Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Citylink business documents etc. (split from the other thread)

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Sir Ride Alot, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. Untitled.

    It looks like one of the big boys has reduced their holding in Transurban.

    Here's another

  2. What is the significance of these SRA?
  3. the share price will go down while tolls go up
  4. The dates of the transactions especially from two large shareholders.

    I'll post a list of the major shareholders so we can see who the Transurban owners are that allowed their employees to perform such an inappropriate act.


    From the Transurban 2013 Annual Report. It's on the last page.
  5. Smee has removed this information from the citylink thread.

    The only way to bring about change in this situation is to apply political pressure upon the owners of the business and the politicians.

    Victoria is due for an election and this is where Victorians can be the most effective.

    The one thing that stands out regarding the owners is that they are all financial institutions. These institutions are all profiting heavily at the expense of Victorians whilst all of Transurban's interstate and overseas operations are losing money.

    Jeff Kennett and the Liberal/National Caolition allowed this to happen.
  6. So, I'm a bit dense and don't have much to do with shares. What was inappropriate?

  7. They are nominee companies, (just like the majority of the top asx companies), of which a large proportion are superannuation investments, the owners are me and you.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Proposing to charge motorcycles a toll.

    I wish this was the case but we are only clients not owners.
  9. fixed
  10. Yeah, highly inappropriate. As motorcyclists we shouldn't have to pay for infrastructure, right?
  11. So buy their shares and become an owner, then whatever tolls you put in becomes your super contributions.
  12. We shouldn't have to pay a shitload more than we have to and we shouldn't have to subsidise the losses of other states.

    If a person is happy to do this then they can donate money to one of the financial institutions.
  13. I'm sorry, I genuinely don't understand what you mean there.

  14. Citylink is generating over 500 million dollars of revenue a year for Transurban and that will increase.

    If it was government operated there is no way the cost would be so high. It would only be a very small fraction of what it costs now.
  15. It's a business; it's supposed to make a profit.

    Really? You don't think they'd just jack the prices and use the revenue to offset state debt?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. No one is saying we don't have to pay in fact we always have. A couple of dollars a month extra in taxes is far more preferable to the astronomical cost today which is over 1.4 million dollars a day every day.

    The Calder and Hume highways are far greater roads than citylink and their combined cost would only be a fraction of what people are paying the trolls for citylink.

    Westpac drives infrastructure funding debate

    Business Date January 10, 2014
    Georgia Wilkins

    Westpac says toll-road charges should be higher during peak periods to help provide funding for infrastructure.

    The bank, which is a big investor in infrastructure, said the collapse of several toll roads in recent years had deterred private investors from financing big projects.

    ''This risk has been evident in the toll-road sector where in some cases patronage forecasts have been overly optimistic, resulting in a number of toll roads going into receivership,''

    Westpac said in a submission to the Productivity Commission's public infrastructure inquiry obtained by Fairfax Media. ''As a result of these issues, we do not expect that debt or equity financiers will accept full exposure to patronage risk for new toll-road projects.''

    Infrastructure financing is a core part of Westpac's business offering, with its subsidiary, Hastings, a specialist fund manager, overseeing $7 billion in funds under management.

    But the lender said the government should look for funding elsewhere.

    ''In the US, roads are being charged dynamically, depending on the time of day, and time-of-use metering through smart meters is increasingly being used in the electricity markets,'' it said.

    ''We would expect Australia to embrace user charging more fully as a source of funding.''

    The Productivity Commission has received almost 60 submissions to its inquiry into public infrastructure, which will look at ways of encouraging funding for large projects.

    It will also look at the issues of high costs and long lead times that often weigh down projects.

    Westpac also said it supported public-private partnerships (PPPs), which it believes deliver ''superior value for money for government'' compared with other delivery models.

    But it said there was an increasing trend in some states for large government contributions to be provided after construction.

    ''While there are … merits to this approach, we note this results in limited opportunity to develop a market which offers longer-term project bond solutions. … it also makes the PPP market less attractive to financiers,'' it said.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/westpac-drives-infrastructure-funding-debate-20140109-30kfu.html#ixzz2pu7umt00