Ross to form Westlink toll action group

ishmael whale

Its hard to argue with the logic, but will such a campaign get anywhere? My own feeling is if we're going to be overcharged for the bridge we might as well get it over with and buy it out. At least then we'll be able to pass over it without delay.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0112/roads.html

Ross to form Westlink toll action group

12 January 2005 17:04
Senator Shane Ross has announced that he is forming an action group to open the toll gates on Dublin's M50 Westlink Bridge.

The decision comes following an overwhelming public response to his appeal for support for the campaign.

A public meeting is planned.

BrianD

How about this option ...

Removal of existing toll plaza from M50 completely
New electronic tolling system using overhead gantries.
The entire length of the M50 is tolled using the electronic system.

The eazypass system will continue to function. Casual users will have to buy a day pass in advance or pay at selected locations afterwards.

The system would be fairer to all users of the M50. People who don't cross the bridge currently pay no toll but contribute to the traffic problem on the M50. The electronic system would be a "pay by KM" - the more you travel the more you pay!

John R

That would have a fantastic effect on the other roads in the M50 belt, they would all be jammed even more with toll dodgers.
A toll for all car use in the city; yes, for the M50 alone; no.

impr0v

BrianD wrote:

Removal of existing toll plaza from M50 completely
New electronic tolling system using overhead gantries...

This system is very close to what is planned as part of the M50 upgrade scheme, the oral hearing for which is currently sitting. The problem with introducing it at the moment is that the legislation does not currently allow for the enforcing of such as system. As I understand the issue a driver could evade such a system and the toll company would have no legal recourse in order to recoup the toll from him/her. The legislation is currently being drafted and is intended to be enacted in time for the completion of the scheme.

ishmael whale

Adding to the cost that needs to be bought out by investing in an automated collection system seems questionable. While it might address the problems of queues at the toll gates, the bridge has been well paid for at this stage.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=184&si=1240104&issue_id=11337

Westlink bridge will earn NTR €1.5bn in total

TOLL-road operator NTR is charging so much that drivers will have coughed up around €1.5bn in tolls on the Westlink bridge by the time it reverts to State ownership, hauliers said yesterday.
Chairman of the Dublin branch of the Irish Road Haulage Association, Liam Brewer, claimed motorists were "paying through the nose for the use of the toll bridge".
The toll bridge cost €38m to build and since it opened in 1990, NTR has generated €230m, with a further €100m going to the government, Mr Brewer said. …………

impr0v

NTR took a risk with their money when nobody thought it worthwhile and has reaped spectacular reward. The blame shouldn't be laid at NTR's door for negotiating the best deal they could and then sticking to the terms of it, whether or not the construction cost of the bridge has been covered or not is immaterial.

ishmael whale

It was a time of dumb decisions. The Government convinced itself that it couldn’t find €38 million to build a bridge for Dublin’s yet-to-be-completed ring road, but a few years before managed to find the equivalent in today’s terms of €40 million to build Knock Airport. How someone could work out there was a risk of traffic not turning up if you built a road in Dublin, but Knock Airport was a cast iron certainty, is beyond reason. I think the whole ‘risk’ thing is just an attempt by officialdom to attempt to retrofit some kind of rational explanation onto an incredible situation of NTR getting a multiple of the cost of the tolled asset.
There’s no particular need to tar and feather the Board of NTR and drag them out of town behind a buckboard. They saw a business opportunity and they took it. But its equally clear that from the public’s point of view we’ve ended up paying a load more than we had to for this bridge, and the toll booths can’t take the money off people fast enough to avoid congestion. NTR are making a whole pot of money out of very little. Government might take a reasonable share of the revenue, but they could presumable raise this revenue anyway without enriching a private company for no good reason and without erecting a roadblock on the M50.

Victor

TOLL-road operator NTR is charging so much that drivers will have coughed up around €1.5bn in

Interesting use of tenses (future past?) "will have".

From http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/#d1643.html - a tacit admission that the 1987 contract wasn't up to scratch.

Future PPP Toll Schemes

Financial/Value for Money Overview

During the period 2003 to 2004 the Authority entered into three PPP contracts. The contractual obligations within these PPP contracts are extremely elaborate and onerous when compared to those in the West-Link Toll Bridge Agreement. Some of the key differences from the 1987 deal concluded on the West-Link are:

* Competitive tendering process in accordance with national and EU tendering procedures, and
* Assessment of potential profits associated with tenders
* NRA right to reject a super-profit tender
* Specialist traffic and financial advice in assessment of tenders

The financial terms of the PPP contracts have been scrutinised by the NRA’s financial advisers, KPMG. This included sensitivity analyses and an assessment of equity returns to the PPP company at traffic volumes in excess of both the PPP company's forecasts and NRA forecasts. KPMG has concluded that the contracts entered into represent value for money for the public sector and that the revenue sharing arrangement included in the contracts is such that the PPP company will not earn super profits from these schemes

Zaph0d

Victor wrote:

Interesting use of tenses (future past?) "will have".

Future perfect.

When does the NTR contract for the West Link run out? Was it recently renewed to pay for a widened bridge or something?

Victor

Zaph0d wrote:

Future perfect.

ta.

When does the NTR contract for the West Link run out? Was it recently renewed to pay for a widened bridge or something?

2020, read my link in the previous post.

BrianD

impr0v wrote:

This system is very close to what is planned as part of the M50 upgrade scheme, the oral hearing for which is currently sitting. The problem with introducing it at the moment is that the legislation does not currently allow for the enforcing of such as system. As I understand the issue a driver could evade such a system and the toll company would have no legal recourse in order to recoup the toll from him/her. The legislation is currently being drafted and is intended to be enacted in time for the completion of the scheme.

You are correct! This is the very reason why the barriers are still in place on the Eazypass lanes on the Eastlink, Westlink and M1 toll plazas. NTR say that they will remove the barriers if and when the legislation is introduced.

There was no risk involved in building the westlink bridge it was a sure bet. Everybody knew it then as they do now. It seems that tolls are only levied on roads where it is a "sure bet" the M3 commuter motorway being the latest example. I am surprised there isn't one on the N2. In fact these tolling operations should be viewed as "concessions" - where companies can bid to toll any road by paying an amount in advance to the Government! There is no public benefit - private roads are more expensive to build if only finished quicker and the public still have Q at the toll plazas.

daymobrew

The Government convinced itself that it couldn’t find €38 million to build a bridge for Dublin’s yet-to-be-completed ring road

According to NTR's web site the second bridge cost €23 million. With inflation and rising wages, how did it cost so much less than the first bridge? The base was beside the original, obviously, but could they really have leveraged the existing structures and saved that much money?

Without NTR would the Government have built a nice ring road with a big gap over the Liffey Valley?
Maybe with a little ramp and adjacent signs changed to 120 Mph (instead of km/h) people could jump it.

antoinolachtnai

My problem with Shane Ross's idea is that there would be no point in buying out the toll road.

The government wouldn't make any money out of the deal, because it would have paid so much to buy the thing out. (They'd have to pay a price based on the net present value of the projected cashflows.)

The government wouldn't be able to remove the toll (or at least if they did, they'd have to hurry up and start building two more bridges and four more lanes, because the road will become totally overrun.

NTR have never said that they wouldn't be prepared to sort out all the slowness. Surely they would have more incentive to do it than a nationalized management company would? (Faster toll-collecting would mean there would be more capacity).

SeaSide

afaik the "foundations" of the new bridge were put in place when the first one was built so this would have saved on construction costs.

Realistically there is little that you can do to protest at the tollbridge but you can avoid the M1 toll and NTR have other subsidiaries.

Victor

BrianD wrote:

I am surprised there isn't one on the N2.

They are thinking about it. http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=6223&lang=ENG&loc=1714

The Government convinced itself that it couldn’t find €38 million to build a bridge for Dublin’s yet-to-be-completed ring road

According to NTR's web site the second bridge cost €23 million. With inflation and rising wages, how did it cost so much less than the first bridge? The base was beside the original, obviously, but could they really have leveraged the existing structures and saved that much money?

The original project for €38m (IR£30m) included the section of road from the N3-N4 and the foundations for the second bridge. Of course NTR didn't pay €38m as the project was 75% EU funded.

Nuttzz

The toll plaza could be replaced by a system similar to the conjestion charge in london, you go past this point and "click" you then have 24 hours to pay your toll (via phone, text or web) It didnt take long of the whole thing to be set up in london, it can be done, IF the will is there

Victor

Nuttzz wrote:

The toll plaza could be replaced by a system similar to the conjestion charge in london, you go past this point and "click" you then have 24 hours to pay your toll (via phone, text or web)

Or by post!!!!!!!!! I think they should still have booths available for those wishing to pay cash.

DubTony

Victor wrote:

The original project for €38m (IR£30m) included the section of road from the N3-N4 and the foundations for the second bridge. Of course NTR didn't pay €38m as the project was 75% EU funded.

Some of you may remember that the government wanted to toll the complete M50 and that toll plinths were actually put in place at some of the access points to the motorway (Toll booths were never erected). However the councils deemed the tolling of a publicly funded road (whether it was EU or local funding was irrelevant - the funding was still public money) to be illegal, so the plinths came up.

Does it therefore stand to reason that if the EU funded 75% of the cost of the bridge that the tolling of the bridge was also illegal?

And if so ... can I get my money back ? :-)

antoinolachtnai

You can still pay in cash in London.

The reason that system works in London is because an arm of the Local Authority collects the charge and has the power to pursue non-payers through the court. NTR don't have similar powers.

There are administrative issues with the London system. It works, but it's tricky to operate.

The whole M50 is going to get tolled once they figure out a solution for barrier-free tolls on the bridge. It's inevitable, even if it isn't on the explicit public agenda.