Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye !

Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Main] >> General Chat

Message

Papaumau -> Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (12 Jan. 2005 19:16:54 )
Here is a bit of great news for potential visitors to Scotland or for Scots or Anglos that fancy a trip to the beautiful island of Skye: You can now go over the sea to Skye for FREE ! Up until recently and after the British Tory government awarded a contract to a PRIVATE company to build the new Skye bridge and to run it at a profit the bridge was indicted to be THE most expensive bridge to cross in Europe if not the world. Of course this disgraceful situation meant that the people who lived on Skye and who needed to commute to the mainland to work were unfairly penalised with charges that meant that many of them had to give up their work on the mainland, It also meant that individual tourist vehicles were charged prices that virtually killed off the movement back and forth from Kyle of Lochalsh. This had the knock-on effect of causing many of the tourist accomodations and businesses to close and for many of people on the island to lose their livelihoods. Finally, and after a bitter battle, the people of Skye have eventually managed to pressurise the Scottish executive to buy out this privateer company and to lift all toll-charges for crossing the bridge. A great day for Scotland ! Here is the Story of the battle of the Bridge to Skye: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ray_shields/bridge.htm And here is a picture of this beautiful bridge over the sea to Skye: [img]http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/ghayes/images/Dsc00021_New_Isle_of_Skye_bridge.jpg[/img]

Lisa -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (12 Jan. 2005 19:32:09 )
Now see, Papamau, your country is not as bad as you think! We have the same situation here in Massachusetts with our Turnpike. The government has for years refused to lift the tolls (which are quite expensive) even though the roadway has been paid for many times over. It services the western suburbs (where I live) into Boston. People that live in the north and south regions from the city have no toll road. So if you live west of the city, you have to pay to get there and the others don't. They do however have the "fast lane" deal that will give you a discount if you commute into the city every day but we still have to pay whereas the others don't! Glad to hear the Scottish have won the battle!

Tudor Rose -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (12 Jan. 2005 20:07:41 )
What a great day to rejoice for the Islanders of Skye[:D] The toll for going across the bridge was horrendously high. Altho I don't remember what it cost the coach, the figuring for just an automobile was outrageous [:'(] Here's hoping that an orderly flood of people head to the island so that its economy picks up.

AngloSaxon -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (13 Jan. 2005 6:34:00 )
Yes I was aware of the controversy over the bridge. It is obvious to all of us expect those that planned and built the thing that any charges should have been reasonable and very minimal to locals who have to use it (if any charge at all). That area of Scotland is not exactly loaded with people earning high wages and many will rely on the tourist trade for a living. For once Papa I agree with you on this one.

Papaumau -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (13 Jan. 2005 13:56:21 )
The Skye roadbridge was built under the contraversial PFI, ( Private Finance Initiative ),scheme where private money paid for the building of the bridge and because of this they were allowed to keep all of the tolls that were charged, ( An American company BTW ) ! Even after when the bridge had been well paid for and the company were making millions of pounds of clear profits each year the Scottish Executive said that they would be in breach of contract if they brought the bridge into public ownership. Finally a deal was struck that allowed the Scottish Executive to buy out the private company by paying them a sum of £27 million over and above the profits they had already made. The PFI and PPP systems of aquiring new public buildings has been very contraversial from the start as often these schools and hospitals and public offices were then rented back to the people at high rates over long terms that would see the initial contract paid back at around four or five times the cost that it would have taken to build in the first place. Long term madness for the public purse and a dogma that showed that our so-called Labour government were willing to do things that the previous Tory government would have been terrified to even try to do. What has this got to do with tourism you ask ? Well, these short-sighted plans did reflect directly upon the cost of visiting and travelling around Britain and where the tourists were not hit by extra stealth-taxes as a result they were hit by bridge and - soon to be - road tolls. You already have to pay to get into the City of London and after a referendum you will probably have to pay to get into the City of Edinburgh too.

Ron Hann -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (16 Jan. 2005 4:11:07 )
Sydney, New South Wales, has always had a Toll on the "coat-hanger" but, at least, they got an Under-harbour Tunnel out of it, as well. Well, I suppose that the Tolls on the Bridge paid for the Tunnel?????? In Christchurch, we have a Road tunnel that burrows under the Port Hills, themselves the remainder of an extinct (I hope) volcano. This gives a far more direct acces between the City and the Port (Lyttelton). This was paid for by Tolls but they were removed some years ago so that, now, it is a freebie. The Auckland Harbour Bridge was, also, a Toll structure but, not having been there for nigh on 15 years, I couldn't really say whether it is still of that nature. They widened the structure some years ago so they may still be paying that. Must find out. Current thinking is that Auckland will probably have Toll-roads within the quite reasonably near future. Date uncertain.

AngloSaxon -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (16 Jan. 2005 9:07:42 )
Papa, I don't have a problem with PFI as it allows buildings to be put up without any public money being put 'up front'. If it wasnt funded by the private sector the money to pay for new buildings would have to come from taxes. You know as well as I do that it wouldnt happen taxpayers won't pay for it, they will vote for another party who won't raise income tax. Yes there is an issue, like the Skye Bridge with locals having to pay excessive tolls. However there is nothing wrong with a company making a profit, they would survive without. After all when they sign a contract they take on most of the risk and are entitled to get a payback out of it, we live in a capitalist society and thats how things work. There have been problems with some PFI deals but that is due more with the choice of company and whats in the contract. The public sector is poor at knowing what it wants with these new builds so when something goes wrong its usually those who let the contract. If you want to see the future look at what the Conservatives are offering at the next election..public service what public service?? Its all going to be sold off

Papaumau -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (16 Jan. 2005 12:58:02 )
Didn't really mean to get into a discussion about politics here even although I DID make a political statement in my thread responses. I guess that the greatest argument against PFI and PPP, ( whoever does it ), is that it provides "jam now" that has to be paid for at very expensive rates over the resulting long term. Whether it is financed "up-front" by taxpayers or later - via ten years of lease-payments - by taxpayers, it is the TAXPAYERS that get ripped-off either way. One thing is sure: If the building of these structures is paid for up-front by the treasury they will be built at a present day fixed cost but if they are built by a private firm and leased back to the public, just like any other rented item they will draw up to five times the cost they would have required initially. This way the taxpayers REALLY get done in the long term. I am not against the profit motive Anglo but I am against profiteering at the public expense !

AngloSaxon -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (16 Jan. 2005 15:33:38 )
Yes the Govt should be careful, the PFI does offer jam today and if handled right could offer jam over the whole life of the contract. There is a business case drawn up before any contract is let to enable a judgement to be made what the total cost would be whether in-house or by external contract. It is not as simple as one off payment against 25 years rental (you have to include costs of repairs and staff to maintain etc). The costs involved in a private company building and maintaining over the 25 years or so is calculated against what it would cost to build and maintain in-house. As I said in many cases like the Scottish Parliament there are so many add ons and alterations after building starts that the costs are often pushed up to silly figures. There is also supposed to be a quality check to ensure that the company can deliver, they are not always the cheapest option because of that. They also look at a bidding companies track record at handling its staff. All I can say is that the ones I have experience of the private sector were cheaper by some way, the trouble is all the costs are never published for people to see because the are always commercial in confidence. All I can say is that to build in-house and maintain with directly employed staff is also expensive over 25 years. In any case in many cases without a PFI it would not get done, as we can see with the standard of many public buildings. AS I say I couldnt care less how its financed so long as its a good deal for the taxpayers.

Papaumau -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (17 Jan. 2005 13:43:15 )
The basic principal here is one that was discovered by the British people a few years ago ! A company called Radio Rentals - and a few others - used to rent TVs etc' to the less-well-off using the argument that after a few years you could give it back and start a new lease-contract for a more modern one. Very soon even the poorest people realised that they were paying for three or four TVs before they started the new contract and that the rented TV had required little or no maintenance during those years. Rented electrical goods is now a very rare occurrence. I see this as a very good analogy of the PFI system as the government similarly plead poverty and won't pay up-front for just about anything now. Applying this model to the cost of the Skye Bridge shows that the company that built it at around £35 million then started to rake in the government shadow-toll subsidies and the income from the tolls. After the first few years out of the overall eight years this income has been almost clear profit - less the cost of the wages of the toll-taker team. The bridge has required virtually no maintenance in this period. Now after being paid a £27 million compensation figure, ( note that this is just about the figure that it would have originally cost to build ), this company can stride away rubbing it's hands with glee at the money it has made at the hands of the British government and the users of the Bridge. No matter whether the money was paid by shadow-tolls or by direct tolls or by way of compensation for profits lost, the building of the bridge has been paid for by around a factor of six times out of the pockets of the British taxpayers and it's visitors.

Ron Hann -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (18 Jan. 2005 8:30:11 )
So, Papa, what's the answer???[6]

Papaumau -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (18 Jan. 2005 12:27:59 )
Ahhhhhhh Ron...That's a different question altogether ! [:)] There is a middle ground here where cash can be aquired from the finance institutions to pay for capital costs and a non-profit board can be created to look after the income from tolls so that they pay back the original loan and the interest. This way the people who use the bridge or road will pay for it via their tolls and after a few years the loan will be repaid after which the bridge or road in question then reverts to public ownership and all tolls are removed. This, to me, is the best of both worlds, as then the bridge or road in question is not paid for out of normal taxation up-front and yet the taxpayers get a good deal when the loan and interest is paid back as there are NO profits made and eventually the bridge or road becomes free to use.

Quenton -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (18 Jan. 2005 20:52:51 )
In full [6]'s advocate mode: This pre-supposes that profit is a bad thing. Which I agree is the popularly held view. However, one might assert that it is the possibility of profit that allows costs to be contained - as profit = income - costs. One might further argue that it is the lack of profit potential that causes many public sector projects to cost so much.

Papaumau -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (20 Jan. 2005 17:05:39 )
Of course profit is not a bad thing per-se, Quenton, but when public installations are built under the profit-motive they are not build to produce the best that can be produced at the cheapest cost, they are built to provide the company that puts up the money with the greatest profit for the smallest outlay. If these installations are then to generate enough income to maintain the dividends of the shareholders of that company over the long term then often the public purse just becomes a way to re-direct taxpayers money into the bottomless pit that is the private sector. [sm=soapbox.gif] [:)]

AngloSaxon -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (20 Jan. 2005 19:55:58 )
Papa - that is a rather blanket statement for all such new structures. Of course all companies are out to maximise profit and shareholders get a share. Thats why I say that when a contract is let it should make sure that it is clearly specified what is required, to what degree of quality and at an affordable price. The finished product must be fit for the purpose it is built for. When doing so all the relevant costs are taken into account. A PFI deal should be cheaper in the long run than building it yourself or there is no real point. Its upto those who set the contract in the first place to 'get it right', something which doesnt happen every time I accept but I am not opposed in principle to PFI deals.

Ron Hann -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (21 Jan. 2005 7:55:29 )
I agree that this may not have been applicable in the circumstances we are discussing here, mainly because of a small population base, but it seems to me that Sydney, New South Wales, had the right idea when they built their fancy Opera House. Based on Jon Utzon's original concept, it was going to cost, about, $AUD 7 million, in late-1960's terms. It ultimately ballooned out to, going on, about 15 times that figure, from what I can recall. Anyway, right from the word "Go", it was decided that the N.S.W. taxpayer shouldn't have to entirely foot the bill, so what did the Government do? They organised an on-going Lottery. This was so popular that, I believe, the money was raised quite comfortably and within the required time-span. Does that seem a reasonable solution to SOME of the projects which have long been on the horizon but deferred for lack of cash?

Quenton -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (21 Jan. 2005 11:01:52 )
quote: they are not build to produce the best that can be produced at the cheapest cost Looking at the Scottish Parliament, one might argue that when they are built in the public sector, they are built REGARDLESS of cost - due to the bottomless pit that is the public purse... [:)]

Papaumau -> RE: Newsflash.....Over the sea to Skye ! (21 Jan. 2005 12:20:59 )
You are right here of course Quenton, as the Scottish Parliament was a botched contract from start to finish ! The design was changed on a daily basis and there was no time or cost punishment clause written into the contract. Worse still, the contract was not awarded to the cheapest contractor but was given to the one in favour ? I suppose that a building as unique as this - just like the Sydney Opera House - would need to be built with an open end on cost. The private sector would NEVER take on such a contract as they would need to have their profits guaranteed. I guess it is all about value for money I suppose, but I still take the stance that when the profit-motive is in the way public buildings will always finish up being leased back to the people at multiples of the cost of the original build. THAT cannot be right !

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.1

0.0546875