Uruguayan ferry company Colonia Express obtained authorisation from the Ministry of Transport and Public Works at the end of July to operate the passenger and vehicle route between Montevideo and Buenos Aires, but cannot begin the service because the only ramp at the Montevideo port suitable for unloading cars belongs to Buquebus, the company that currently runs the crossing alone.
A pontoon of this kind is the floating platform that allows vehicles carried in ships' holds to be loaded and unloaded. The one at the Maciel pier was built by Buquebus after it obtained the passenger terminal concession in 1996, and ceased to form part of public infrastructure in 2016, when the National Ports Administration terminated that concession. Colonia Express is asking the authorities to establish shared use; Buquebus opposes it.
Sources at the National Ports Administration told the Montevideo newspaper El País the matter is one “between private parties” and that the body has received no formal documentation on the authorisation. They said any ferry operation may use public berths or be agreed privately, but that the pontoon is not part of the authority's pier, so the decision on its use rests with its owner. Ministry officials said the file is within its review period and that administrative appeals are under way.
Colonia Express director Sebastián Planas announced the company will go to court seeking an injunction against both the ministry and the ports authority. “The ministry must respond to us and give us a solution, but on the other hand it is the ports authority that should require Buquebus to share the pontoon or remove it,” he told the outlet El Observador. The company also argues the state of the Maciel pier does not allow a second platform to be installed, and it aims to operate during the coming summer season.
The pier, 380 metres long with a five-metre draught, has dredging problems and maintenance shortfalls that cause periods of inactivity. A tender for its reconstruction is under way, with specifications still being drawn up. In March, the National Ports Administration declared of interest a private initiative submitted by Buquebus to rebuild the pier and modernise the terminal, valued at between 66 and 100 million dollars with a concession estimated at fifty years. That declaration gives the company preference in the tender process.
Between January and July, more than 500,000 passengers and 57,000 vehicles crossed the River Plate on this route. Buquebus, owned by Argentine businessman Juan Carlos López Mena, recorded 70,000 more boarding and disembarking movements than in the same period last year. Colonia Express has operated since 2007. The company has made no public statement on the pontoon.
Top Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNo comments for this story
Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment. Login with Facebook
Facts Only
* Colonia Express obtained authorization from the Ministry of Transport and Public Works at the end of July to operate the Montevideo-Buenos Aires route.
* Service cannot begin because Buquebus currently runs the crossing alone and possesses the only suitable car unloading ramp at the Montevideo port.
* The pontoon is a floating platform for loading and unloading vehicles in ships' holds.
* A pontoon was built at the Maciel pier by Buquebus after obtaining passenger terminal concession in 1996.
* The pontoon ceased to be part of public infrastructure in 2016 when the National Ports Administration terminated that concession.
* Colonia Express is requesting shared use of the pontoon, which Buquebus opposes.
* National Ports Administration sources stated the matter is between private parties and that the decision on the pontoon rests with its owner.
* Colonia Express announced it will seek an injunction against the ministry and the ports authority.
* The Maciel pier, 380 meters long with a five-meter draught, has dredging problems and maintenance shortfalls leading to inactivity.
* A private initiative by Buquebus to rebuild the pier and modernize the terminal was declared of interest by the National Ports Administration in March, valued between $66 and $100 million.
* Between January and July, over 500,000 passengers and 57,000 vehicles crossed the route.
* Buquebus recorded 70,000 more boarding and disembarking movements than in the same period last year.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The conflict centers on a dispute over shared access to critical port infrastructure—a physical asset (the pontoon) that exists in a legal gray area concerning public versus private control. The tension arises not from operational capacity, but from ownership and jurisdiction. Colonia Express seeks functional access for service provision, while Buquebus maintains proprietary control over the platform built upon pier facilities it controls. This mirrors broader tensions between infrastructure development (the pier's reconstruction tender) and operational rights.
The narrative demonstrates a systemic friction where administrative bodies defer responsibility to private ownership claims, effectively externalizing regulatory decisions onto the property owner rather than enforcing shared use principles. The fact that the relevant authority views the issue as "between private parties" suggests a reluctance to impose mandates when public infrastructure is entangled with high-value concessions and competing private interests. Buquebus’s strong opposition, coupled with the ongoing tender for pier reconstruction, indicates that control over the physical space is intertwined with long-term economic development rather than immediate logistical needs.
The implication is that true operational efficiency is stalled by fractured administrative mandates. If shared use is an option, the lack of a unified enforcement mechanism forces litigants into protracted legal battles where the outcome depends less on logistics and more on which entity successfully shifts the burden of proof regarding public necessity onto the other side. The focus shifts from solving the immediate transport gap to resolving the underlying structural dilemma of who governs transitional assets.
BRIDGE QUESTIONS: What precedent exists for shared use mandates when infrastructure is subject to multi-party concessions? How should regulatory bodies reconcile claims of private ownership with essential public transportation needs on shared waterways? Does the existence of a pending reconstruction tender inherently prioritize private capital investment over immediate public utility requirements?