Share

Tav, for technicians it costs too much. It's controversy: "Analysis is a scam"

The Ministry of Transport has published the controversial cost-benefit analysis. For the technicians "the costs exceed the benefits by a figure between 7 and 8 billion". But Pierluigi Coppola did not sign the document. The commissioner at the Tav Foietta: "Inflated costs, underestimated social and environmental benefits", but Ponti defends himself: "Analysis devoid of ideology".

Tav, for technicians it costs too much. It's controversy: "Analysis is a scam"

The cost-benefit analysis on Tab it is public. The Ministry of Infrastructure has published on its website the opinion of the technicians to whom the Government has commissioned the study on the Turin-Lyon route. A few minutes and it is already controversy, with the Extraordinary Commissioner for the Turin-Lyon Railway Axis, Paolo Foietta speaking of "scam".

The analysis was signed by 5 of the 6 commissioners. The sixth, Pierluigi Coppola, did not consider the document to be signed. "I have strong reasons for perplexity about the method used for the cost-benefit analysis, and therefore also about the results it has produced," he told the Corriere della Sera.

In fact, according to the task force commissioned by Toninelli the costs would far outweigh the benefits. "The analysis conducted - the MIT experts write in the conclusions - shows how, assuming as input data relating to the growth of cargo and passenger flows and the effects of modal change, those not plausible contained in the cost-benefit analysis prepared in the year 2011, the project has a strongly negative profitability".

"In the "realistic" scenario - they write - the net economic present value (Vane), i.e. the balance between costs and benefits, is respectively equal to - 6.995 million considering the "to finish" costs (excluding the money already spent) and - 7.949 million if reference is made to the full cost”.

“The Tav – we read again – would have a impact on public finances of the states concerned higher than just the sum of the investment and management costs: these must in fact be added to the lower excise duties which bring the total budget from 10 to 11,6 billion (discounted flows) in the "realistic" scenario and to 16 billion in the Observatory 2011″.

The paradox, therefore, is that the biased technicians appointed by Minister Toninelli consider the lower fuel consumption - due to the drop in truck transport after the upgrade of the railway line – as a damage to the State when instead it is a benefit to public health in terms of less air pollution. A real madness.

Despite this, Professor Marco Guido Ponti, number one on the task force, confirmed in a hearing before the Transport Commission of the Chamber that there was "no ideological attitude" in the analysis. “The neutrality of the work group – he continued – is like that of a doctor who sees the clinical picture of a patient with x-rays and analyzes and sees him very ill. If the doctor is conscientious, then he replies that the patient is very ill ”.

E the penalties? According to the technicians their value would be very low, ranging from a minimum of 16 to a maximum of 81 million euros. However, if France were to decide to retaliate against Italy for the costs already incurred, the outlay could rise to 400 million. In general, in the event of dissolution of the Tav project, the maximum cost between penalties and reimbursements could reach 4,2 billion. These are the figures obtained by adding the figures contained in the technical-legal report linked to the cost-benefit analysis of the Tav.

As far as disputes are concerned, in the event of renunciation they could reach up to 30% of the quantified costs, even if the "multiple profiles highlighted do not allow for a clear determination of the costs in the event of dissolution" of the agreements, we read.

In this context it must be remembered that, despite the report of the experts led by Professor Marco Ponti (who has always been openly opposed to the work, like 4 other of the remaining 6 members of the commission) the final decision rests with the Government on the continuation of the work. The problem is that the two souls of the Executive seem to have opposing opinions on the issue: on the one hand the M5S which is pushing for the stop, on the other the League which would instead like to go ahead. The different attitude can also be seen in today's reactions.

"As everyone can now see for themselves, the numbers of the economic and transport analysis are extremely negative, I would say merciless", comments the infrastructure minister, Daniel Toninelli.

“We said it in any case: once you have access to the data of the ministries and the data of internal technicians and everything, you have the opportunity to have information of other types as well. On the Tav, for example, it is evident from all the data we have that it is negative as a work". So Manlio Di Stefano (M5S), Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, on Omnibus on La7.

Matteo Salvini instead he prefers to take his time, reiterating once again that he has not had the opportunity to read the file.

Who instead decides to react immediately to the news is the Extraordinary Commissioner for the Turin-Lyon line, Paolo Foietta: "I reserve the right to see the numbers in detail, but from the first indications it seems to me that the farce has turned into a scam".

"IS' a scam analysis – he continues – created to make ends meet based on what the owner wants. The costs are greatly inflated, while there is a huge underestimation of the environmental and social benefits”.

Harsh reaction also from the Northern Governors Sergio Chiamparino, Giovanni Toti, Attilio Fontana and Luza Zaia, interviewed by Corriere della Sera.

Chiiamparino criticizes the method of analysis: "when I see that the lost revenue for fuel consumption is included in the 'costs' heading, I think I ended up in the world upside down", "how do you define cost as what is evidently a benefit for the environment?”. The Ligurian one, Toti, disputes "basically the idea of ​​entrusting a technical body with an evaluation which, due to the thousand aspects it calls into question, falls to the politicians", because "infrastructures serve to create a development by its nature indefinite in the 'immediate', "of course, I hope that the League will keep faith with its DNA of strength that defends the reasons of the productive North". The two Northern League governors, Fontana and Zaia, linked the work to the development of the territory. "I remain of the idea that I have always had - says the president of Lombardy, Fontana -: the Tav must be done because the development of the North is linked to its creation", and "evaluating the benefits that an infrastructure can bring is not like doing a laboratory analysis. The Tav serves to connect our country even more to Europe. The benefits that can derive from it cannot be calculated a priori”. The Venetian governor Zaia fears that the no will have a "negative impact" on the economies of the entire "Po Valley axis", because "trade with the Danube-Balkan area will inevitably move north of the Alps".

(Last update: 11.50 pm on 13 February).

comments