You are here: Home → archive → 2012 → February → February 1st 2012 → Is there an alternative to Cross River Rail?

Is there an alternative to Cross River Rail?

by Rail Express — last modified Feb 01, 2012 10:09 AM

— filed under: Weekly Top Stories, Rail

A cheaper alternative to the Queensland Government’s iconic $7.7bn Cross River Rail project, dubbed the “Cleveland Solution” and costed at $2.5bn has been detailed in a comprehensive report by leading international engineering firm GHD for the Council of Mayors (SEQ).

   

By Jennifer Perry

The following provides an analysis of the report, Public Transport in SEQ – Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure, detailing both the problem that the Cross River Rail and “Cleveland Solution” proposals seek to address, as well the solutions the proposals put forward.

A key challenge for the investment program for public transport infrastructure in South East Queensland (SEQ) is how to meet the needs of a growing region within the financially constrained fiscal environment now faced by all levels of government.

According to the report, the underlying assumption for delivering the government’s South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program (SEQIPP), now incorporated within the Queensland Infrastructure Plan (QIP), is that the Queensland Government is in a strong financial position. However current state budget projections are for a deficit position until about 2014-15.

“Under this scenario, general government capital purchases are expected to drop significantly from about $8.8bn in 2009-10 to $5.2bn in 2014-15 – about 40% less than 2009-10 levels,” the report states.

The report therefore asks the question as to whether funds exist to proceed with the Queensland Government’s $7.7bn Cross River Rail project and finds it “unlikely” that the proposal can be afforded in the current fiscal environment.

GHD argue that the Queensland Government spends around $1.5bn a year on public transport infrastructure. The high cost of Cross River Rail represents five years of such spending, potentially “crowding out” other public transport infrastructure projects for many years and delaying the delivery of other urgently needed public transport infrastructure across the rest of the SEQ network.

It also makes the point that neither the state nor the Federal Government have a budget commitment to fund the Cross River Rail beyond the $25m for detailed feasibility studies, an environmental impact assessment process and a detailed business case. These investigations were scheduled to be completed in 2011.

It is for the above reasons that the Council of Mayors (SEQ) commissioned GHD to look at more affordable ways to deliver value and innovation in future SEQ public transport infrastructure and whether the objectives of the Cross River Rail project can be met in a more cost effective way.

The problem
The report outlines the problems currently being experienced by Brisbane’s inner city rail network that both the Cross River Rail and Cleveland Solution proposals seek to address.

The inner city rail network is operating close to capacity with the city platforms from Roma Street Station to Bowen Hills experiencing high utilisation and effectively no room for expansion.

“In the morning peak hour, the Merivale Bridge over the Brisbane River currently operates 19 services on the Gold Coast (4), Beenleigh (7) and Cleveland (8) Lines,” it explains.

“At 3 minute headways the single northbound track over the bridge is considered to have a theoretical capacity for 20 train paths in the morning peak hour. This capacity restriction is confirmed by the delays regularly experienced by these services during the morning peak.

“The available capacity on this inner city network is dominated by the Citytrain services in the peak hours, significantly impairing the ability to operate reliable
freight services across the city or to the Port of Brisbane.”

Cross River Rail
Consequently, the Inner City Rail Capacity project was developed and the Cross River Rail proposal was identified to construct two new tracks in tunnel from Yeerongpilly in the south to north of Bowen Hills.

The Cross River Rail project includes four new underground stations at Boggo Road, Woolloongabba, Albert Street and Roma Street and two new surface stations at Yeerongpilly and the Exhibition. The project also includes a new Citytrain stabling facility at Clapham, adjacent to Moorooka.

GHD make the point that as Brisbane grows, the solutions become very expensive – hence the $7.7bn cost of the current Cross River Rail proposal.

“While the [Cross River Rail project] is a visionary solution to the capacity problems of [Brisbane’s] inner city rail network ... [and] can address many of the network connectivity issues and bottlenecks in the core ... the $7.7bn estimated cost of the proposal will seriously test the borrowing capacity of most governments and would only attract very modest private capital,” it states.

GHD argue that SEQ can continue to compound the central core capacity problem with more expensive branch lines and expensive core enhancements, “or we can transition the existing radial system to an integrated network”.

The report says the first step to achieve this could be to “extract some lines from the core and reintroduce them as independent lines crossing the core...” This is the basis of the “Cleveland Solution”.

The “Cleveland Solution”: more affordable?
While the report goes into some depth in detailing the Cleveland Solution, it is worth outlining this here for readers.

The report states that underpinning the Cleveland Solution is: 1. innovative financing, 2. new technology (light metro) and 3. potential entry of a new operator.

Financing
The $2.5bn cost of the proposal includes a new fleet of rolling stock and would release 24 existing 6 car electric multiple unit (EMU) sets back to the Citytrain network at an estimated value of $240m.

GHD argue against a traditional Public Private Partnership (PPP) to fund the project and instead advocate for an “Availability PPP” model, where contractors and operators are paid on the basis of the time the assets is made available to the user.

According to the report, that this model has been “reasonably common” in social infrastructure and is emerging in public transport across several Australian states including the Gold Coast Rapid Transit System (GCRT).

Light Metro
The report states that the Cleveland Solution “is made possible” by introducing light metro rolling stock that can negotiate the tighter corners and steeper grades of the proposed alignment between Park Road and Roma St Stations.

“Light metro rolling stock has a capacity of approximately 600 passengers per train and would operate at 3 to 5 minute headways to service the demand on the Cleveland Line. Consequently, the Cleveland and Ferny Grove Lines would enjoy a much more frequent service,” it states.

New operator
GHD also argue for the introduction of a new operator onto the SEQ network alongside Queensland Rail in order to drive “competitive tension”, innovation and a reduction in the cost of passenger journeys.

The report states that QR's current monopoly “stifles” innovation.

“The subsidy to operate the service is increasing (in the order of) $550m in 2007/8 to approximately $700m in 2013/14,” it states.

Specific details of the proposal
Specifically, the Cleveland Solution removes the Cleveland Line services from the Merivale Bridge by constructing a new rail line from the Park Road Station to Roma Street Station, via a tunnel to Woolloongabba, then a new bridge over the river beside (and imitating) the Captain Cook Bridge and Riverside Expressway, and then via a tunnel beneath Herschel Street to a new underground platform under the Roma Street Station.

New underground stations would then be provided at Park Road and Woolloongabba, and elevated stations at Gardens Point (QUT) and/or Queen Street.

After Roma Street Station the proposal would then run on surface up the Exhibition Line corridor, with a new Exhibition Station and a new Bowen Hills (West) Station before joining into the Ferny Grove Line at Breakfast Creek.

The proposal would remove both the Cleveland Line and the Ferny Grove Line from the congested rail network core between Bowen Hills and Roma St (but would interchange with the northern line at those two stations).

Critically, the report states the proposal releases the Cleveland Line train paths (8 in peak hour) across the Merivale Bridge, providing an immediate capacity gain of over 70% for growth on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast Lines.

In summary, the proposal, by extracting the Cleveland, Ferny Grove and Doomben lines from the “core” allows for:

• Nearly half the capacity of train paths on Merivale Bridge to become available at about one-third of the cost of the Cross River Rail proposal
• Platform and track space through the central core to be released
• A real opportunity to inject innovation, private investment, competition, and importantly value for money into the system
• Citytrain rolling stock to be released to the wider network.

To conclude: wise words
In conclusion, in support of the case for the Cleveland Solution, the report wisely states that Infrastructure Australia (IA) has been clear in that there is a powerful need for change in the way that infrastructure is funded and the rigour with which infrastructure decisions are made.

“We particularly need to bridge the gap between expectations and reality, that is, for example, 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,” the report quotes IA as saying.

What are the key priorities beyond the Cleveland Solution?
The report goes on to recommend the following project priorities for SEQ and their estimated cost for the next five years: