A case of highway
robbery?
With complaints
from environmentalists, truckers and small
business groups, two congressmen want to put the
brakes on private financing of state roads
July 16, 2007
By Stephen Barlas, Financial Week
Even as private equity
has become a dirty word with congressional tax
writers, another form of private financing has
aroused the ire of transportation committee
leaders.
Reps.
James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Peter DeFazio
(D-Ore.), who run the House highways
subcommittee, are threatening to amend federal
highway law to “undo” some forms of private
financing of state highways that are not in what
they claim is the public interest.
Over the past 15 years, major foreign companies
with experience operating toll roads have joined
with U.S. construction companies to form
consortiums that have paid states billions of
dollars for long-term highway leases, and raised
those payments by selling bonds, obtaining bank
loans and raising money through equity deals.
Five highways have been built via private equity
deals since 1990, when the first, the Dulles
Greenway in Virginia, was built. But these
public/private partnerships, called P3s or PPPs,
have become much more attractive to state
governors and legislatures in the past few years
as state gas tax revenues have plunged and
highway “to do” lists have lengthened.
“The state of Georgia adopted P3 legislation and
has been inundated with unsolicited proposals,”
said Paul Yarossi, president of HNTB Holdings,
which is working with a number of states to lay
the groundwork, legislatively and otherwise, for
highway PPPs. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signed
a bill in June allowing PPPs in his state.
Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell sent
legislation to his legislature in May which, if
passed, would clear the way for a PPP for the
Pennsylvania Turnpike.
“U.S. highways are emerging as an attractive
asset class for investors because of their
barriers to entry, steady operating
characteristics and predictable cash flow,” said
Robert Collins, head of infrastructure M&A for
Morgan Stanley. “On highway infrastructure
leases, investors are looking for 9% to 13%
equity returns using a 6% to 7% cost of debt.
This all can translate into a weighted cost of
capital comparable on an after-tax basis to the
tax-exempt rates that municipalities pay.”
However, some of the past private equity deals
for highway leases have had multiple problems,
leading to Mr. Oberstar’s and Mr. DeFazio’s
concerns, which have been heightened by
complaints from environmentalists, truckers,
small business groups and others, who have
criticized the deals.
Michael Replogle, transportation director of
Environmental Defense, told a House committee in
May that his group’s primary concern is that
there is no framework to ensure that
environmental policies enacted by state and
federal government apply to PPPs.
“Unless new and more effective federal and state
policies toward PPP road projects are adopted,
PPP road projects insulated by decades-long
concession contracts could become an
out-of-control source of greenhouse gas
emissions that defies needed accountability,” he
said.
And while the Bush administration has been an
enthusiastic advocate of PPPs, establishing a
pilot program in October 2004 called SEP-15 that
gives states more negotiating room with private
consortiums, a growing resistance to them
appears to be developing outside Washington.
For example, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill
in mid-June that severely limits private equity
deals for highways in Texas.
The objections to highway projects in Texas
range from opposition to paying tolls on
heretofore free highways, concerns about
emergency vehicles being stopped at toll plazas
and condemnation of private property.
The Texas bill forbids local and state tolling
authorities from allowing private companies to
operate, maintain or lease any of the 80-plus
state roads that have been on a “privatization
potential” list. The bill does allow for private
capital to build Texas roads, however, and for
that investment to be repaid by the tolling
authority out of toll revenue.
In New Jersey, the administration of Democratic
Gov. John Corzine had been studying a potential
sale, lease or other transaction involving state
assets, including roadways. Unveiling his fiscal
2008 budget at the end of June, Mr. Corzine,
however, said he would not sell any roadway or
lease one to a for-profit or foreign company.
While there may be differing opinions as to
whether highway P3s are in the public interest,
there doesn’t seem to be much doubt that they
are in the private interest.
A spokesman for Australia’s Macquarie
Infrastructure Group (MIG), who asked not be
identified, said, “MIG continues to believe that
the U.S. market is a source of opportunities.”
MIG purchased the concession for the Dulles
Greenway in Virginia in 2005 for $617.5 million.
In addition, it subsequently participated in
consortiums that successfully bid for the lease
of the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road.
Those were the two biggest P3 projects of the
past few years.
The deal Chicago officials signed in January
2005 with the Skyway Concession Co., a
consortium owned jointly by MIG and Mexico’s
Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de
Transporte, involved a 99-year lease of a
7.8-mile stretch of 48-year-old roadway. The
contract price for the concession was $1.83
billion.
Six months later, Skyway Concession refinanced
the entire deal. That was done, according to the
MIG spokesman, to restructure the loan repayment
amounts and repayment schedule to match the
amount and timing of the cash flow coming in
from the road. The package received
investment-grade ratings from Moody’s and
Standard & Poor’s.
|