SkyscraperCity banner

3981 - 4000 of 5385 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,537 Posts
The only caveat I’d add to my previous post is that it doesn’t include the value of the existing M4. You should probably determine a value for the M4 widening section, minus the cost of the widening ($500m) and consider that to be a capital contribution by the state. That would need to be subtracted from the previously mentioned ‘net paper profit’ of $7.4b.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Interesting to see some real numbers from rational sources - thanks. I've never believed the $16b nonsense either but haven't seen much with which to counter it.

Of course you can bet none of what you say will be mentioned in the popular media - particularly not the SMH!



Besides the inner-west NIMBY protestors there's another group that just don't approve of toll rolls at all. Some of them think all roads should be free & Government funded. That's clearly not commercially realistic in today's era but an interesting calculation might be how much difference would it have made if there were still tolls but they were lower than in the current model? Obviously lower future revenue streams, hence the 51% share would be valued lower. But how much sensitivity is there in that analysis - e.g. 10% lower toll projection corresponds to what impact on $ equity valuation etc?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,537 Posts
Ok, thinking about it a bit more, there is also the existing M5 East which is being handed over, so is probably closer to break even for the government. Here is how you could think about it:

Government has invested $3.6b in equity, as well as the M4, M5 East and M5 West. They will also make $5.3b in capital contributions to Stage 3, Rozelle Interchange and Sydney Gateway. So that is a total of $8.9b plus the existing roads as either equity, capital grant or infrastructure asset contribution.

In return, they have ended up with a company which has $18.3b in equity and a bunch of debt. They have sold 51% of the equity for $9.3b, so this effectively values the existing infrastructure assets contributed at a total of $9.4b, or $7.9b if you account for the $1.5b grant from the Federal Government.

Effectively all of the profit that the NSW just made is actually just payment for the existing toll roads they contributed. Still, no net impact on the budget and gaining value from those existing assets that can now be spent elsewhere is not a bad outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,285 Posts
Yes, the Chief Justice panelled himself on the case and the appeal was upheld 3-0, single judgment. All the RMS's heads of appeal were upheld.

The acquisition notice was valid despite its broad terms, acquisition notices can have broad terms and need not state the public purpose for the acquisition (at least not to the level of detail which the plaintiff had claimed), the acquisition notice was valid despite being of a different format to that used in the past, the NSW government did not screw itself over by rendering its notices invalid when it amended the Act in 2016.

Or even more glibly - the Act was intended to give the government broad powers of acquisition and therefore the acquisition powers should be construed broadly.

I have a bit of a problem with that latter reading because (1) of the "every man's home is his castle" notion and (2) although it's substantially consistent with 150 years of jurisprudence, it's also hypocritical insofar as the powers of local government to acquire property has always been viewed very sceptically by the NSW Supreme Court and their acquisition powers across many wholesale rewrites of local government law have always been construed strictly not broadly.

That said, the plaintiffs here are shameless opportunists. Betting on rezoning is just that: a bet. No NSW government has even politically, let alone legally, committed to residential rezoning of that site.
 

·
La Urbanista
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Why the hell does it have to be so expensive when its a road that could be built along the surface? It's a distance of 1.1km (adjacent container terminal on Canal Rd) from the St Peters Interchange to a signalled intersection on Qantas Drive (say where the northern car park intersection is now).

Surely the elevated roadway into the domestic terminal is completely unnecessary.. and just makes you able to claim Parramatta to terminal with no lightZ!!11
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,285 Posts
Bit of a furphy this project - leaves the Wentworth Ave and Mill Pond Rd intersections at-grade and doesn't fix the the junction of General Holmes Dr and Foreshore Rd.
 

·
Authorised Replicant
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
A few things that I can see that might be a problem:

That grade-separated flyover means that the terminals will now be the jam point, which they often are even without a flyover bringing a constant stream of cars into the terminal.

Foreshore Road @ General Holmes Drive will probably have traffic snarls due to the more even split of traffic. Whereas at the moment most traffic is biased towards the M5 (thus the Port Botany to Citybound movement gets the least traffic light priority due to very light traffic), the gateway will encourage more traffic skirting along the northern side of the airport.

Why the hell does it have to be so expensive when its a road that could be built along the surface? It's a distance of 1.1km (adjacent container terminal on Canal Rd) from the St Peters Interchange to a signalled intersection on Qantas Drive (say where the northern car park intersection is now).

Surely the elevated roadway into the domestic terminal is completely unnecessary.. and just makes you able to claim Parramatta to terminal with no lightZ!!11
But it is being built on the surface?

It appears that this is going to replace Airport Drive near the north-south main runway.

The diagram has ramps for a terminal to terminal movement, skirting along the northern side of the airport's land, and it goes quite a considerable distance north so the structures do not interfere with landing aircraft.

 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,496 Posts
It's all well and good but the delays are in the terminals not on the roads leading into them. The queue for international from the west goes halfway down the M5 tunnel in the morning, and it's because there's too many cars for not enough kurb space. Overpasses won't help.
 

·
La Urbanista
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
But it is being built on the surface?

It appears that this is going to replace Airport Drive near the north-south main runway.

The diagram has ramps for a terminal to terminal movement, skirting along the northern side of the airport's land, and it goes quite a considerable distance north so the structures do not interfere with landing aircraft.
Yeah, understood it more after watching the news. I thought the cost was due to tunneling under Canal Road and the container yard - I wonder how it will cross Canal Road?

Apparently the existing Qantas Drive and Northern Carpark land will now be part of the airport lands (not sure if airside - I heard something about it being used as a bus transfer link between terminals).

The realignment of the road does help to push people toward WestConnex - though the 2.4b cost is insane for what can essentially be a 1km strech of road... I thought that included the rail duplication as well, but it doesn't! :nuts: Should be a simplified road with the savings spent on metro conversion of T8 to Revesby so luggage can fit on the trains, then lower the station access fee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
I just don't get how it is so expensive.

In Perth we have over the last 6 years through two projects (Gateway WA and Northlink WA) been converting the Tonkin Highway into a freeway and extending it. The two projects combined have included the conversion of 8 traffic light intersections into 3 SPUIs, one roundabout interchange, one dumbbell interchange, one overpass (no ramps) and two of the intersections converted into 4-way freeway-to-freeway interchanges. A flyover was also added to an existing diamond interchange to separate one of the movements. All of this done on active roads. Plus a 40km extension with 6 more interchanges with 5 roundabout interchanges and a parclo.

The combined cost for all of that is $2bn (and no tolls).

How is this $2.2-2.4bn? Are you gold plating stuff over there?
 

·
...........
Joined
·
24,281 Posts
It is 4.3km road with a good chunk of it bridges and interchanges and built in a very tight environment. Whilst it's still very expensive.



Also, everything you've mentioned for $2bn sounds like an absolute bargain in an Australian context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
It is 4.3km road with a good chunk of it bridges and interchanges and built in a very tight environment. Whilst it's still very expensive.
Even so, it seems comparable to the South Road Superway project which was $850m. That was 4.8km of road and 2.8km of elevated road.

How can it only be $600m more to build Northconnex?

Something weird is going on.

Also, everything you've mentioned for $2bn sounds like an absolute bargain in an Australian context.
It is a bargain. And it is high quality stuff as well. For some reason our projects just seem way cheaper than over east. Even our 8.5km fully underground airport train line with 3 stations is only $2bn including railcars.
 
3981 - 4000 of 5385 Posts
Top