IBJNews

Indiana toll road came up $209M short in 2010

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eleven million trucks. That’s how many 18-wheelers needed to rumble across northern Indiana in 2010 for the state’s 157-mile toll road to break even.

Unfortunately, only about half that many did and the road came up $209 million short.

This sounds like the beginning of yet another story about recession-ravaged states bleeding cash. And it is, sort of. The twist is that the Indiana Toll Road is managed not by the state, but by a group of corporate investors, part of a public-private partnership experiment intended to show how businesses can help government run more efficiently and save taxpayers money—all while turning a profit.

Politicians from both parties have held up such private-sector alliances as a model for the future, as cities and states find it increasingly difficult to shoulder the enormous cost of building and maintaining roads and bridges. California, Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky, and Georgia are all courting investors, hoping to strike deals in which corporations will assume some of the expense and risk in exchange for a share in the profits. This money-loser in Indiana shows how difficult it can be to apply business principles to sprawling public projects.

Now five years old, the Indiana deal has yet to turn a profit, or break even. Two overseas companies—Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, a unit of Madrid-based Ferrovial, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, an investment fund managed by Macquarie Group of Sydney, won the right to run the road with a daring $3.8 billion bid—$1 billion more than the next-highest offer. The companies each owned a 50-percent stake of the project, which was backed by several overseas banks. The group then attracted other investors who bought pieces of the deal.

It turned out to be a bargain for the taxpayers of Indiana. The state received the upfront payment and has avoided more than $100 million a year in operating costs.

“The state got a great deal,” says Jane Jankowski, a spokeswoman for Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican. “The lease agreement contains numerous protections for the taxpayer and travelers and ensures the continued successful operation of the road.”

The private investors haven’t made out so well. Had the road been profitable, they stood to make millions per year over the life of the 75-year project. As it is, they have not been able to get past the debt they incurred in winning the bid. They have met their annual debt payments only by borrowing money and may default before loans mature in 2015, according to disclosure documents from Macquarie Atlas Roads, one of the investors.

The project’s 2010 prospectus said that revenue from the highway is “expected to remain insufficient to cover debt service obligations over the medium term.” The document cautions that “any default under the loan documents may lead to lender actions which may include foreclosure of the project assets or bankruptcy.”

Even Governor Daniels, who had enthusiastically backed the venture, recently said that the foreign investors had overpaid.

In an e-mail, Macquarie spokeswoman Paula Chirhart said the prospectus was prepared in 2009 during the global financial crisis and “was never stated as a forecast or an expectation.” She added that “we expect the Indiana Toll Road to continue to meet its debt service payments as they fall due.”

IBJ reported in 2009 that toll road investors were struggling because of the economic downturn.

Patrick Rhode, a Cintra spokesman, said in an e-mail that more vehicles are using the Indiana road as the economy recovers. A reserve account was created to cover financial gaps that occur over long periods of time, he said. “We do not expect a default.”

Even so, the poor results could dampen enthusiasm for similar projects elsewhere. In Ohio, which faces a budget shortfall of as much as $8 billion over two years, lawmakers are considering a bill that would give Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, the authority to seek a sale or lease of the Ohio Turnpike. Kasich has optimistically suggested the road might be worth $3 billion. Given the way things are going next door, he may have a hard time finding takers willing to plunk down that kind of cash.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • puh-leeze
    Sorry but Northern Indiana drivers DON'T pay the toll; well, they may pay it at the time BUT lil' mitchie gave them a 'payoff' --- they can file with the state and get all of their tolls back.
  • Huh?
    I don't really understand when you say that Northern IN drivers are now paying their fare share when they are the only ones paying at all. Even if the State were losing money on the toll road before, they were surely paying less to maintain it per mile than all the freeways throughout the state, since drivers were already paying tolls prior to them being more than doubled by the foreign operators.
  • You do realize that Mitch did not create the toll road, right? It was created in 1956. It has also lost the State money since the 80's, or in other words, since the legislators were too afraid to raise rates, people from across the State were subsidizing the nothern Indiana drivers.

    Leasing the toll road has been perfect for Indiana. The road has been improved and upgraded, the State has not had to pay millions to maintain it and we got almost $4Billion to fix other roads.

    It is a win/win. So sad that northern Indiana drivers finally have to pay their fair share now. But that is life.

    FYI, Federal law does not allow existing interstates built as free roads to be converted to toll roads. So 64, 65, 70, 74 etc... cannot be made into tolls. The only one that could/can is I-69 south of Indy. But the legislators refused to do that as well.
  • Those who live in Northern Indiana should not have to pay to drive
    I tend to object to forcing those in Northern Indiana to pay for driving on a road, but not Central Indiana driving on I70, I465, and I65. The Northern part of the state should not be required to pay for everyone else. This is a bad deal for residents who should be treated equally.

    Another reason I dislike Mitch and those who give him such power to abuse middle class while rewarding his elite charter school and road building friends.
  • Did you read?
    Did you read the article? "Selling off part of the state" was a windfall for the State and avoided operating costs amid declining revenue. The cash has been used all over the state - you may not agree with I-69 or a bridge over the Ohio River but those hired on to the construction projects are paying taxes and not taking welfare/unemployment.
  • toll-road
    if we have made 1 million on a toll road, we don"t own, why don"t the state own it? Way to go governor,out source and give away more of our state.We can afford to pave 157 miles of road,and keep all the money.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

    2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

    3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

    4. Send them back NOW.

    5. deport now

    ADVERTISEMENT