the chopping and changing around the BaT route, scale and design has been to get a positive BCR.  A lot of jiggery-pokery has gone on to get the BCR beyond 1:1.

Hmm... I don't think this explains it. The BCR and NPV have gone from high to low when
going from CRR to BaT.

I think the real reason for seemingly irrational refusal to make a Park Road interchange isn't resumptions (no political cost - safe Red Team seat) but because the cost of the longer ramp would push the BCR below 1 and wipe out the NPV, rendering the project financially unviable.

Ding! Ding! Ding!!   

[Stillwater]

Looking at the rival Casino proposals for Queens Wharf, can't help but wonder the extent to which the BaT is critical to delivering punters to the basement of the successful bidder -- take the escalator from the track to the gambling floor.

[mufreight]

Could one detect a touch of political cynicism in that comment.  After all would a fine upstanding collection of LNP politicians with their vested interests stoop to a little corruption and ensure that the cross river rail gave an outcome in the interests of their financial supporters rather than in the interests of the general population of the taxpaying voters of South East Queensland?

[SurfRail]

I could live with CRR operating via George St, and I certainly don't mind a flutter periodically.  There's no reason for it to be carrying buses though.

[SteelPan]

I still have a problem with the acronym "BAT" Tunnel, winning a naming competition, where one of the rules was NO acronyms?  Kinda makes you wonder about everything else in the mix......   :conf

So govt...about all that tax the "rules" say I have to pay.....   

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin --> New tunnel needed to stop Gold Coast rail line reaching tipping point

[Stillwater]

^^ Maybe the government will borrow an idea from the Sunshine Coast Line and introduce railbus for Gold Coast commuters (not).  Or put up fares to discourage growth in rail patronage.  No, wait.  It's Labor's fault.  We need to re-adjust the GST formula.  Or Mr Emerson could write a letter to Canberra, asking for some money.  One thing is for sure, the LNP has a clear way forward when it comes to providing essential infrastructure while paying down Labor's $80b debt, we will be told. 

Let's hope we see it during the next three weeks of the election campaign.  Remember the last election when we had the phantom LNP transport plan that never eventuated?  The ALP should not be let off the hook either -- they should have a plan too.

[ozbob]

Hopefully there will be suitable  ' flash drives ' perhaps that wrap around one's wrist, for all,  full of great transport projects, plans, visions and free ice-creams,  glossy brochures are oh so yesterday ...

[#Metro]

Both NPV and BCRs are lower for BaT than for Cross River Rail. Assuming that CRR could be funded, CRR is the better project.

It seems a little unusual to report the BCR to two decimal places, one wonders if you can have that sort of precision. In any case the BCR is a range because a single number is probably the central value, the real BCR and NPV is likely to have +/- uncertainty around it.

.14 is razor thin. The NPV margin is also small. Any cost blowout is likely to wipe out the benefits.

Trains on the beenleigh line are likely to be split, therefore decreasing frequency at South Bank and increasing waiting times - a DISbenefit needs to be accounted for. This is an unavoidable cost - it is the (increased waiting time x value of time x number of pax  on the Park Road - Roma St section) or the increased cost of having to operate more trains through Park Road-Roma Street to maintain current frequency (15 mins all day).

I think the primary reason for no station at Park Road is not because of demolition concerns - the seat is solid red team, therefore no political cost to blue team - but because the station plus longer tunnel would be around 100 million or so, which would wipe out that .14 part of the BCR making it break even or slightly below 1, which is a level at which funding would be rejected by the Feds and told to go back to the drawing board.

It would be interesting to see what the BCR/NPV would be sans the bus component. We don't have that capability here are RBOT to cost that accurately but there may be others who are able to.

[dancingmongoose]

Both NPV and BCRs are lower for BaT than for Cross River Rail. Assuming that CRR could be funded, CRR is the better project.

BaT: 5B. CRR: 4.5B. If the BaT can be funded, so can CRR.

Trains on the beenleigh line are likely to be split, therefore decreasing frequency at South Bank and increasing waiting times - a DISbenefit needs to be accounted for. This is an unavoidable cost - it is the (increased waiting time x value of time x number of pax  on the Park Road - Roma St section) or the increased cost of having to operate more trains through Park Road-Roma Street to maintain current frequency (15 mins all day).

I assume that it would be 15 minutes to Kuraby all day. But this is the issue with diving at Dutton Park instead of Yeerongpilly, there's not really the capacity between DP and YLY to reinstate Corinda trains to make up the slack.

[SurfRail]

Trains on the beenleigh line are likely to be split, therefore decreasing frequency at South Bank and increasing waiting times - a DISbenefit needs to be accounted for. This is an unavoidable cost - it is the (increased waiting time x value of time x number of pax  on the Park Road - Roma St section) or the increased cost of having to operate more trains through Park Road-Roma Street to maintain current frequency (15 mins all day).

In practice, there will still need to be trains running via South Bank from somewhere on the Beenleigh line unless you are expecting 100% interchange at Park Road to get to South Bank.  If CRR is built, this becomes an absolute necessity because trains from further out would be diving at Yeerongpilly.  Kuraby makes eminent sense.

The reason I am not too perturbed is because even though there are 10tph through South Bank in the off-peak now, the sequencing is not good.  The Cleveland/Cannon Hill services are only separated from Coopers Plains/Beenleigh services by 2 minutes, and the Gold Coast trains need to be a certain distance in front of a Beenleigh train to ensure the Beenleigh service doesn't run up its bum at some point down the line.

If you can properly sequence 2 separate 15 minute cycles (4 x Kuraby and 4 x Cleveland) you will have a materially better arrangement than there is currently.  You can then run 2 separate 15 minute cycles through CRR/BAT/whatever (4 x Varsity all to Beenleigh, then Kuraby, then Yeerongpilly, then all to Roma St; 4 x Helensvale all to Kuraby, then Yeerongpilly, then all to Roma St).

If you build CRR in its last intended form and ensure you provide 4 tracks all the way from the Yeerongpilly dives to Kuraby, the Kuraby cycle trains can be entirely free from timetabling constraints imposed by the Beenleigh/Gold Coast services, and can be mated up with Cleveland to provide a proper 7.5m frequency at South Bank.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Queensland Election 2015: BaT tunnel goes under election radar

Brisbane's most important public transport project – a $5 billion tunnel to provide a much-needed link between the city's northside and its southside - barely rated a mention during Queensland's 2015 election campaign.

However the outcome of Saturday's poll could determine which multi-billion model eventually gets built.

Over the past decade Labor and the LNP have each drawn up detailed models to solve the major rail capacity problem that was first identified by Peter Beattie when he was Queensland's premier in 2005.

Labor developed the Cross River Rail Project when it was in government at state and federal levels.

When the Newman Government come to power in Queensland in March 2012, it questioned the $8 billion cost of Labor's plan and in 2013, it refused a matching $715 million offer from federal Labor to start the project. 

The LNP developed a less expensive underground model – including buses and trains running under the city in the same tunnel – and called it the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel. It would cost around $5 billion, but it has yet to go to the market.

If the LNP wins Saturday's state election the BaT tunnel will proceed.

It has allocated $1 billion towards the project in its $8.6 billion infrastructure fund, if buyers can be found for the government-owned corporations the LNP plans to lease.

However, if the ALP wins Saturday, the BaT tunnel could be replaced by Cross River Rail, Shadow Treasurer Curtis Pitt said on Thursday.

The LNP's design would go to Labor's Building Queensland infrastructure team,  in the very same way the LNP looked at Labor's Cross River Rail design when it won office, Mr Pitt said.

"We had Cross River Rail and if we were in government again we would be looking at all the available advice from planning," Mr Pitt said.

"And of course a project of that magnitude would be going to Building Queensland for independent advice to make sure that it stacks up in terms of cost benefit," he said.

"And that it is going to provide the best value for taxpayers."

Cross River Rail would carry trains only and run from Dutton Park to the Exhibition train station.

The BaT tunnel does not involve residential property resumptions; whereas the original Cross River Rail model required hundreds of resumptions including the Royal on the Park Hotel and 105 properties at Yeerongpilly.

In 2008 a major rail study, the Inner City Rail Capacity Study completed by Queensland Rail experts made it clear that Brisbane needed a new river crossing of its rail lines by 2016.

The core of the problem is the frequency of passenger and freight trains across the Merivale Bridge at South Brisbane.

The LNP says amendments to rail schedules, additional trains and changes to services have pushed back the need to find a new north-south rail link until 2020.

The project would take four years to build.

[The Reaper]

It'd be good if Tony Moore managed to even get it half right. He says CRR goes between Dutton Park and Exhibition - wrong! Try Yeerongpilly to Albion. No mention of BaT not connecting to the north. Nor the revised cost of CRR. It would be worthwhile sending him a copy of the (excellent) comparison table that RBoT have on facebook.

[ozbob]

It'd be good if Tony Moore managed to even get it half right. He says CRR goes between Dutton Park and Exhibition - wrong! Try Yeerongpilly to Albion. No mention of BaT not connecting to the north. Nor the revised cost of CRR. It would be worthwhile sending him a copy of the (excellent) comparison table that RBoT have on facebook.

Thanks.  All media have been given our detailed information re BaT, a number of times.  We will continue to pursue these matters.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow now Brisbane, Queensland

The BaT - GOD SAVE THE BaT! > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9972.msg150602#msg150602 ... @BATProjectBris @TMRQld #qldvotes #qldpol right prevails ..

[Gazza]

I hope that the one bit of BaT kept is the modified allignment through the CBD. You get better geological conditions, and we get to see the Brisbane transit center knocked down and replaced by a nicer building as part of the station pit construction process.

[ozbob]

George St was the original alignment for CRR, so I expect that part will now stay for the reasons you have outlined, as well as the other planning.

It is possible they might just build the T part of BaT with some mods.  Do the CRR stuff north of T. so that trains can run through N<->S as first planned. The properties that were acquired around Yeerongpilly have been sold off I understand .. 

[BrizCommuter]

Certainly time to push the Park Road and Trouts Road agenda!

[Gazza]

Also, retain a double deck tunnel design, but then just have the up and down tracks on separate decks, and have stations contained in the tunnel profile as per Barcelona:

Theoretically, this approach can allow station platforms to be infinitely long.

[red dragin]

^ Standard gauge?

Be a touch more roomy with narrow gauge right?

[MaxHeadway]

^ Standard gauge?

Yes, according to urbanrail.net.

[Stillwater]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Campbell Newman, an engineer, got a job helping build CRR.

[dancingmongoose]

Also, retain a double deck tunnel design, but then just have the up and down tracks on separate decks, and have stations contained in the tunnel profile as per Barcelona:

Theoretically, this approach can allow station platforms to be infinitely long.

Not a fan of this tbh, can't see a good reason for effectively saying lets build 2 single track tunnels on top of each other. I'd rather a single deck with two tracks side by side so if something goes wrong on one track they can still dance if need be. If something goes wrong there it's all over

[Gazza]

The beauty of the design is crossovers fit within that tunnel profile too.

[dancingmongoose]

The beauty of the design is crossovers fit within that tunnel profile too.

Not going to do you much good if something happens at a station. Literally nowhere to go