There is another nasty rumour going around, that during the period of widening the spans of the Kirkham road bridge over the M2, between Murray Farm Road and Kirkham Street, the single lane left open will be restricted to light vehicles only! No buses for the school kids, and no fire engines!
One hopes therefore that the M2 Project will be devoting significant planning effort into minimising the duration of the span widening activity. It is preposterous to claim it will coincidentally take exactly the same duration as the overall project.
Indeed competent project planning would want this span widening to be completed very early to allow better access for the work gangs widening the road under the bridge. As soon as that work is finished, full two lane access without weight limits should be restored immediately. Obviously this will benefit the community as well as the project.
Meanwhile, what arrangements have been put in place to fight fires in the houses and bushland around Murray Farm Road during the (hopefully very short) period that the fire engines from Beecroft Fire Station are unable to use the bridge?
Showing posts with label M2 Widening Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label M2 Widening Project. Show all posts
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
State Infrastructure Requirements
Given the horrendous damage already inflicted to the state roads and railways in northern NSW, one hopes that the State and Federal government will not be signing off on any more pet 'local' projects. For instance the $500 million proposed for the Epping Parramatta railway needs to be held back until the full extent of infrastructure repairs has been fully assessed. Just a pity that the M2 Widening can't be put on hold and that money re-allocated to where it is going to be desperately needed.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Kirkham Bridge to be used as a Truck Park?
The latest rumour is that Transurban wishes to close one lane of the Beecroft bridge over the M2 to use it as a park for construction equipment - nothing to do with the stated reason, of widening the bridge spans!
This was never mentioned in any of the documentation submitted before the project started.
The road belongs to Hornsby Shire, not to the RTA or Transurban, and the Shire needs to ensure that the rights of access to the road by local residents are maintained as far as possible. Transurban should have to justify closing any of the bridge for any part of the 22 months of the project, and must be forbidden to use the closed lane just as a construction car park!
This was never mentioned in any of the documentation submitted before the project started.
The road belongs to Hornsby Shire, not to the RTA or Transurban, and the Shire needs to ensure that the rights of access to the road by local residents are maintained as far as possible. Transurban should have to justify closing any of the bridge for any part of the 22 months of the project, and must be forbidden to use the closed lane just as a construction car park!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Thoughts on Epping Bus Ramp Removal
In my post on 6 Jan, I quoted from a letter by John Goldberg, including how Transurban is relying on increased induced traffic on the widened M2 to raise cash flow. Of course for that same reason Transurban has a powerful incentive to get people out of the buses and onto the road.
I confess that I don't know what toll a bus pays to use the M2 from the north west to Epping, but I am sure displacing those commuting passengers into cars and making them drive all the way into the city will significantly increase Transurban's cash flow.
This is where the NSW government and the RTA should be applying brakes and checks on the project to apply an integrated transport solution to north west Sydney's desperate traffic problems.
I confess that I don't know what toll a bus pays to use the M2 from the north west to Epping, but I am sure displacing those commuting passengers into cars and making them drive all the way into the city will significantly increase Transurban's cash flow.
This is where the NSW government and the RTA should be applying brakes and checks on the project to apply an integrated transport solution to north west Sydney's desperate traffic problems.
Funding NSW Flood Damage Repairs
Given the awful events up north in the last few days, one assumes that the NSW government will no longer pursue the commitment of $520 million of state funds to the Epping to Paramatta rail link! Suddenly there are much more urgent needs for that and more funding to be spent rebuilding our damaged state!
It seems a shame that the $550 million funding being provided to widen 21 km of the M2 cannot be reallocated somehow to the same purpose. With roads damaged and destroyed over a large part of northern NSW and Queensland, it seems such a waste to be widening a short stretch of motorway in a project that has been widely labelled unnecessary and unjustiable.
It seems a shame that the $550 million funding being provided to widen 21 km of the M2 cannot be reallocated somehow to the same purpose. With roads damaged and destroyed over a large part of northern NSW and Queensland, it seems such a waste to be widening a short stretch of motorway in a project that has been widely labelled unnecessary and unjustiable.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
M2 Travel Time Savings Overstated
There is a powerful letter in the Northern District Times this week, questioning the whole concept of the M2 widening project. The letter is from John Goldberg, a highly qualified and experienced traffic engineer.
"The claims of travel time savings are part of a derisible economic analysis, prepared by a Transurban consultant with the clear aim of justifying the project. The claims have been shown to be spurious by (Mr Goldberg) in a paper to be published shortly. Transurban has overstated the savings by a factor of four. This means the savings are worth far less than the cost of the project over its concession lifetime."
Mr Goldberg argues that the project is only going ahead because Transurban needs to generate increased cash flow to service their huge group debt of more than $7 billion. Transurban believes the increased cash flow will mainly come from induced traffic, which will of course increase congestion and reduce the travel time savings.
Mr Goldberg says, "The M2 upgrade affair generally demonstrates that transport planning in a major city cannot be reliably carried out by agencies such as the RTA using community manipulation disguised as consultation."
However that is slightly unfair. The problem with this specific project is that, as the letter reminds readers, Kristina Keneally originally approved the project as "critical infrastructure" back in 2009, thereby removing most of the planning checks and balances that should be applied to such a disruptive and questionable project. If the project had been reviewed in the way the original M2 build was reviewed, many of the serious deficiencies in the new widening project might have been excised from the plan. Just one example is the project's intent to remove the excellent Epping Bus Ramp, which was a mandatory part of the original approval for the M2 back in the 1990's. Of course it was the RTA that persuaded Kristina to sign that infamous ruling.
Mr Goldberg suggests that the incoming government should invoke the doctrine of executive necessity and cancel the contract for this project, and undertake serious reform of the RTA.
"The claims of travel time savings are part of a derisible economic analysis, prepared by a Transurban consultant with the clear aim of justifying the project. The claims have been shown to be spurious by (Mr Goldberg) in a paper to be published shortly. Transurban has overstated the savings by a factor of four. This means the savings are worth far less than the cost of the project over its concession lifetime."
Mr Goldberg argues that the project is only going ahead because Transurban needs to generate increased cash flow to service their huge group debt of more than $7 billion. Transurban believes the increased cash flow will mainly come from induced traffic, which will of course increase congestion and reduce the travel time savings.
Mr Goldberg says, "The M2 upgrade affair generally demonstrates that transport planning in a major city cannot be reliably carried out by agencies such as the RTA using community manipulation disguised as consultation."
However that is slightly unfair. The problem with this specific project is that, as the letter reminds readers, Kristina Keneally originally approved the project as "critical infrastructure" back in 2009, thereby removing most of the planning checks and balances that should be applied to such a disruptive and questionable project. If the project had been reviewed in the way the original M2 build was reviewed, many of the serious deficiencies in the new widening project might have been excised from the plan. Just one example is the project's intent to remove the excellent Epping Bus Ramp, which was a mandatory part of the original approval for the M2 back in the 1990's. Of course it was the RTA that persuaded Kristina to sign that infamous ruling.
Mr Goldberg suggests that the incoming government should invoke the doctrine of executive necessity and cancel the contract for this project, and undertake serious reform of the RTA.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Kirkham Bridge Update
According to the BCCT, Transurban does plan to close the Kirkham Road bridge over the M2! The closure would be "at least six months", but a lot of Beecroft and Cheltenham residents are doubtful about that promise, remembering what happened with the Copeland Road bridge across the railway. What is most worrying is the statement "Hornsby Council has been unsuccessful in their attempt to get the operators to establish alternatives". There should be no discussion on this, the approved plan calls for single lane working, why are the authorities seemingly powerless to enforce that plan?
Closure could happen as soon as January 2011, and it has been suggested that the required "public consultation" will be initiated late in December with submissions closing early in January. Democracy? Come on Kristina, you signed off on this project when you were Planning Minister, now enforce what you signed off on!
Meanwhile everybody should be writing to their MP, State and National, to the RTA, and to Transurban and anyone else, to make clear our concern at what would be a gross abuse of democracy.
Closure could happen as soon as January 2011, and it has been suggested that the required "public consultation" will be initiated late in December with submissions closing early in January. Democracy? Come on Kristina, you signed off on this project when you were Planning Minister, now enforce what you signed off on!
Meanwhile everybody should be writing to their MP, State and National, to the RTA, and to Transurban and anyone else, to make clear our concern at what would be a gross abuse of democracy.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Questions about M2 Financing
Here is an interesting comment off the internet, relating to the recently announced new financing for the M2 Widening project:
“Out of $740 million of new loans given by banks to Transurban, $465m are only for refinancing old M2 debt, leaving just $275 m for a project which costs $550 m to build. Where will the other $275 m come from? Transurban already sits on a mountain of debt which is continuously being rolled over (or should we say tolled over), but not paid back."
“Out of $740 million of new loans given by banks to Transurban, $465m are only for refinancing old M2 debt, leaving just $275 m for a project which costs $550 m to build. Where will the other $275 m come from? Transurban already sits on a mountain of debt which is continuously being rolled over (or should we say tolled over), but not paid back."
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Kirkham Bridge - Transurban Position
Apparently the RTA and Transurban have advised that they don't have authority to demolish the Kirkham road bridge, their present approval covers single lane working over the bridge during the span extensions. It seems they are considering options, including demolition as a way to speed up the work, but would need extensive community consultation and a major planning approval process, before they could take up that option.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
M2 Upgrade Conditions of Approval
This document, signed on 21 October 2010 by NSW Department of Planning, is available on the net at http://www.hillsm2upgrade.com.au/files/101021_M2%20Upgrade_Conditions%20of%20Approval.pdf.
It talks at length about the project's effect on waterways and wildlife, but makes no mention at all of disruption to the lifestyles of the people who use the Kirkham Road bridge over the M2 between Kirkham Road and Beecroft Road. Obviously if the bridge is completely closed even for a few days that would seriously inconvenience school kids who walk to and from school, and commuters who walk from home to the railway and bus stations in Beecroft.
One would like to think that the lack of information indicates that there is no intent to interrupt access to that road bridge. So why the rumours?
Section 5, "Community Information, Consultation and Involvement", requires the project to establish and maintain a website for provision of electronic information associated with the project. This will include a copy of each current strategy, plan, program or other document required under this approval.
A telephone number is to be provided on which complaints and enquiries about construction and operation activities may be registered, along with a postal address and an email address. These shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the local area prior to the commencement of construction and prior to the commencement of project operations. The details shall also be on the website mentioned in Section 5. So far as I can tell none of this has yet happened, so work cannot yet commence.
Section 5.4, Community Consultation, requires the project to prepare and implement a Community Communication Strategy for the project. The specification for this document is extensive, and so far as this blog can determine no such document has yet been published. So again presumably work cannot yet commence.
Section 6.3 requires a major Project Management Plan for the widening of the Norfolk tunnels. If there was a plan to demolish the Kirkham Road Bridge, which would be even more disruptive than widening the tunnels, then that must surely have been mentioned in great detail in this document. One therefore is forced to assume that no such plan exists.
As soon as any more information is uncovered, this blog will post it.
It talks at length about the project's effect on waterways and wildlife, but makes no mention at all of disruption to the lifestyles of the people who use the Kirkham Road bridge over the M2 between Kirkham Road and Beecroft Road. Obviously if the bridge is completely closed even for a few days that would seriously inconvenience school kids who walk to and from school, and commuters who walk from home to the railway and bus stations in Beecroft.
One would like to think that the lack of information indicates that there is no intent to interrupt access to that road bridge. So why the rumours?
Section 5, "Community Information, Consultation and Involvement", requires the project to establish and maintain a website for provision of electronic information associated with the project. This will include a copy of each current strategy, plan, program or other document required under this approval.
A telephone number is to be provided on which complaints and enquiries about construction and operation activities may be registered, along with a postal address and an email address. These shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the local area prior to the commencement of construction and prior to the commencement of project operations. The details shall also be on the website mentioned in Section 5. So far as I can tell none of this has yet happened, so work cannot yet commence.
Section 5.4, Community Consultation, requires the project to prepare and implement a Community Communication Strategy for the project. The specification for this document is extensive, and so far as this blog can determine no such document has yet been published. So again presumably work cannot yet commence.
Section 6.3 requires a major Project Management Plan for the widening of the Norfolk tunnels. If there was a plan to demolish the Kirkham Road Bridge, which would be even more disruptive than widening the tunnels, then that must surely have been mentioned in great detail in this document. One therefore is forced to assume that no such plan exists.
As soon as any more information is uncovered, this blog will post it.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Kirkham Bridge Roadworks Plans
The Northern District Times had an article on 31 October saying the Murray Farm/Kirkham Road bridge over the M2 in Beecroft "may be reduced to one lane of traffic for 20 months while it is lengthened" as part of the M2 widening.
Transurban and the RTA confirmed to the newspaper that this is one of the options being considered for when the project begins in January 2011, but the decision has not been finalised and a variety of measures are being considered. The residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham are entitled to know what the other options are. The latest report, from the BCCT, implied that they have heard the bridge might be demolished and not replaced for "at least six months".
Does it make any sense at all to be starting a Half a Billion Dollar project when such factors have not yet been decided? Before the NSW government signed the contract authorising this work to begin, the local residents should have been given full and open facts about their intentions, and where those intentions are not yet firm, the government, and the RTA, should have listed all possible options. And that list must be exclusive, so the contractor can't come up later with a new cheaper but more destructive, option. Nor should the contractor be able to charge the taxpayer for selecting a more expensive but less disruptive option.
An RTA spokesman apparently said "The impact of the proposed bridge closure on local traffic is still being assessed." This blogger can find no word on this in the earlier RTA and M2 Project documentation.
The spokesman went on, "Consultation with residents has not yet started and will be carried out before any decision is made."
The statements available so far are ambiguous, and could be read as meaning work on the bridge won't start for six months, and might be limited to minor lane closures. But the actual wording was that "it will be at least six months before a replacement bridge is constructed."
Transurban and the RTA confirmed to the newspaper that this is one of the options being considered for when the project begins in January 2011, but the decision has not been finalised and a variety of measures are being considered. The residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham are entitled to know what the other options are. The latest report, from the BCCT, implied that they have heard the bridge might be demolished and not replaced for "at least six months".
Does it make any sense at all to be starting a Half a Billion Dollar project when such factors have not yet been decided? Before the NSW government signed the contract authorising this work to begin, the local residents should have been given full and open facts about their intentions, and where those intentions are not yet firm, the government, and the RTA, should have listed all possible options. And that list must be exclusive, so the contractor can't come up later with a new cheaper but more destructive, option. Nor should the contractor be able to charge the taxpayer for selecting a more expensive but less disruptive option.
An RTA spokesman apparently said "The impact of the proposed bridge closure on local traffic is still being assessed." This blogger can find no word on this in the earlier RTA and M2 Project documentation.
The spokesman went on, "Consultation with residents has not yet started and will be carried out before any decision is made."
The statements available so far are ambiguous, and could be read as meaning work on the bridge won't start for six months, and might be limited to minor lane closures. But the actual wording was that "it will be at least six months before a replacement bridge is constructed."
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Kirkham Bridge
The M2 Upgrade Environmental Assessment document issued by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority says under the heading "Adjacent road network - Activities undertaken within the adjacent road network are listed in Table 53", and that table shows
"Kirkham Street/Kirkham Street Lengthening of bridge spans over M2 Motorway." Clearly that does not cover demolishing the bridge, so presumably that reading of the RTA statements must be incorrect. But what are the RTA's plans as they affect residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham?
"Kirkham Street/Kirkham Street Lengthening of bridge spans over M2 Motorway." Clearly that does not cover demolishing the bridge, so presumably that reading of the RTA statements must be incorrect. But what are the RTA's plans as they affect residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham?
M2 Project intentions for Kirkham Road Bridge
Dear Fellow Resident,
This is an extract from an information sheet from the BCCT:
Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust President Michael Stove’s media release below, raises real concerns about the integrity of our suburbs. The loss of the bridge across the M2 Tollway, linking Murray Farm Road and Beecroft Road, as below, is unacceptable. The Trust has contacted Greg Smith SC MP, NSW Member for Epping, to lead our representations to the appropriate NSW Minister, to reduce the huge impediment that the M2 augmentation will place upon our suburbs.
The attached photo has been sent to local media. I will keep you posted!
Regards,
Colin Johnston
Secretary, Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust
This is the media release by Mr Stove:
Bridge demolition will divide Beecroft
Michael Stove the President of the Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust said residents were very concerned by Transurban’s intended demolition of the Murray Farm Road Bridge, ahead of the widening of its M2 Tollway.
“Transurban has not provided residents with detailed information” Mr Stove said at a weekend gathering of concerned residents and local Councillors at the bridge.
Transurban’s media message is the M2 project ‘aims to provide efficient and integrated transport for the community of Sydney’s North-West’,” Mr Stove quoted. “Murray Farm Road bridge is a key link in Beecroft – its demolition is not transport integration”, Mr Stove said.
He added: “Beecroft will be a suburb divided. How do our students get to local schools, our elderly get to doctors and chemists? There will be no local link from Beecroft Road to the Murray Farm Road area of Beecroft.”
“Our community has to put up with M2 construction, with loss of greenspace and local amenity. It is unacceptable that Beecroft residents will also be cut off from shops, services, friends and neighbours by Transurban’s ill-considered bridge demolition.” Mr Stove also noted: “Transurban advises The start of major work is expected to commence in late 2010 and is expected to take approximately two years to complete. It will be at least 6 months before a replacement bridge is constructed.”
Mr Stove commented that there is an engineering solution which should be pursued by Transurban, instead of subjecting our residents to months of inconvenience.
Contact:
Michael Stove:
President, Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust
0401 991 927
This is an extract from an information sheet from the BCCT:
Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust President Michael Stove’s media release below, raises real concerns about the integrity of our suburbs. The loss of the bridge across the M2 Tollway, linking Murray Farm Road and Beecroft Road, as below, is unacceptable. The Trust has contacted Greg Smith SC MP, NSW Member for Epping, to lead our representations to the appropriate NSW Minister, to reduce the huge impediment that the M2 augmentation will place upon our suburbs.
The attached photo has been sent to local media. I will keep you posted!
Regards,
Colin Johnston
Secretary, Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust
This is the media release by Mr Stove:
Bridge demolition will divide Beecroft
Michael Stove the President of the Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust said residents were very concerned by Transurban’s intended demolition of the Murray Farm Road Bridge, ahead of the widening of its M2 Tollway.
“Transurban has not provided residents with detailed information” Mr Stove said at a weekend gathering of concerned residents and local Councillors at the bridge.
Transurban’s media message is the M2 project ‘aims to provide efficient and integrated transport for the community of Sydney’s North-West’,” Mr Stove quoted. “Murray Farm Road bridge is a key link in Beecroft – its demolition is not transport integration”, Mr Stove said.
He added: “Beecroft will be a suburb divided. How do our students get to local schools, our elderly get to doctors and chemists? There will be no local link from Beecroft Road to the Murray Farm Road area of Beecroft.”
“Our community has to put up with M2 construction, with loss of greenspace and local amenity. It is unacceptable that Beecroft residents will also be cut off from shops, services, friends and neighbours by Transurban’s ill-considered bridge demolition.” Mr Stove also noted: “Transurban advises The start of major work is expected to commence in late 2010 and is expected to take approximately two years to complete. It will be at least 6 months before a replacement bridge is constructed.”
Mr Stove commented that there is an engineering solution which should be pursued by Transurban, instead of subjecting our residents to months of inconvenience.
Contact:
Michael Stove:
President, Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust
0401 991 927
Monday, October 25, 2010
M2 Upgrade Concerns raised in NSW Parliament
Greg Smith, Liberal member of NSW parliament for Epping, raised the community's concerns about the M2 Upgrade in Parliament last Friday. Summarising his excellent speach, why put the community through so much disruption and inconvenience, and indirectly tax road users to the tune of $550M, for an upgrade that will be rendered obsolete by the North West Rail Link?
M2 Upgrade - Bus performance indicators
Extract from Hansard 19 October.
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (Greens): I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Transport. Why did the Government take no action to ensure that performance indicators were included for the M2 expansion that required an increase in bus services and bus patronage rates?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I will take that question on notice.
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (Greens): I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Transport. Why did the Government take no action to ensure that performance indicators were included for the M2 expansion that required an increase in bus services and bus patronage rates?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I will take that question on notice.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Domestic Solar Installations Cost Blowout
If you want to install solar panels and take advantage of the NSW government's Clean Energy enterprise, you probably need to hurry. It looks like it's going the way of the home insulation scheme! Another great Green Plan but equally ill-administered and financially unviable.
The domestic solar scheme allows households to install panels on their roofs then sell electricity from those roof panels back to the state at a very attractive price, then draw back coal-fired mains electricity at a third of that price! Apparently the scheme is one of the most generous in the world. The trick is that the system is funded by the power generator utilities, not by the state, which means that other uses of electricity will find their bills going up to pay for it
According to the Daily Telegraph new solar connections are being made nine times faster than expected. One suspects that outrage from consumers when they see their bills will lead the NSW government to can this scheme too.
This smacks of the funding scheme that is planned for the M2 Upgrade, where the contractor, Transurban, will be funding the construction and recouping his costs from increased road tolls. In theory it's cash-neutral for the NSW government, like they intended the Cross City and Lane Cove Tunnel projects to be. It would be nice to see the contract for the M2 upgrade and find out what liabilities will accrue to the tax payer if things don't go as planned.
The domestic solar scheme allows households to install panels on their roofs then sell electricity from those roof panels back to the state at a very attractive price, then draw back coal-fired mains electricity at a third of that price! Apparently the scheme is one of the most generous in the world. The trick is that the system is funded by the power generator utilities, not by the state, which means that other uses of electricity will find their bills going up to pay for it
According to the Daily Telegraph new solar connections are being made nine times faster than expected. One suspects that outrage from consumers when they see their bills will lead the NSW government to can this scheme too.
This smacks of the funding scheme that is planned for the M2 Upgrade, where the contractor, Transurban, will be funding the construction and recouping his costs from increased road tolls. In theory it's cash-neutral for the NSW government, like they intended the Cross City and Lane Cove Tunnel projects to be. It would be nice to see the contract for the M2 upgrade and find out what liabilities will accrue to the tax payer if things don't go as planned.
Friday, October 1, 2010
M2 Upgrade Controversy Heating Up
The Transurban/RTA's ''road user cost-benefit analysis'' estimated widening the M2 would increase average vehicle speed by 40 km/h in typical stop-start conditions.
But Dr John Goldberg - a former principal scientist with the CSIRO's National Measurement Laboratory, now at the University of Sydney - recently tabled an analysis (which has been peer-reviewed) that disagrees. John predicts that widening the tollway from four lanes to six gives only a 50 per cent chance of the average traffic speed increasing by more than 10 km/h.
A spokesman for Transurban responded that the reference to 40 km/h in the company's analysis was a ''standard speed, used for all road projects assessed in NSW''. Doesn't sound like rigorous scientific methodology!
But Dr John Goldberg - a former principal scientist with the CSIRO's National Measurement Laboratory, now at the University of Sydney - recently tabled an analysis (which has been peer-reviewed) that disagrees. John predicts that widening the tollway from four lanes to six gives only a 50 per cent chance of the average traffic speed increasing by more than 10 km/h.
A spokesman for Transurban responded that the reference to 40 km/h in the company's analysis was a ''standard speed, used for all road projects assessed in NSW''. Doesn't sound like rigorous scientific methodology!
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Opposition to the Barangaroo Lend Lease proposal
Reading the newsletter of the Barangaroo Action Group, I found a number of excellent arguments against the proposal, including this one:
1 - A single developer undertaking the whole development results in lack of competition and places in the hands of one corporate entity the timeframes for the construction, which will be dictated by that one entity’s commercial interests. As such, residents and city workers will be living in a construction site for up to 15 to 20 years, while an unacceptable high density development spreads over the whole site, much as Lend Lease’s Jacksons Landing project has done.
The same argument could be used against the proposed commercial upgrade of the M2. If Transurban is allowed to manage this $550M project, what guarantees will the NSW government have, and what penalties will be available, to enforce timescales and standards?
Regarding the proposed huge hotel in Barangaroo, Lend Lease promise that it will remain a hotel, but such promises are seldom kept - like the divided carriageway of the M2 over Clilworth Reserve, which Transurban now intends to fill in as part of the widening project. A number of news articles have implied that Lend Lease anticipates the hotel failing when they will seek approval to convert the building into prime appartments, making another obscene profit.
1 - A single developer undertaking the whole development results in lack of competition and places in the hands of one corporate entity the timeframes for the construction, which will be dictated by that one entity’s commercial interests. As such, residents and city workers will be living in a construction site for up to 15 to 20 years, while an unacceptable high density development spreads over the whole site, much as Lend Lease’s Jacksons Landing project has done.
The same argument could be used against the proposed commercial upgrade of the M2. If Transurban is allowed to manage this $550M project, what guarantees will the NSW government have, and what penalties will be available, to enforce timescales and standards?
Regarding the proposed huge hotel in Barangaroo, Lend Lease promise that it will remain a hotel, but such promises are seldom kept - like the divided carriageway of the M2 over Clilworth Reserve, which Transurban now intends to fill in as part of the widening project. A number of news articles have implied that Lend Lease anticipates the hotel failing when they will seek approval to convert the building into prime appartments, making another obscene profit.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
M2 Widening Benefits Challenged
John Goldberg, a former principal scientist at the CSIRO and now at University of Sydney has questioned the validity of statistics used to justify the $550M project to widen the M2 through Beecroft and Cheltenham.
Mr Goldberg told the Sydney Morning Herald that he had studied all the traffic densities and the corresponding speeds and concludes that it would be a break-even proposition to get more than 10 km/h increase in average speeds. Transurban have claimed a 40 km/h increase, an estimate that Mr Goldberg says is "wildly out".
He also challenges their estimates for cost-benefit ratios for travel times, accidents, and vehicle operating costs. The company's analysis concluded "the project is economically worthwhile with benefits for the community being estimated to be 3.4 times greater than the costs." Mr Goldberg has reached very different conclusions. He believes the benefits will be only 0.27 times the cost, far below the threshold required for major road projects under the state's environmental laws.
Of course the NSW government and RTA are probably not unduly perturbed about the cost benefit of the project, because Transurban will be funding the work themselves and recovering the cost by increased tolls on road users, a rather neat way of new indirect taxation.
Meanwhile the residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham stand to have two years of massive construction work, and lose much of the delights of the Chilworth Reserve when the present quite tasteful two flyovers are replaced with a ten lane monster highway.
Mr Goldberg told the Sydney Morning Herald that he had studied all the traffic densities and the corresponding speeds and concludes that it would be a break-even proposition to get more than 10 km/h increase in average speeds. Transurban have claimed a 40 km/h increase, an estimate that Mr Goldberg says is "wildly out".
He also challenges their estimates for cost-benefit ratios for travel times, accidents, and vehicle operating costs. The company's analysis concluded "the project is economically worthwhile with benefits for the community being estimated to be 3.4 times greater than the costs." Mr Goldberg has reached very different conclusions. He believes the benefits will be only 0.27 times the cost, far below the threshold required for major road projects under the state's environmental laws.
Of course the NSW government and RTA are probably not unduly perturbed about the cost benefit of the project, because Transurban will be funding the work themselves and recovering the cost by increased tolls on road users, a rather neat way of new indirect taxation.
Meanwhile the residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham stand to have two years of massive construction work, and lose much of the delights of the Chilworth Reserve when the present quite tasteful two flyovers are replaced with a ten lane monster highway.
Friday, August 6, 2010
RTA backs down on Motorway Extension
According to the SMH today, the Roads and Traffic Authority "has been forced to back away from a plan to build a four-lane extension of the M5 motorway through Sydney's inner west, after state and federal ministers indicated they would not support the project".
The NSW state Roads Minister David Borger said the government had heeded the community's call: "I queried the benefits of proposals that appeared to carve through suburbs for the sake of route convenience instead of securing new more direct routes to hubs of economic activity like the airport and the port."
That observation puts one in mind of the ten lane carriageway the RTA is planning to drive through Chilworth Reserve in Beecroft, and the proposed tunnel under Pennant Hills Road joining the eastern end of the M7 to the southern end of the F3, both for the sake of route convenience. What Sydney clearly needs is a direct route road built to conduct traffic from the NW corner of the M7 directly onto the F3 further north, taking all the interstate traffic completely away from Sydney. It seems inevitable that such a road will be built eventually, so why spend all this money on short term paliatives, the building of which involve huge inconvenience and disruption to the local residents?
One piece of good news is that the M5 expansion had been shortlisted as a "nationally significant priority project" yet has been varied by public pressure. The M2 widening project was also listed, by Kristina Keneally in her previous position in the State government, but clearly politicians will respond if the people protest enough.
Back in May Kristina "personally deleted" the proposed extension of the F6 motorway from the government's transport plan, because the state doesn't have the money." (Sub-text - the State government seems to have fluffed several submissions to Federal government for funding, so money we should have received went to the other states.)
The reason the M2 widening project is still going ahead is because State is granting Transurban a licence to do the work at their cost, in return for being allowed to charge increased tolls for an extended period. Let's hope Transurban doesn't run out of money half way through the construction phase!
The NSW state Roads Minister David Borger said the government had heeded the community's call: "I queried the benefits of proposals that appeared to carve through suburbs for the sake of route convenience instead of securing new more direct routes to hubs of economic activity like the airport and the port."
That observation puts one in mind of the ten lane carriageway the RTA is planning to drive through Chilworth Reserve in Beecroft, and the proposed tunnel under Pennant Hills Road joining the eastern end of the M7 to the southern end of the F3, both for the sake of route convenience. What Sydney clearly needs is a direct route road built to conduct traffic from the NW corner of the M7 directly onto the F3 further north, taking all the interstate traffic completely away from Sydney. It seems inevitable that such a road will be built eventually, so why spend all this money on short term paliatives, the building of which involve huge inconvenience and disruption to the local residents?
One piece of good news is that the M5 expansion had been shortlisted as a "nationally significant priority project" yet has been varied by public pressure. The M2 widening project was also listed, by Kristina Keneally in her previous position in the State government, but clearly politicians will respond if the people protest enough.
Back in May Kristina "personally deleted" the proposed extension of the F6 motorway from the government's transport plan, because the state doesn't have the money." (Sub-text - the State government seems to have fluffed several submissions to Federal government for funding, so money we should have received went to the other states.)
The reason the M2 widening project is still going ahead is because State is granting Transurban a licence to do the work at their cost, in return for being allowed to charge increased tolls for an extended period. Let's hope Transurban doesn't run out of money half way through the construction phase!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)