how good is he wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:42 pm
Yes if Govt was doing it ...but if built/paid by private consortium/s then it’s their decision to make it work, not the taxpayers.
When a critical piece of private infrastructure fails or is abandoned due to being financially nonviable then history shows taxpayers almost always take on responsibility for it.
I also get that people want to keep KI isolated but even without a bridge the tourists & people living on KI will be growing exponentially regardless.
It’s more about how to deal with it.
From the 2016 census - The Fleurieu – Kangaroo Island region was South Australia’s fastest growing region outside of Adelaide in percentage terms, increasing by 17.4 per cent since 2011.
From the census, Kangaroo Island population:
For Kangaroo Island that 2016 number is a 6.5% growth from 2011, quoting the combined Fleurieu - KI region number is very misleading.
Let's look at the ABS estimates year on year
2005: 4,440 (+1.3%)
2006: 4,456 (+0.3%)
2007: 4,484 (+0.6%)
2008: 4,536 (+1.2%)
2012: 4:579 (+0.9% since 2008)
2013: 4,636 (+1.2%)
2014: 4,706 (+1.5%)
2015: 4,777 (+1.5%)
2016: 4,890 (+2.4%)
If we generously assume that KI maintains a 1.5% year on year population growth that means the population of KI in 2048 will be a whopping 7,643.
So when it comes to a financial case for the bridge, the local population isn't going to pay it back.
Let's make some viability calculations though:
Let's assume that the bridge has 30 years to break even on initial construction costs, and that the 5 billion estimate is accurate and there are zero ongoing upkeep costs.
Let's also assume that over the next 30 years KI has an average population of 6,000. We'll say that every one of them want to cross the bridge once a year.
There are currently around 150,000 visitors a year to KI. Let's assume the bridge triples that to 450,000 visitors a year.
We'll also add on 50 trucks a day carrying produce from KI farms due to the easier access. (18,250 a year)
So 474,250 return crossings a year in a super optimistic scenario. To make back the initial 5 billion over 30 years that's $351 toll per return crossing, substantially higher than the ferry costs. The numbers simply don't make this financially viable unless you increase development on KI by an entire order of magnitude. Do that however and you will lose what makes KI such an appealing destination for tourists in the first place.