Talk:Shadow toll

NPOV
I believe that this article is biased against this system; this bias may or may not be reflected in the title itself (I am not sufficiently familiar with the political context to say). In the introduction, only one advantage is listed, qualified as a "claimed advantage"; this is followed by an immediate rebuttal (in the same sentence), characterizing the argument as "misleadingly ignor[ing]" the "traditional" option. This is followed by two additional paragraphs claiming additional disadvantages (though notably not qualifying these as "claimed"). --Joel7687 (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have started work on the article and will remove the banner when I think all the issues you mention have been addressed. PeterEastern (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now reworked the article and have now provided references for all claims. I am still not completely happy with the 'balance', but this is down to broken links into the Highways Agency website and the National Audit Office website. Notably:


 * There is a broken link to the Highways Agency from the critical World Bank article which reads "Click here for more on the rationale used for the British shadow toll experience."
 * There is also a broken link from Highways Agency page which introduces DBFO to an Audit Office report which is apparently supportive on HDFO - introduction which read "The first eight contracts have beaten the public sector comparator by an average value of 15%,... This is highlighted in the National Audit Office (NAO) report of 1998 called 'The Private Finance Initiative: The First Four Design, Build, Finance and Operate Roads Contracts'. A summary can be found at the National Audit Office press notice section."


 * Without these links it doesn't make very pretty reading, but there is only so much we can do to fix there communication issues.


 * PeterEastern (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Alberta Highway 216
I have removed Alberta Highway 216 which apparently does not used shadow tolls according to this quote 'The government did not assume any financing risk and did not want to introduce tolls or shadow tolls. It took on risk for: unknown environmental problems; aboriginal/treaty rights; defects in the other road legs already completed; and industry insurance cost increases. Shared risks include: utilities in the transportation corridor; municipal permits; Ministerial permissions; changes in laws; and force majeure.'

Scope of article
I suggest that the scope of this article should limited to the 'tolls' themselves, and not PFI more generally. I have changed the redirects for 'Design build finance and operate' and 'DBFO' to point to Private finance initiative rather than to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, I do not want to waste more time in discussion with you, but please! get familiar with Wikipedia policies. As you can check here, "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." I already provided the required reliable source. Also it is not appropriate for you to remove tags without providing the information requested or addressing the issue in question. I will continue to apply rigorously Wikipedia policies to your edits given your disregard for such policies, your repeatedly neglect of such rules and removal of tags placed precisely because of edits made by you. You really need to study what WP:original research is about.--Mariordo (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)