Printable View
Apparently a figure of 600m is being mentioned. Is this good value?
Seems like tolls will continue but just paid to the state & (don't laugh) claims of barrier free tolling by 2008.
I understand that FF/PDs probably doing for next election but I think it will backfire when people realise they still paying tolls. When you still paying tolls hardly makes a difference who is taking the money.
:rolleyes:
The most sensible suggestion is build another out "C" road , further out, to take traffic off the M50. The M50 is now a local road, not an outer relief road. I prefare them to use the money for that.
the whole point of teh m50 is to keep the culchies out of Dublin
by creating a round the clock wall of traffic - we have in effect a ring of steel
sure it needs tweaking - but the basic plan is sound
Doesn't seem to be working so.
"When you still paying tolls hardly makes a difference who is taking the money."
I don't know about that. If the Govt. collect there is a chance some of the money might be put into infrastructure or something. Surely that's better than making rich fat cats richer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
yeah - but most of teh culchies are actually in the cars - thats the beauty of it!
most noraml ppl ie dubs abandoned the roads long ago
I think paying them 600m up front will make them fat enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by noby
For once I agree with Pete on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
what do they do? fly?!?!Quote:
most noraml ppl ie dubs abandoned the roads long ago
According to the Daily Lookingglass Bertie has said the toll will be used to pay off the company so in essence our toll money will still be going to them .
At the end of the day it will end up the costing billions for a bridge that cost 70 million to build. This is the real face of so called Public Private partnership.
Seems to be no sense to the state running a tolling operation. I haven't heard any advantage to purchasing the toll yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Not a big fan of the PPPs myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I don't find myself often agreeing with Pat Rabbite, but he's dead right when he said that the M50 will be like Dante's Inferno until mid-2008 at least. The 8km patch they're working on now has been cut back to two tight lanes without a hard shoulder in large swathes. It'll be at least 18 months or so before it's either completed or the barriers are lifted on the toll bridge.
Michael McDowell seems to be an advocate of Ringo's plan for a further relief motorway carring non-Dublin traffic.
In what way? Will drivers be chewed between the teeth of a three headed Satan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
I'd pay to see that.
It's called the toll bridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
I think the AA suggested 5c extra tax on litre of petrol would pay for Nationwide Motorways without tolls. IMO a very good suggestion as 5c is nothing & also means eliminate situation where some parts of the country paying all the tolls.
I still don't get it. What in The Inferno is similar to the toll bridge? Am I missing something or are we saying that hell is bad and the toll bridge is also bad? It seems like an incredably weak analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
You just have to check the signatories of the deal to see why it's so loaded in favour of NTR. Every PPP represents poor value for the tax payer in the long run, as their all loaded to give higher returns than would be the cost of capital to borrow and build it for the Government. It's one of the great cons of new labour and their copy cats - low initial outlay, high cost going forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
As for tolling - I've no particular tolling per se, just who it's going to as outlined above and the method of collection. There is no reason why the technology for barrier free tolling couldn't be introduced, considering how long it's been in place in London for example. It would only require straight forward legislation. Unfortunately this Government is incapable of straight forward legsilation that doesn't try and bury some devil in the detail. It isn't very good at introducing anything in a planned way - instead waiting for an outcry on liveline. :rolleyes:
how do PPPs work for building schools? I am assuming they aren't private schools that they build so how is money made for the private investor?
Private Company builds and maintains school for a fixed period (usually the useful life of the building), and the State then pay the Private Company for the use of the building on an annual/ monthly basis. At the end of the period the school is handed over to the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
They're essentially like buying a house on a credit card instead of getting a mortgage, with the resulting difference in interest charges over 25 years. It's dead easy to hand over a card compared to getting a mortgage, but it costs you in the end.
I don't know the financial details of PPP road projects but i agree its hard to see how makes financial sense for the government in the long term. Easy to see why makes sense financially in the short term.
Again don't know the figures for the school PPP but they would seem to make sense. The private company builds & maintains the building, by having numerous schools in its portfolio the private company can make cost savings. The state sticks to what it does best which is education. In fact this would be good model for hospitals too.
anything that has gone on in the PPP in terms of building roads has been done on time and ( mostly ) within budget.
look the mullingar to maynooth bypass extension, it was finished before expected!
Same as roads, it doesn't make economic sense for Governments to go down this route of funding. The cheapest most economically sensible approach is for Government to borrow the money, and build and maintain schools, hopsitals etc. Private companies cannot borrow at the same low rates as Governments, so even with cost savings in maintenance (by employing cheap agency labour with no employment rights), they can't do it for less than the Government even before they add in their nice healthy profit on the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
PPPs are just another example of Governments doing whats best for their big business mates at the expense of the tax payer. They get away with it, because the electorate haven't got away from the view that debt is bad (okay), when it's debt for current expenditure that's the problem and unsustainable. Debt for Capital Investment isn't a problem.
That's down to the contracts used. If a non toll PPP is being built, there's no reason why the contract can't put in penalities for late finishes and increased payments for ahead of schedule. And infact it's one of the few things this Government belated got right was changing of the contracts - fortunately for their construction industry buddies this was offset by the move to PPPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
They now give all major infrastructure projects a ridiculously long finish time and high budget though. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they try and claim that the Port tunnel is on time and under budget - they claimed it with the Luas afterall!
Where PPP/PFI schools and hospitals have been built in England and the North they have been unmitigated disasters. Poorly built, badly designed but the main thing is someone makes a profit so its ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Its PFS, partnership for schools bohs! Thats changing by the way, they have brought in a new system to scale on metrics and indexes.
Same thing though no matter what they call it. When I said PFI I was refering to Private Finance Initiatives.
Surely this is down to inefficient oversight by the government departments?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Its a bit like the M50 toll bridge. Braindead contracts & lack of forward thinking by the government & Department what signed such a contract has us in the current state. NTR are a pricate company with shareholders not a charity.
More a case of politicians mates getting the contracts I'd imagine. That and the fact that the incentive for these guys is to do the job as cheaply as possible to maximise profit.
As I said earlier, check the signatories to the deal, and draw your own conclusions.*Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
*It was Pee Flynn and George Redmond if you're too lazy to look it up.
I am too lazy so thanks for the info. I am surprised the Controller & Auditor Genral did not raise concerns about the deal when done. AFAIk thats an Independent Office that Reports to Dail Committee not just the government. I think it has juristiction on state contracts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Not sure whether they've investigated the deal, but they only recently (last couple of years) audited the scheme, and options for paying it off. Iirc they uncovered large underpayments to Government from NTR. It was pretty obvious that car use would grow so hard to imagine the case for giving a private company a 30 year contract for collecting tolls rather than up to a set amount.