Friday, October 21, 2005
Sydney tunnels: Sale now on!
The tunnel – a public-private-partnership (PPP) – has got off to an inauspicious start. In the first two weeks of operation, patronage has been at about a third of the 90,000 vehicles originally expected to use it each day.
Sydneysiders are unimpressed by the cost of the toll and have chosen to boycott en masse.
Operators hope that the three-week toll holiday will encourage motorists to get used to using it and that when the sale ends consumers will display the solidarity of scattering rabbits and capitulate into using it.
But the motorists’ unease has prompted serious questioning of the deal between the State Government and the operators, which underpins the tunnel. And the more information that is unearthed, the more squalid the deal appears to be, unless you are neither the government or the tunnel operator.
In NSW (actually, in Australia) such PPP deals remain commercial and cabinet in confidence, unlike similar PPPs in the USA and NZ. The details of the deal will never become public knowledge.
However, the NSW’s Auditor General is one that has been allowed to view and comment, but only on the executive summary.
In the summary, the $97m paid by Cross City Tunnels to the NSW government is described as an “upfront payment” made “in return for the RTA (Road Traffic Authority) granting it the right to undertake the project”.
The NSW Auditor General – nearly lost for words – called it “just a tax”.
But the RTA’s financial immediate interest in the tunnel does not end there. The NSW government stands to make more money, if more cars use the tunnel. If targets are beaten by 10%, the RTA receives 10c per extra dollar. If patronage is 50% above forecast, they will receiver half the extra revenue.
This might not be such a bad thing. Financial returns on toll roads have generally represented a good deal for operators, what’s wrong with a public authority skimming a little bit off as a kind of extra road tax on excess motorists?
Besides, with operators forced into a pre-Christmas sale, you might think it doubtful that the forecast patronage will be reached anytime soon.
But with the tantalising prospect of extra profit, everyone – apart from the Sydney motorists and residents – is a winner. The deal summary alluded to a series of surface road closures, to help the operators and the NSW government ‘encourage’ motorists to stump up and drive-through the tunnels. So the NSW government not only has the incentive to generate more traffic, but even has the levers to manipulate that outcome.
The details of these closures are, of course, secret, but few doubt that they will be heavily leveraged to restrict travel choice and to guarantee that the tunnel will become a low risk enterprise to its private sector operators and perhaps line the RTA’s pockets a little bit too.
But who cares what goes on in Sydney?
Sydney’s tunnel woes has major implications for Brisbane Lord Mayor’s own plans to tunnel Brisbane, also using a PPP.
Already there are rumours that the winning bidders will demand provision in the final deal to close surface road space to reduce their financial risk. But most concerning are allegations that the final deal will make the people of Brisbane liable to pay compensation to the operators if cross-river public transport is improved. Either way, the secrecy that will surround the details of the deal mean that we won’t find out.
It is touted as a public-private-partnership. That it is. But it is a public-private-partnership against the people of Brisbane, regardless of whether you are a car driver or public transport user.
At best, TransApex is nothing more than an ill-thought out sop to easy drive-through politics, when a better and more integrated and sustainable transport policy would have been better. At worst, it will ensure that Brisbane's “road system [becomes] less of a network and more a funnel to improve the commercial viability of the project”.
(Quote for Rod Sims, of Port Jackson Partners.)
See also
Sydney tunnels: Sale now on!
Posted by Living with Matilda at 3:33 PM
The tunnel – a public-private-partnership (PPP) – has got off to an inauspicious start. In the first two weeks of operation, patronage has been at about a third of the 90,000 vehicles originally expected to use it each day.
Sydneysiders are unimpressed by the cost of the toll and have chosen to boycott en masse.
Operators hope that the three-week toll holiday will encourage motorists to get used to using it and that when the sale ends consumers will display the solidarity of scattering rabbits and capitulate into using it.
But the motorists’ unease has prompted serious questioning of the deal between the State Government and the operators, which underpins the tunnel. And the more information that is unearthed, the more squalid the deal appears to be, unless you are neither the government or the tunnel operator.
In NSW (actually, in Australia) such PPP deals remain commercial and cabinet in confidence, unlike similar PPPs in the USA and NZ. The details of the deal will never become public knowledge.
However, the NSW’s Auditor General is one that has been allowed to view and comment, but only on the executive summary.
In the summary, the $97m paid by Cross City Tunnels to the NSW government is described as an “upfront payment” made “in return for the RTA (Road Traffic Authority) granting it the right to undertake the project”.
The NSW Auditor General – nearly lost for words – called it “just a tax”.
But the RTA’s financial immediate interest in the tunnel does not end there. The NSW government stands to make more money, if more cars use the tunnel. If targets are beaten by 10%, the RTA receives 10c per extra dollar. If patronage is 50% above forecast, they will receiver half the extra revenue.
This might not be such a bad thing. Financial returns on toll roads have generally represented a good deal for operators, what’s wrong with a public authority skimming a little bit off as a kind of extra road tax on excess motorists?
Besides, with operators forced into a pre-Christmas sale, you might think it doubtful that the forecast patronage will be reached anytime soon.
But with the tantalising prospect of extra profit, everyone – apart from the Sydney motorists and residents – is a winner. The deal summary alluded to a series of surface road closures, to help the operators and the NSW government ‘encourage’ motorists to stump up and drive-through the tunnels. So the NSW government not only has the incentive to generate more traffic, but even has the levers to manipulate that outcome.
The details of these closures are, of course, secret, but few doubt that they will be heavily leveraged to restrict travel choice and to guarantee that the tunnel will become a low risk enterprise to its private sector operators and perhaps line the RTA’s pockets a little bit too.
But who cares what goes on in Sydney?
Sydney’s tunnel woes has major implications for Brisbane Lord Mayor’s own plans to tunnel Brisbane, also using a PPP.
Already there are rumours that the winning bidders will demand provision in the final deal to close surface road space to reduce their financial risk. But most concerning are allegations that the final deal will make the people of Brisbane liable to pay compensation to the operators if cross-river public transport is improved. Either way, the secrecy that will surround the details of the deal mean that we won’t find out.
It is touted as a public-private-partnership. That it is. But it is a public-private-partnership against the people of Brisbane, regardless of whether you are a car driver or public transport user.
At best, TransApex is nothing more than an ill-thought out sop to easy drive-through politics, when a better and more integrated and sustainable transport policy would have been better. At worst, it will ensure that Brisbane's “road system [becomes] less of a network and more a funnel to improve the commercial viability of the project”.
(Quote for Rod Sims, of Port Jackson Partners.)
See also
- CATT the mouse
- Bunch of zealots
- Peak oil does not point to tunnels
- Tunnels? No thanks
- Reclaiming the streets
Posted by Living with Matilda at 3:33 PM
Disclaimer:
| I am employed by Brisbane City Council. All views expressed in this blog are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer. |
Weasel Word(s) of the day:
From WeaselWords.com.au
Recent posts:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home