Parking survey shows too many cars on the road
July 23, 2009
In the world of the chattering classes, in which there is research on all facets of life, another survey has now landed in inboxes around the world. This time on parking.
It seems the cost of parking worldwide has remained robust in the face of a global recession. This is according to Colliers International's global central business district parking rate survey that for the second year surveyed 140 downtown parking districts across the world.
In South Africa Cape Town is the most expensive place to park for the day at $7.61 (R58.20) a day on average, compared with $5.49 in Johannesburg. In Delhi, Mumbai and Jakarta, you will be charged $1.28, $1.07 and $1.52, respectively.
The four most expensive cities for parkers are London, where you would pay $56.68 a day, followed by Hong Kong, New York and Tokyo.
On a monthly basis for unreserved parking it would cost a Londoner R8 324 compared with R1 077 in Cape Town.
The question is: why would you want to know this? Colliers said the survey was to provide corporate property executives with the relative cost of parking.
It hardly seems likely that parking costs would be a pressing priority when selecting a suitable location for a head office. Proximity to regulators, as well as the regulatory environment itself, the quality of telecoms and access to customers would more likely top the list of priorities.
But what it does show is that there are too many cars on the roads. In at least one centre of wealth the problem has already been recognised. In London, including in its financial district, there is an £8 (R100) daily congestion charge levied on vehicles that drive in a designated zone. The money raised is invested in public transport.
With an estimated 9 million cars in South Africa, many of them in Johannesburg where they cause frequent traffic snarl ups, such a charge might well be worth it when the Gautrain is fully operational. Despite getting some traffic off the road, it could raise funds for investment in further upgrades to public transport.
But if car-loving Johannesburgers are anything like Londoners, they may take to cloning vehicle registration numbers to avoid the charge.
Verimark very marked
On August 4 the court decides whether or not the Van Straaten Family Trust and related shareholders were entitled to vote their shares at last week's Verimark shareholders' meeting that voted to accept the 50c a share offer ahead of a delisting.
It is a difficult decision because on the one hand, in terms of present law, the Van Straaten Family, as with all shareholders, has a right to vote. But on the other hand the exercise of those rights should not oppress the rights of the minorities. In this instance, by exercising their rights, the majority have certainly oppressed the minority shareholders.
Mike van Straaten's argument, that the two major minority shareholders should not be allowed to vote if he is not allowed to, is more entertaining than persuasive. While many minority shareholders may not have ulterior motives, as Van Straaten claimed of Homemark, they are all united in wanting to extract the largest profit from their investment.
Of course, if the court decides against the Van Straaten Family Trust voting on the matter then, as things stand, it seems unlikely that the delisting would get the necessary support at the 50c offer.
Van Straaten was at pains to point out that the company was not worth more than 50c a share, and indeed was worth considerably less. But even if he wanted to, he may not be allowed to make another offer within 12 months, even at a higher price. Rule 32 of the Securities Regulation Code states that in the event of an offer lapsing or being withdrawn, no offer can be made within 12 months from the date on which the first offer was withdrawn or lapsed "except with the consent of the panel".
If such consent was needed, it is likely the Securities Regulation Panel would take a much closer look at the issue.
Hidden Valley opens up
Australian mining group Newcrest Mining has, together with Harmony Gold, started an early stage viability study to look at boosting output at their Hidden Valley gold and silver mine in Papua New Guinea, according to a Newcrest statement yesterday.
It would be interesting to know to what level the two companies are looking at expanding the Hidden Valley mine, which is just starting to produce gold.
An analyst said the joint venture might be looking at expanding the mine to "350 000 ounces of gold a year at least".
That study could be completed by March next year, while the concept study to increase Hidden Valley production through an expansion of the processing mill has been approved by the joint venture.
However, an analyst yesterday indicated that Hidden Valley was restricted in its expansion potential because of the area that could be used for a tailing dam.
"Further environmental approvals will need to be sought," he added.
"As Hidden Valley is an open pit mine it would be relatively easy to expand. The major infrastructure such as roads and the processing plant are in place," he added.
In January, Harmony chief executive Graham Briggs put the total cost of the Hidden Valley mine construction at more than A$605 million (R3.8 billion). However, the company has yet to provide an update on what the final cost is likely to be.
Is it not about time Harmony released the latest estimate of what Hidden Valley is going to cost?
Hidden Valley, which is Papua New Guinea's first new gold mine in 15 years, is projected to produce up to 275 000 ounces of gold and up to 4 million ounces of silver a year. First gold production was achieved last month and full production is expected to be achieved by September.
In the June quarter, Hidden Valley produced 450 ounces of gold. It is amazing how fast the mine is going to ramp up in just three months. As it is an open cast mine the rapid production is somewhat understandable, but it is still one heck of a pace.
Edited by Nontyatyambo Petros. With contributions from Sam Enslin-Payne, Ann Crotty and Justin Brown
|
|
