The decision to pass the costs on to the motorists can be seen as applying the 'user-pays' principle. However, this brings up the issue of which costs should be borne by the users which we discussed in Chapter 2. The Richmond Review recommended that 'urban domain improvements' should not be charged to such projects.
The redevelopment of William and Park Streets, and a number of the smaller items complying with the Conditions of Approval, are examples of desirable urban domain improvements.
However, at the time of the FAD being drawn up, this distinction was not made. All these elements were accepted as direct project costs.
Passing the charges on to the motorists to fund the further work necessary in 2004 required changes to one or other of the 'fixed' elements of the CCT contract. This could also have been funded by varying the escalation formula again, or by increasing the length of the concession period.