[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[Vasco]

Not trying to make a particular point here, as options such as a tunnel may be taken up or they can simply get kicked out prior to the 10 year mark... (and yes fully understand business doesn’t stop in the face of political uncertainty).

But just thought it would be interesting to share. Brand new build (nearly opposite new Bunnings) and on the side ‘earmarked’ for demolition out of the two, if a non tunnel option was selected.

Also probably be in a landlord’s interests for acquisition payback purposes to have done this, rather than let their property be leased as an older car yard as it were. (Particularly regarding the 10 year lease).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[croweater888]

So that's both major parties committing the same amount of money. Now it's up to the engineers to come up with the solutions on which option should be taken. Exciting times!

The Federal Libs have now promised a total of 2.7b and Federal Labor only 1.2b. The State Libs will match the 2.7b with a loan from the taxpayers of SA giving a total of 5.4b.

This should be enough to complete this corridor hopefully.

It will be interesting to see if Federal Labor will also make the same commitment before the coming election.

Bill Shorten has already promised the extra $1.5b on top of the already announced $1.2b.

Both parties are offering the same money. $1.2b for Anzac to Torrens and $1.5b for Anzac to Darlington.

Is there a link for the Shorten pledge?

[Furyan]

So that's both major parties committing the same amount of money. Now it's up to the engineers to come up with the solutions on which option should be taken. Exciting times!

The Federal Libs have now promised a total of 2.7b and Federal Labor only 1.2b. The State Libs will match the 2.7b with a loan from the taxpayers of SA giving a total of 5.4b.

This should be enough to complete this corridor hopefully.

It will be interesting to see if Federal Labor will also make the same commitment before the coming election.

Bill Shorten has already promised the extra $1.5b on top of the already announced $1.2b.

Both parties are offering the same money. $1.2b for Anzac to Torrens and $1.5b for Anzac to Darlington.

On the 8th March Opposition Leader Bill Shorten visited Adelaide and announced a 1.2 billion investment to be used for the section from the Tram Overpass to Tonsley. This matched the Liberals funding in last years budget. Simon Birmingham, Federal Investment Minister, criticised this as coming late to the table for N-S corridor funding.

Source: ABC News Adelaide and 9 News Adelaide

Since then last nights Federal budget a further 1.5b was committed. This announcement had been leaked in the last couple of days and has not yet been matched to my knowledge.
Perhaps the Budget Reply Speech hopefully

[Llessur2002]

An interesting summary of the funding that has been announced:

More billions promised for North-South Corridor, but two federal elections away

The Federal Government has again declined to fund the North-South Corridor in the budget’s forward estimates, undermining Premier Steven Marshall’s infrastructure pitch for a second year in a row.

However, the SA Treasurer Rob Lucas argues funding for the project had to be placed beyond the forward estimates – the four-year budgeting period – because the former Labor Government failed to produce business cases for the project.

Earlier this week, Marshall and Lucas were spruiking a combined $5.4 billion “on the table” from state and federal governments for the final 10.5 kilometre stretch of the North-South Corridor roads project, described as the largest infrastructure project in the state’s history.

In last night’s budget, federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced $1.5 billion in new funding for the project.

However, only about one per cent of that figure – $15 million – is allocated in the final year of the forward estimates, in 2022-23.

The balance of the new money is promised for an undefined year beyond the forward estimates – two federal elections away.

It is a repeat of last year’s budget-eve pitch, in which the Federal Government promised $1.2 billion for the project but pushed the vast majority of the spend beyond the forward estimates.

A Marshall Government spokesperson said there was now a total of “$126 million” in the forward estimates for the project as a result of the consecutive budgets.

SA Freight Council executive officer Evan Knapp said last night’s budget was disappointing, arguing that infrastructure funding for South Australia was on the path to “collapse”.

“None of the $2.7 billion for future North-South Corridor works has made it into the forward estimates,” said Knapp.

“Not the $1.2 billion promised last year, or the additional $1.5 billion promised in the past few weeks.

“Our transport infrastructure funding has collapsed from $738.2 million this financial year for SA to only $289.5 million in 2021/22.”

SA Labor has seized on the absence of the funds in the forward estimates, claiming the Liberal Party had misled South Australians.

“Last year, we were promised by the state Liberal Government and the federal Coalition Government $1.2 billion to fix (South Road),” he told reporters this morning.

“That funding never turned up.

“This year, we were promised a further $1.5 billion to fix this section of South Road and once again this funding hasn’t turned up.”

But Lucas said the funding had to be spent more than four years into the future because the former Labor Government had failed to produce business cases for the project.

“Because of the incompetence of the former Labor Government not doing business cases, we’re not going to be able to … start either building tunnels or underpasses or overpasses on that until around about 2022,” he said.

“Even if you give me and (SA Infrastructure Minister) Stephen Knoll $1 billion today, we can’t start building the tunnels and overpasses at the moment because the former state Labor government hadn’t done the business cases.

“There no point in having the money … if you can’t spend it.”

From: https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/04/03/ ... ions-away/

[ChillyPhilly]

Classy Lucas turning it into a blame game. They've been in government over a year now; where are their business cases?

Also, this totally contradicts Rod Hook's explanation of how these 'business cases' aren't entirely needed. Infrastructure Australia was intended to remove politics from the decision-making process behind infrastructure funding, but unfortunately the opposite has happened.

[Bob]

So getting hands on the actual funds is a long way off? If SA can’t get funding sorted for this project in a timely manner, how does the State Liberal party think they are going to get the enormous amount of funding required for their pet Globelink project?

BTW the first two stages of the Globelink review are due midyear, hopefully the plan doesn’t stack up and gets shut down, that way Infrastructure SA can focus on getting all the necessary business cases and plans together properly for a complete solution for the NS MW, including a EW MW link from SE Freeway to the new NS MW.

Time to focus all the efforts on getting that sorted out, and lobby to secure the funding so it can be properly completed within the next decade. With bipartisan support both at Federal and State level it could be done.

[phenom]

I try not to wade into politics because there's always a core of members who think it's a team they are supporting for better or worse but this response by the State Govt is atrocious. Since the GFC in 2008 it's been really REALLY clear to every state and territory that federal funding for major infrastructure is much more likely (outside of obvious boondoggles which are undertaken for purely political purposes and those are the ones where business cases are pointless) when you have a fully prepared business case. I find it stunning that with the resources (ie people) in a department like DPTI we still don't have fully prepared business cases for the remainder of the NS corridor.

I've previously commented on why business cases wouldn't be prepared for many projects (they cost a lot and the media has a field day with 'wasted money') but it's not like the need for the completion of the NS corridor is going away. This is a project that should be completely bipartisan (unlike say the Liberal plan to re-route freight around the eastern suburbs etc) given its importance to the State so it's annoying nothing is happening on it. What happened to the State Infrastructure Plan? It seems we have entire offices of people devoted to these things and absolutely zero output.

It's been confusing though reading media reports for the last two or three budgets about 'Federal funding of $x bn' and then you read the detail and can't really work out where it is coming from. Usually it's contingent on State Govt putting up 50% but in this case it seems even worse - there's no real funding at all. I'm not surprised that voting Liberal at State level didn't actually get us any benefits but I can imagine more than a few people bought the 'we'll get benefits by working with the Feds' when historically there is little reason to believe governments of the same stripe necessarily work well together. If anything the pattern suggests you get taken advantage of particularly when you are a State on the smaller (less politically relevant) side. I'd rather have the Advertiser running stories of 'clashes between State and Fed' when we were still getting results rather than lots of chummy photos and zero actual funding.

[Aidan]

Im getting confused by everyone's number multiplication.

Yes, saying 3 x 3 but meaning 3 + 3 is a surprisingly common error. I think I've said previously that it's akin to claiming we should make the Dukes Highway safer by duelling it!

We want 3 lanes both directions right? ( in my head that is 2 x 3 or 3 + 3).
I would have thought that would be minimum in that part of the roadway.

If tunnels are to be used, 2 x 3 has the specific meaning of two tunnels each carrying three lanes.

As for how many lanes we need and why, I have an answer but for commercial reasons I'm not willing to go public with it yet. Sorry, but I need to make money somehow and I doubt anyone would want to buy what I've already given away for free!
What I can say, though, is that 3 + 3 lanes does not equate to future proofing.

[aceman]

ok I'm really confused now, is there funding for this project or not?
and what does forward estimates mean?

[Vasco]

I want to know how Tony Abbott in 2014 made a commitment that South Road Motorway will be finished in 10 years (2024). Then there is no forward planning on it, to ensure it can occur. Knew it was too good to be true at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChillyPhilly]

I want to know how Tony Abbott in 2014 made a commitment that South Road Motorway will be finished in 10 years (2024). Then there is no forward planning on it, to ensure it can occur. Knew it was too good to be true at the time.

That was a dinosaur career politician speaking.

[Vasco]

I want to know how Tony Abbott in 2014 made a commitment that South Road Motorway will be finished in 10 years (2024). Then there is no forward planning on it, to ensure it can occur. Knew it was too good to be true at the time.

That was a dinosaur career politician speaking.

Multiple Liberal MP’s used the line in the couple of years after 2014, I guess they stopped using it when it became clear that it was physically impossible to occur.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SRW]

ok I'm really confused now, is there funding for this project or not?
and what does forward estimates mean?

There's funding only insomuch as you believe that it'll still be there two elections hence in 2023/24 (aka, the never never). There's no immediate federal money.

[aceman]

in other words after Darlington and out north the project effectively comes to a grinding halt.. along with all the traffic on south road?

[SBD]

ok I'm really confused now, is there funding for this project or not?
and what does forward estimates mean?

The Budget is the 12 months commencing July 1, so this week's budget is 1 July 2019-30 June 2020. Assuming it is passed by parliament, this is the actual amount of money each department has available to spend/give away and broadly defines what they are expected to do with it (including salaries of public servants).
Forward estimates covers the next three financial years following the budget year, and gives an indication of what should be expected to be in future budgets. Sometimes, these require legislation in advance, sometimes it is planning for long-lived projects. For example if it is expected to take three years to build a big bridge, the first year's costs (which will mostly be planning and surveying) will be in the budget. The rest of building it will be in forward estimates of future years as the government is not allowed to spend money now on something which will be built then. Forward estimates are only estimates because plans can change - either because of political winds, global economics or because the estimated cost of the bridge turns out to be very different to the total costs of accepting any tender.
The budget papers also contain indications of future spending beyond the four years of forward estimates, especially for big-ticket items that might take many years to fund (submarines, north-south motorway, ...) and guidance of things like the overall size of the public service (which is cheaper to change slowly).