skip to Main Content

Projects

Edaville Theme Park

Mentioned in Bridgewater video as likely location for a permanent demo system (but 1:00:00 implies funding wasn’t worked out yet)

Bridgewater, MA

Bridgewater proposal

2017-02-03 Video: Information Meeting (96 minutes)

1:24 “We’re building [factories, assembly plants] in the communities that are adopting this first. I will commit to ”

2017-01-27 NBC video – says testing should be “some time this summer”

Greenville, SC

Can’t find any details

Orlando, FL

Looks like a presentation was done April 2017.

Marlborough, MA

2017-06-05 City is expressing an interest

Financing

(Not sure if I understand this right, but I’m trying)

A Regional Operating Company (RoC) is a Public-Private Partnership (P3) under the DBFO(M) model: Design, Build, Finance, Operate, Maintain.

Building

City pays “Equity” amount to RoC, roughly $2M per mile.

Transit X loans “Financed” amount to RoC, roughly $2M per mile.

RoC pays “System Cost” to Transit X to build the system.

At that point, RoC owns the system and has no money left.

Operating

RoC receives revenues (fares) from passengers.

Transit X or RoC (???) pays right-of-way amount to City.

RoC pays Debt Service to Transit X.

RoC pays OPEX (O&M) to its contractors and vendors.

RoC may also need to keep buying new pods from Transit X. Is this considered O&M??? Or continued payment for building the system.

Question: Why doesn’t the RoW payment count against the Net Income calculation?

I would like more clarity on the following:

15 years @ 25% expected IRR with a waterfall profit distribution of:
1. 90/10 split until return of capital,
2. then 50/50 until expected IRR
3. then 10/90

One intepretation: For the first 15 years, we expect 25% internal rate of return. (Why 15 years??)

I think internal rate of return is roughly calculated as Net Income divided by Total System Cost. (??)

Until the loan is paid off, 90% of (revenue or profit??) goes to Transit X. But that 90% is in addition to the loan payment. It does not count toward paying off the loan. The City might (??) be allowed to pay off the loan sooner, in order to jump into the next category.

Then (revenue or profit??) is evenly split until the fares increased enough to reach the expected IRR which is 25%.

At that point, 90% of (revenue or profit??) goes to the City.

Note, the 25% is based on this document but the City of Santa Cruz proposal says 155%. I think this suggests the Santa Cruz proposal is significantly more viable (financially) than the other four projects. Have I got that right?

So, to get to the 50% payoff bracket, would we actually need to attain 158% IRR instead of 25%?

But the crucial mind-boggling point, that I need to triple-check:
The city invests around $47M. And after the system is paid off and successful, the City receives $130M per year, 90% of net income.