TR Economy & Updates

[TR_123456]

Why do you call it treason?

So,you find it ok to sell vital infrastructure like bridges to private companies?

This is not a bad idea if the price is ok. We need money now for our defence projects. This will be paid by people using those roads and bridges. As long as we dont sell critical firms and factories, no problem.

So,a bridge is nothing critical or important?


There is something significantly wrong with your way of thinking,both of you.

 

[Sanchez]

So,you find it ok to sell a vital infrastructure like bridges to private companies?

So,a bridge is nothing critical or important?


There is something significantly wrong with your way of thinking,both of you.

To be frank, I don't think this is about selling the bridge but privatizing its operation.

 

[TR_123456]

To be frank, I don't think this is about selling the bridge but privatizing its operation.

What is privatizing?
A private company takes over everything so prices will go up to make it profitable for the company.
The only difference is on paper then.

 

[Zafer]

So,you find it ok to sell vital infrastructure like bridges to private companies?

So,a bridge is nothing critical or important?


There is something significantly wrong with your way of thinking,both of you.

Are you aware that we have already done this in the 1990's, it is naive to oppose such a move, if you can find a buyer that is.

Also note that all our new bridges are operated by consortiums which mean the same thing.

 

[Huelague]

„Selling“ a bridge doesn’t mean the customer will take it away. The customer will operate it for years, depend on contract, he will maintain and repair it if necessary and of course take a fee. These contracts are time limited, in general.

In Germany we don’t have such things, because the infrastructure is owned by the public (taxpayers).

 

[TR_123456]

Are you aware that we have already done this in the 1990's, it is naive to oppose such a move, if you can find a buyer that is.

Also note that all our new bridges are operated by consortiums which mean the same thing.

Which deal was that in the 1990"s?

 

[TR_123456]

„Selling“ a bridge doesn’t mean the customer will take it away. The customer will operate it for years, depend on contract, he will maintain and repair it if necessary and of course take a fee. This contracts are time limited, in general.

In Germany we don’t have such things, because the infrastructure is owned by the public (taxpayers).

The problem is the fee,it already is expensive for the common folk using the bridges every day.
Privatization will make it more expensive,always does.

 

[Yasar_TR]

As @ Sanchez has already pointed out, both Bosporus Bridge and FSM bridge had generated billions of dollars and paid themselves off years ago.
They are still generating huge amounts of cash for the Turkish State Treasury.

To sell the operation rights to a foreign entity now means, quick cash injection in to state coffers and possibility of creating the likely opportunity for cream-skimming for some elite bureaucrats. An unnecessary and a damaging move for the taxpayers.

Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge (Third Bosphorus Bridge) since it’s opening in 1988, has not paid for itself. The bridge has consistently failed to meet its daily traffic volume guarantees, resulting in substantial, ongoing payments from the Turkish Treasury to the operating company, rather than generating enough revenue to pay for it’s own construction costs.

Also the Osman Gazi Bridge has not paid for itself through user tolls either; instead, it remains a significant financial liability for the Turkish Treasury. Despite high usage, the government's guaranteed payments for low traffic volume to the operating consortium continue to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

These two will turn in to another Yavuz Sultan Selim and Osmangazi Bridge case.
.