Talk:Cross River Rail

Remove

I suggest that the 2013 Bus and Train Tunnel proposal section on the alternative design be reduced to just one paragraph. Its a failed proposal separate to this one and so the level of detail should be low on this page. It is currently around one third of the whole article. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be good to chop it down a couple of paragraphs because you do have a point, but they're basically three different takes on the same proposal and I think it's worth having a solid section on the LNP version of it as well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross River Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201050659/http://translink.com.au/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/media-releases/release/79 to http://www.translink.com.au/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/media-releases/release/79

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Corruption Allegations

Should we address the corruption allegations with the construction of the cross-river rail? More specifically the alleged purchase of properties near the site of the construction prior to the announcement of the project as they would increase in value. One notable figure would be Jackie Trad and the allegations surrounding her. They may or may not be correct, but I figured it might be worth mentioning the investigations. Joecompan (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent 2029 opening announcement and budget amount

Alright so it's fine for the information to be on the page because there is a source for it, but I don't think any of that information makes any sense considering the boarder context of the project. If you don't know the LNP announced that the Project actually costs 17 billion and that it won't open until 2029. I think that the LNP has done this intentionally so that they can actually open the line in 2026/7 and say that they pull out all the stops to fix the project Labour stuffed up (which makes them look good). Compared to the Melbourne Metro Tunnel, CRR is only about a year behind, so if they can open the Metro tunnel in 2026, they can open CRR in 2027, and the only reason that won't be possible is because of incompetence.

The reasoning they give for the 2029 opening date is because of the "two year" estimate that the regulators gave for signing off. The issue is that this sort of thing is already considered in the testing phase of the construction, it's not a separate thing that can only begin once the line is "finished" they can start the testing while only some systems are operational. For example, Roma Street is close enough to completion that there's no good reason why they can't begin some of the testing now. Once evacuation procedures and things have been developed for one station, the process to validate the other stations is much shorter, because it's broadly the same. They even say that the Sydney Metro completed these tests in just one year, so why should it take 2 years to do the CRR? All of these timeframes and estimates are based off broad sweeping predictions that don't actually get into the weeds of what actually needs to be done and the processes. What the LNP is suggesting is that Labour didn't account for the testing phase of the CRR, which I believe is utter nonsense. They would literally have to be so incompetent that wouldn't make sense that they've done what they've done so far. Apparently internal talks within CRR were saying that there were actually on track to open the line in September 2025 but were suggesting 2026 to account for unexpected delays. Looking at the state of things right now, I don't think 2025 was viable, but 2029 is just straight up napkin-maths. I fully expect them to come back some time next year and say, "oh we managed to work with the regulators to fast track the process and we can now open the line in 2026 again" or some such rubbish. I know this is a political game, and both sides are doing dodgy garbage to try to disparage the other, but if there was a way we could keep the politics out of the Wikipedia article and only base the opening dates and other process on what the industry experts that are co-ordinating the project say, I would be happier.

As for the budget now being 17 billion. Imagine the following scenario:

There is a transport budget that totals 20 billion dollars, Labour had divided this up into 40 different sub-accounts in which the CRR was only about 7 billion or something. The LNP have then decided to consolidate those accounts into just 3, in which the cost of practically every transport related expense in the next 10 years was put into the CRR account. Some of these do make sense, (Like the ETCS signalling for the whole network) but others like the 65 new trains (that straight up have nothing to do with CRR and are not at all necessary to run the service from day 1) don't make sense. I think this is exactly what is actually going on with the accounts. What this also means is that the 17-billion-dollar figure means nothing, because we were paying that money already and it was already accounted for just by other names in other accounts. Not to mention that most of the money won't need to be paid for up to 20 years, and while it wasn't accounted for within the CRR budget, it WAS already accounted for in other budgets. So it's not like under labour we would have charged on into the next 20 with no money and no idea. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if all government accounting is organised by the same group of people regardless of which political party is in power, the only reason why we get sensationalist news like this is because the politicians read the accounts every now and again and don't understand what they are reading. Please bear with my rambling, I just don't like how most people won't be able to see the different between politics and construction. GuideRail (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)