Sell the Highways, Save the States (of the USA) From Default

As a former Libertarian Party member and subscriber to Reason magazine, I am familiar with this idea. I haven't made up my mind on it, but I suspect that its various attractions (some of which may be substantial) might be outweighed by its inconveniences (which might also be substantial). Some people might think this too outlandish even to discuss, but I think it is a decent topic to raise, wherever the chips may fall. On that, I don't know, so it should be interesting to see the arguments that arise.

In one sense, whether by tolls or taxes or other, you wind up paying for the roads. Relative efficiences might throw this issue one way or another.

GA tornado. You put a good framework around this discussion.

What I want to see is viable business plans. Or maybe I don't want to see them.

I have a feeling that the investor looking for long term profits will see a world in which motor vehicle populations will diminish in population as well as physical size and long range transportationat inefficient high speeds will ratchet downward along with standards of living driven down by resource diminution. The efficiency of urban living will drive a trend away form cars for individual transportation.

These trends will influence a gradual change in use of property once devoted to highways to other uses with a corresponding increase in value. This is the "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow". It is the true value of the privately owned highway property.

It's important to note that such future value likely won't be there for highways like some airports currently located near sea level.

Ed Weldon

One way for the public sector to balance the books is for it not to pay its private sector suppliers. These then have the unenviable taks of either seeking their income from elsewhere or converting debt to equity in some way. So it's not as difficult as it first seems, though somewhat abrasive commercially.

Most of what I see are "head in the sand" comments so far. But I'll try to comment on each one.

PW -- In the USA most state liabilities are orders of magnitude greater than the savings that would derive from stiffing private sector suppliers. Following which the suppliers would either disappear or drastically raise their prices. This would be a time cycle in months, not years. .......Ed

Sorry to say that it wouldn't work. Would be the same problem the government has in it's idea of privatizing the US postal service. No one would want the areas that were not profitable. They would still represent a burden on the government.

I wouldn't sell them anyway I would lease them. Continuous revenue and if they do not maintain them to a standard find someone that will.

The postal service is one entity with its own set of plusses and minuses. The essential reasons why no one got to beating the band to take it over was that there are no alternate routes for everyday home delivery and nobody could build a viable business plan that included that essential feature.

Relative to leasing the trouble with that is twofold. First the big ticket there is property value, not the improvements and their revenue potential. So a even a long term lease would not bring in as much money unless the property pot of gold was at the end of that rainbow. The other problem is that the management of government changes much too often. Lease "rentals" might go into the debt and pension payment pot just fine in this election cycle just to be trashed in the next one.

What is needed is a program that immediately retires specific debts or goes into an irrevocable pension endowment fund when the payment for purchase of a given highway segment is received. Eventually enough land and improvements would be sold to retire those obligations for once and for all. If the people of the state decide to continue to be irresponsible with their finances then so be it.

Ed Weldon

Privatisation of anything to do with the infrastructure of a country, in my mind should be a no go area. These are effectively essential service, that make the population feel safe, secure and what they do on a day to day basis, worthy while. This should never be undermined. A private company should never be able to run these core services. As you'll quickly find yourselves in a position, where you'll have a gun being held to your head and, effectively paying through the nose for these services. There will then be some outcry about this and, a government committee (so slow and expensive) will have to be formed to monitor what they should have been doing in the first place. Let's get back to the route problem of this. Why can't a government manage these areas properly? Is it because that most governments/departments can't manage themselves very well? What are they doing with all our Taxes? Is the Taxation system out of date? Why can't the government run these service and charge directly for them and adjust the taxation area that normally fund these?

So many question and, not enough answers. Sound like a typical government.

Or corporation.

Chicago and its parking meter deal looks to be a combination of typical Illinois curruption and stupidity in government. This is bound to happen with sale of the highways in some states that may take this approach. But other states are smarter. When you sell something for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars it behooves you to spend some time fine tuning the sales contract.

I do think we will see a time when some of the 50 states engage in self immolation. Their citizens will likely stop pointing fingers when the flames obscure their vision and their fingers melt. I even see the USA turning into an American Economic Union like Europe in some end of the century scenarios. But that's another topic.

Ed Weldon

So we would have to drive around the states that had stupid governments. That means most of then. Have you look at general some of the decision our politician make thru time.

Our fair Governor here in the State Of Indiana, tried to set the path for the poor and Medicaid over to IBM and closed all of the offices dealing with this. Turns out the contract with IBM never worked the people suffered greatly and we spend 100'S of millions on a system that would never work by design. Then had to turn around and spend 100's of millions just to go back to the way it was set up in the 1st place. Now that is why government should never have anything to do with money in the 1 st place.

We need to vote the officials in and send them in to be sworn in and then send them home to do nothing and till they have go be sworn in again. Pay them to set home, if they get together at any time for any reason, stop paying them. No harm no foul.

kramarat - In answer to you questions about who would pay I see the operation of privately owned highways working very similarly to the way railroads have always worked. The railroads handle all these things themselves although there is a level of government regulation that tends to ebb and flow with long term political cycles.

The essence of good management of highway operations will be in the ability of the owners operations entities to control the "traffic". The key to this is newly evolving computer and communications technology. Already we have railroads on which trains from non owned entities like other railroads and quasi-government passenger service corporations run more or less safely on the same tracks. And we have a century of experience with freight cars from any railroad running on other railroads' tracks.

There have been and always will be "back roads" that compete with railroads. The same situation will exist for private highways. They will have to compete with publicly owned highways, airlines, ships, boats, bicycles, electronic communications, shoes, skateboards, etc, etc. and of course railroads, public and private. I could relate the experience I had with driving a pickup truck in the 1960's when the Garden State Parkway (an excellent example of what was essentially a government chartered corporation owning a prime arterial highway). They had a simple rule: No Trucks!! If it had a pickup bed, even with a shell, it was a truck. Not allowed. So I drove on the side streets and other more or less parallel highways. Took longer to get where I wanted to go; but you got used to that sort of thing.

With respect to towing the individual needing the tow will have to pay the going rate. In most cases the property owner will charge whatever the traffic will bear whether he provides the towing service or simply allows a private tow truck service to use his highway (for some price most likely). We have plenty of examples of this sort of thing in our world today.

About Federal highway taxes by truckers....... this raises the issue of Federal involvement in the highway systems. To whatever the extent that the feds want to retain a "piece of the action" here they will do so. That's up to the Congress. I don't think the mood of the nation as a whole will tolerate the feds extracting "tribute" from this highway privatization deal once the need to fund highway maintenance and construction goes to private enterprise. I would expect motor fuel taxes and registration fees to go down in time. (Yeah, I know, there's always profit in the "float")

Ed Weldon

Hi Ed,

I've been pondering this further and I think I've come up with the single biggest reason why this wouldn't work in regard to your thread title, "Sell the highways, Save the States".

Drum-roll please!

The main reason I believe it wouldn't work...........is that our politicians, from the local level, all the way up to the feds, have proven themselves to be horrible money managers.

Selling the highways would be a one shot deal. I think our trusted elected officials would blow the money on things we don't need and quickly bring us right back to where we were.

Until we can instill some fiscal discipline in our elected leaders, I don't think any amount of money, regardless of the source, will fix or save anything. The problem isn't a lack of money, it's a lack of good old fashioned common sense.

C'mon, kramarat...... Say something constructive. I didn't start this thread to provide yet another platform for rants of frustration.

I'm trying not to rant, and I'm with you in your last post. Okay,...............here's a shot at something constructive:

Before we privatize the highways, let's examine why we think a private entity would be able to run our roads and make a profit, and the states cannot. The very nature of your thread implies that states are incompetent. I think that constructive thoughts and ideas can come out of your thread, but before we decide that selling the roads is a good idea, I think we'd be remiss if we didn't discuss the root problem, which is, why do the states need saving in the first place?

Whether it's selling off roads, state parks, or whatever else, we're talking temporary money. We also need to talk about, and address the root causes of these financial troubles that many of the states are in. I'm not trying to be negative, but if we just sold the roads, what are we going to have to sell in 2-3 years when that money is gone?

" …….the root problem, which is, why do the states need saving in the first place?……and address the root causes of these financial troubles that many of the states are in…… if we just sold the roads, what are we going to have to sell in 2-3 years when that money is gone?"

kramarat -- The idea is to reduce the current liabilities and muster the discipline to not take on any new ones. We are in the "monopoly game" of life. The board is covered with high rent properties and we have only one or two properties left to mortgage. We can retire from this silly game or just go on to bankruptcy (figuratively speaking; actually there is no bankruptcy protection for states of the USA) Which will it be?

I'd choose the discipline route including selling/renting off the treasured assets, accept the highway tolls, and make the best of it.

Ed Weldon

I understand now. I was looking at it from a different perspective. I'll mull this over further.

If the roads had been privatised, then why would the local state care <rhetorical question>? Funding that lot would be somebody else's problem. What a great way to reduce the deficit!

How?

It wouldn't save any money it would cost the states more. The state and local governments would have to spent more money to maintain the rest of the roads. Plus now you have to pay extra tolls, pay more for produces, etc. To tell the truth the losing the interstates would not save the state anything at all. It takes less resource to maintain one mile of interstate highway then a local highway. They are built for high volume of traffic your locals are not. With more and more trucks and cars using locals instead of the interstates the repairs for states would be astronomical.

And you think taxes will go down from the wind fall?

Or due to road conditions and accident occurs? And the road will have to be blocked off. Injured parties can now add one more entity to sue.

Or due to the accident the road or road repair and is blocked off., and a fire truck or ambulance is detoured. creating a loss of life or property.

......I see a surge in our colleges for future attorneys.

A perspective from the other side of the world.

Australia has a population substantially smaller than the USA (Around 24m) with a land area of similar size. Our funding sources are therefore restricted by scale. Our roads are not comparable to those that I encountered in Michigan and adjoining states.

Some states here have taken to "keep the roads that we have" but "Private development of significant additions" allowing the operators to collect tolls. At the end of the period (typically 50 years), ownership reverts to the state.

Most of these toll roads run "cashless". You buy an "e-tag" and whenever you drive underneath the control points on the highways your account gets hit for the appropriate amount. There are even some areas with variable rates for time of day to smooth out peak hour.

If you are like me and live hundreds of km away from the toll roads, then you can register your vehicle on line for a limited time and receive a single account at the end, or just drive on through and the account is mailed to the registration address of the car.

There have been some "poorly considered" agreements made and there have been some really good ones. One thing seems certain, there are companies willing to enter into such arrangements.

The only down side for me is that "Surely, if a private enterprise can find a way to make a profit in this, then why can't the public sector?"

Ed, you might have trouble "selling" the assets, since your individual states would already have some assigned "value" linke to them that might not represent what the private buyer would consider reasonable. Also, the value assigned would represent capital used by the individual states to "guarantee" borrowings. Sale of the assets would change those agreements in an adverse way.

Just an Engineer -- Good to hear the Oz perspective. We here in the US tend to ignore or downgrade the wisdom of our fellow UK expatriots.

Your experience with such toll roads is instructive. Especially the part about some having been done well and some not so.

I'm not sure the US states put up their real property assets as colateral for loans; but then the works of the State treasury are way out of my area of knowledge. I do know in the case of California the primary determinants of bond interest rates is the "full faith and credit thing" and the current CA rating is essentially "junk".

What I think is important about the proposal at hand is that the states in the USA have many reached the point that the issue is not about what is more efficient, public or private ownership and management. It is about the raw issue of staving off insolvency. To do this you sell off your most valuable assets without regard to their future earning potential. It is not about next decade or even next year. It is about surviving for another month or the rest of this year.

Ed Weldon

"To do this you sell off your most valuable assets without regard to their future earning potential."

In a government of the people for they people the most valuable asset would be the the people. Your use of the word their implies we sell the people. We might as well if we intend to sell off everything of value we own. The state owns nothing the people or public do. So we sell our state to keep it solvent. What will we have left to call a state? What we need to do is control those elected better. Bureaucrats spend wildly and unnecessarily with our money. They have for a long time not questioned the cost of goods just bought them. Its not their money.

Well now Ed this a handy topic. I believe the concept of transportation in the US needs a paradigm shift for any resolution to occur. The idea of a truck only toll road is interesting and the use of truck lanes is dubious as autos generally foul such usage by not staying in their areas. Leasing at least initially may provide a conduit for establishing methods of toll road adoption and then competition of various company holdings could materialize.

Here is an example which was built in the 50's & privatized in the 90's

The Indiana Toll Road

Hi Garthh,

I knew about this but wasn't sure about the actual situation until reading the Wikipedia account you referenced ...

"The Indiana Toll Road Commission operated the toll road from its inception until 1981.

The Indiana Department of Transportation operated the toll road between 1981 and 2006. On April 1, 1983, the state of Indiana established the Indiana Toll Finance Authority,^[7][10] renamed the Indiana Transportation Finance Authority in April, 1988.^[7]

The Cintra-Macquarie joint-venture assumed operation of the Toll Road from INDOT on June 30, 2006, after the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed a legal challenge by opponents attempting to derail the deal following the failure of the opponents to post a bond. The same partnership had acquired a 99-year lease on the adjoining Chicago Skyway in Illinois in 2004."

Based on this, if I am reading it correctly, the privatizing did not occur until 2006.

But, as stated further, the accountability I discussed before is indeed covered as ...

"Part of the agreement to privatize operations of the Indiana E-W Toll Road is to implement over $770 million in planned upgrades on the Indiana Toll Road. Included in the plans include adding a lane in each direction from the Illinois State Line to the I-80/I-94 interchange (MP 21), the reconstruction of existing pavement and bridge structures, and implementation of electronic toll collection system at all mainline and interchange toll plazas. The lease agreement also requires the ITRCC to maintain and/or improve the condition of the Toll Road to standards set forth by state and federal law."

It can work, as long as the accountability is there.

[It is interesting to learn that the 'owners' are now Spanish and Australian companies ]

[and so much for the old joke about trying to sell someone a bridge ]

Kind regards ...

Yeah I grew up in Elkhart county, but haven't been back since 80

I hadn't realized that the toll road had be privatized until I saw the thing on Wiki

We could probably stop subsidizing air travel also....

DCad -- While I agree with all you say about of accountability its application varies with the scenarios of privatization. What I mean has to do with what the state actually sells.

Garth gave us a great example of the toll road in Indiana. The Wikipedia article includes some very useful statistics. This shows what mainstream technology using electronic toll taking can accomplish. It is also important to note that the agreement is a long term lease requiring the lessee maintain the property but apparently conveying only limited rights to make improvements or devote the property to other uses. This is typical of most business property leases. In my read of the article I didn't see any change in the traditional system of Highway Patrol activities.

So in this case the state got $3.8 billion for a 75 year lease on 144 miles of 4 lane highway with apparently few if any expensive bridges. They didn't sell the real estate.

I'm guessing the highway right of way is around 150-200 feet wide. Let's say with interchanges 25 acres of Indiana farm land per mile. Times 144 miles equals 3600 acres. So what's an acre of Indiana farm land worth? Low end $3000 (It has pavement on it after all.) That's $11 million. Maybe double that in Rust Belt urban areas. So selling the land might not be much of a deal. In Indiana farm country. Might be different in California.

Ok, maybe my idea of including the land in the deal is a non starter. (I haven't given up yet).

Back to accountability. We have a good structure for accountability of businesses in the USA. Far from perfect (thanks Wall Street investment banks). Inspection of the safety conditions of highways is pretty straightforward. Like the bad stuff is easy for engineers to see and evaluate. So the lessee can be held to the requirement to maintain the property under a lease arrangement

Ed Weldon

The real estate would have to have restrictions to the title [deeds] so properties in desirable areas wouldn't be developed as commercial or residential uses

something along the lines of nature conservancies....

Hmmm.... Back to the Indiana example of a 75 year lease. 144 miles; $3.7 billion. $25 million roughly per mile fairly high traffic suburban corridor. Would this be an average for all the interstate highways? We have 46,000 miles of interstates. That's about a trillion dollars. Very roughly similar to the current shortfall in retiree benefit endowments.

Or maybe 8 years of current state budget shortfalls. Take your pick...... might just get us through this crunch the states are in until the voting public gets smart.

I'd still like to explore some of the mechanics of these privitization schemes with respect to coming technologies like computerizing the highways, inductive coupling for propelling electric cars, isolation of truck traffic as mentioned by bwire in response #15.

Also the role of highway patrols in future electronically monitored vehicle travel combined with sophisticated in-vehicle computerized driving aids.

Ed Weldon

Hi Ed,

I agree completely, but my constant worry is the greed of either the public or private managers, and the ignorance / apathy of the citizens to so blindly trust those "in charge". I think part of the problem that citizens have is a lack of understandable information, and that is why I would like to see more understandable accountability from any group who is responsible for infrastructure management ... if more knew what was going on, there would be a cry heard throughout the land saying, "they did what with my money". We are so easily duped. When Indiana lobbied and won the vote for para-mutual betting in order to have the Indiana Lottery years ago, it was under the premise that monies would go to build public schools. Maybe it does, but I would bet it is a tiny percentage. Not much different from the tear-jerking info-mercials to give to starving kids in some remote part of the world, when in fact, after the administrative costs are distributed, only a small percentage gets to the intended recipients ... but, who really knows?

Okay, I am being a little too grievous about all this ... maybe. But when any local, state or national agency reports suddenly that it is nearly bankrupt, I would like the plain-english facts to know how it happened.

One thing strongly in favor of privatization is, business people at least have a clue how to run a business. The example of the Indiana Toll Road was a good example ... investing management companies weighed the facts, made their bid, and won the right to lease the resource in order to make a profit, and they are indeed accountable for maintaining their investment according to national standards. Still, there are many other examples of privatization that don't seem as well operated ... privatized prisons come to mind, but I am sure there are others.

For me, the problem isn't government management versus private management, but with the general public who blindly trusts either to do the job without accountability. It is foolish to simply say, 'here's my money, my land, my infrastructure, my resources ... I trust you to take good care of it for me'. As a business person, I know that if I don't do a good job for my customers, they have alternatives and they will choose those alternatives instead of doing business with me. But, if someone mucks up my country, I don't have many alternatives but to suffer the consequences for years to come.

That's my soapbox . I would just like to see 'We the People' get our heads out of the sand (or various parts of our anatomies) and hold those in charge of our resources, be they pubic or private, accountable for their actions.

Kind regards ...

Hi DCaD, Your soapbox is in a good spot... I think any restructuring or proposals need reckon in the basement before deliberating in the upper floors. One huge excess we repeatedly allow is use of inferior surfacing products; this puts a feather in the politicians cap and much $$ in a contractors pocket coupled with extreme productivity loss during construction, and asphalt doesn't out perform concrete. At one time oil was cheap and asphalt was used to cover a multitude of sins but asphalt also limits usage or longevity of the surface is compromised. I did the math sometime ago though the result still stands that though concrete may initially cost more after thirty years the maintenance comparison shows concrete costs less than asphalt on heavy vehicle routes. The road base is troublesome in many areas and can not be maintained at high usage levels; possibly use of elevated roadway maybe and answer to the issue?

The toll road in Indiana goes from Toledo to the Chicago skyway, which was also a toll road, a straight shot. There are secondary roads that parallel, that locals would use.

The TR is an out of state travelers tax in some ways.

without getting too deep into privatization argument

wouldn't more toll roads increase the costs of moving goods?

Reduce the efficiency of transportation [wasted fuel]

There would be an increase in employment, The sales of EzPass equipment would increase

The money generated should be used to maintain & improve the transportation infrastructure, not to bail out the general fund

Garth -- The whole issue here is how to bail out the evil "General Fund". Building and maintaining of other free use transportation infrastructure is a secondary issue. If the general fund goes insolvent then the government goes insolvent. This is not an issue to be taken lightly just because we don't trust our elected officials.

If you need to build new transportation infrastructure then the issue of how to pay for it is certainly fair game. Tolls, fuel taxes, infusion of general fund money, bonds, money from the Feds, reg fees, ......... pick your favorite "poison cocktail.

To me the immediate issue is looming insolvency of the state governments. Every other issue pales by comparison. Immediate, direct and carefully aimed large cash infusions are probably the best answer. The worldwide investor marketplace is the most effective source for that. It is an enormous pot of money looking for reliable and predictable profit opportunities. And our states have something real there to sell. It's a one shot deal in most cases. The voters in each state will have to realize the party based on borrowed money is over. But at least this way the catastrophe can be avoided.

About the effect of tolls on the cost of moving goods. To the extent that relief from fuel taxes comes with imposition of tolls the effect on the cost of moving goods will be mitigated. We already pay some of those costs through our fuel taxes. The bias that results will favor the purchase of goods produced locally and result in a second order boost for local economies. Most people view this as a good thing.

Ed Weldon

Most governments don't use a general fund to handle their transportation needs. PA has a transportation fund which is strictly used for transportation issues.

The general fund scenario is a falsehood, a none issue.

Bakerjohn -- Please bear with me here. I'll try and explain my reference to the general fund in a briefer form. What I am suggesting is to use transportation assets to bail ot the state general fund. In most states the highways are tied to the state government legally in such a way that their administration and operation expenses are paid by the state treasurer and their assets belong to the state. There are exceptions. In CA the Golden Gate Bridge District is a legal political entity whose finances are wholely separate from the state. I think that is the way it works with toll roads in some other states.

If the state goes insolvent then the bills for highway maintenance and operation will go unpaid. So in such a case it seems perfectly reasonable for assets administered by one particular office be saleable to cover raise money to support the whole, i.e. the general fund. In states where the highway assets are owned in fee simple by separate government entities the solution under debate here becomes impractical given that it will probably require exceptional legislative action and even state constitutional ammendment to carry out.

Ed Weldon

Your Interstates are tied directly to the feds. The have the say not the state. States responsibility when they excepted fed monies to build the interstate highway system is to maintain them only. The fed dictate when and how with help from the state. So first you have to convince the feds its ok to sell off our main line of defense to a corporation(who are just, if not more corrupt then the feds)or another country. Once you have done that it's clear sailing to raping and pillaging the public.

C'mon bakerjohn -- The feds have an interest in seeing the states avoid insolvency. They may well cooperate if enough senators push the issue. Besides, who actually owns the highway property and what are the deed restrictions?

As to the first line of defense thing I already pointed out the general position of the highway system in our defense structure for modern warfare. Besides that all that is needed is a simple emergency declaration that virtually any level of government can impose at any time and the property owner's rights simply disappear for the period of the emergency and in many cases for an unlimited time therafter if there are any safety considerations. All it would take is a fire ax to put any highway computer control system out of commission in an emergency. And it would be completely legal.

If you don't understand the power of government in emergency situations I'd advise you read up on the subject because it directly affects you, your home and all your material posessions.

Ed Weldon

What is US DOT won't sell? Then what do you do. They have already shot down one state, PA. The sale of the property wouldn't be all going to the state most would go to the Feds how does that help?

What's to guarantee that every privately owned system would be held to the same standard. i.e. same ride ability, same toll technology, same safety factors? (i.e. a bridge is falling apart will they be on their own to fix it or will the state/federal government over see it to make sure they meet a certain quality and safety specification).

How would a highway be determined if it could be privatized? Interstate only? Turnpikes? Any four lane road? Any combination? In PA 60% of the roads are four lane roads, not all are limited access.

What USA company can afford to take over these systems? Not only will they have to purchase the road, but you have to built toll booths at each interchange, maintenance of the road (not only wear and tear but winter maintenance plowing, salt, cinders, etc.)

Will this systems be turned over to other countries? I remember an local article about a toll road in the mid-west run by Spain, when PA was think about maker interstate 80 and the PA Turnpike a private toll road with a joint company from Canada and Spain. I guess going to countries with a lot of capital could be the answer (i.e. China and India). There will be many issues with this point alone.

What's to guarantee our military will have free access to use these systems? That is the reason why congress passed and paid for the interstate highway system in the first place. To allow the military a quick and easy way to get across county. It's going to be hard with a toll both every 10 miles or countries we may have disagreements with.

Will the tolls be the same rate across the country or will each company be able to make their own price?

EZ-Pay is pretty universal

PA Turnpike

US department of transportationprobably already has rules, regs & standards about federal highways

EZ-pass manages tolls only period how does it answer the rest of my questions.

Keep reading, I didn't answer the question of which roads would be suitable for privatization, but DOT already does the rest

I do agree that using road money for general fund obligations is a non starter

Is their a guarrentee DOT would still be evauled? With state roads FHWA isn't involved unless they request involvedment and meet their requirements. If it's private will it be the same way will FHWA or will they wash their hands. Who's to say FHWA will allow them to do it anyway. They just turned PA down in it attempt to privitise Interstate 80.

Good real world examples, you can never have too much reality in these kinds of discussions

bakerjohn - I think if and when the feds understood that this is a strategy to prevent wholesale state government insolvency rather than just another way of raising money to fritter away on unrelated projects they would come on board. Certainly it would take lots of buy in from the top level of the Executive branch and the Congress. Remember, even one state insolvency will not be a pretty scene for the US government.

Ed Weldon

"one state insolvency will not be a pretty scene for the US government."

I don't understand this mindset. What in the world does the US government have to do with the solvency/insolvency of a State? There is no legal linkage or commitment for the Feds or any other state to stick their noses in another state's financial issues, for better or worse.

A state either makes its financial commitments or it doesn't. There isn't even any mechanism for a state to file bankruptcy, no matter how many idiotic talking heads spout off that nonsense on the 24/7 news cycle.

Would there be ramifications for state insolvency? Of course there would be. But that should be between the state's irresponsible legislators and the state's creditors.

And the sooner we let this happen and the hoops fall where they may, the sooner we may get smarter people "leading" our state and fed gov'ts.

All this creative financing, such as selling off the highway systems to private enterprise, is just delaying the inevitable. Follow the news in Wisconsin today. They are trying to handle their debt crisis responsibly. Unfortunately the Unions are pulling out the stops and are unwilling to compromise to save the State.

Hooker

"one state insolvency will not be a pretty scene for the US government." Hooker says: .. I don't understand this mindset.

Hooker – I don't know how much of a mindset it is. But I think the media will go nuts if and when it happens and the show on Cspan will be pretty entertaining if you've got the bandwidth to be into that stuff.

Ed

I agree, Ed. The Cspan show will be interesting and I will probably be sitting there shaking my head in wonderment as the circus is in progress.

But, one must remember, a state is insolvent only as long as it admits to it's debts. As soon as they refuse to pay them and write them off their books, they are free to start all over again, even with the existing tax structure in place.

And, if they start over from scratch, I predict the state bond rating (credit purchasing power) will soon be back up to AAA.

Unfortunately. the problem then passes downward!!

Hooker

Only problem is it won't help it was cause my harm to the public. They'll have to pay more taxes, more tolls, and more for produces and services. Plus your handing one of our golden eggs over to an even more corrupt group some mega corporation (like Haliburton) or another county. I'm tired of cutting up this great land of ours in the name of capitalism. My familly has been vested in this county since the 1600's and to see proposals to have it sold off like some cheap whore is sad.

Well, bakerjohn, I tend to agree with you on this one. It's more a emotional thing than a practical thing. But our nation is built on some very important emotional roots. This is not a trivial issue.

The real deal is when are we as a people going to get the cojones to tighten our belts and develop the kind of self sufficiency we used to be proud of?

Ed Weldon

"I do agree that using road money for general fund obligations is a non starter"

Garth – I don't agree wth this position of yours. Please go take a look at my reply #59 to Bakerjohn and you'll see what angle I'm coming from. I'm finding that this is a bit difficult to get across.

Ed

That's been clear from the OP :D

this proposal would increase costs, by adding another middleman in the transportation supply chain.

has the lottery met the projections & provided the funding for education?

how will this increase the efficiency of the transportation system?

we should be streamlining the bureaucracy not adding more

Garth - Sadly I think you're right about this.

It's like you have an incurable illness. The more you see the doctor the sicker you get. After a while you begin to think the doctor is causing the sickness rather than fixing it.

A government made up by and for a pack of fools is like this. Sounds like something we are all to familiar with. Time to send the fools packing. If only we could. Because you see, they are us, my friend. We are our own worst enemies.

Have another beer. Or lemonade if you're a friend of Bill wilson.

Ed

I don't agree with this particular scheme

thanks for thinking about the situation & making a proposal

As usual a none civil engineer spouting off none sense. If you dealt even a little bit in the highway business you would know your full of it.

I deal in the reality biz--- Politics hasn't changed since Adam and Eve, yet most refuse to see it.

You seriously believe that the Govt would eliminate (or reduce) the taxes on gas+vehicles if they "sold" the roads?

What reality TV? It's definitely not transportation. I've been dealing with this on all three levels for over 15 years. Being involved in transportation meeting, budgeting meetings, designing roads, building roads, etc. How about you?

They wouldn't. The limited funds they have still wouldn't be enough to take care of the rest of the other roads. They would still need to be maintained, especially with all the extra traffic that would be pushed onto them if this were to go through. More than likely addition roads would also need to be built to deal with the heavy congestion caused by the increase traffic from people not wanting to pay the tolls.

bakerjohn -- Sorry to remind you of this, but motorized highway transportation does have competitors. (from my earlier post: "airlines, ships, boats, bicycles, electronic communications, shoes, skateboards, etc, etc. and of course railroads, public and private."). Pump the costs high enough and the other ways to travel become more attractive.

And do note that insolvency of a state government, especially one of the geographically larger states, could trigger a major local economic collapse to the point where expensive means of traveling simply become impossible for a large part of the populace.

Leasing of just a few prime highways won't cover the major fiscal liabilities of most states. But a determined and all inclusive program that would clearly take some years would go along way toward enabling a state to temporarily restructure it's debt and stave off insolvency.

Ed Weldon

Yes lets stop commerce altogether because you need to privatize all the roads in the US.

Just like major businesses could cause the collapse of any region. If you make it to hard on business supporting your monopoly your destroy the rest of the economy.

Again where will it stop. Will I be aloud to by the 1500 ft of state road behind my house and put tolls up.

I've give you a quick example of what a scam this could become. I pay per year around $1000 in taxes towards PA Transportation fund. I also pay $3109.60 a year in tolls to travel 36 miles one way on PA Turnpike system. If you let them privatize all the interstate I travel and four lane highways make it around $4200 a year. Your correct your way is the best for all of us.

I somewhat agree with bakerjohn's brusk assesment of your post. But I voted "no" on the off topic rating. You are very much on topic as far as I'm concerned.

If you think the "Ledg" in your state is going to turn something like this into a way to unfairly squeeze more money out of taxpayers then fix that issue at election time. And to everyone I say if you must, get off your lazy ass and go out in the streets and man the barricades as courageous people have been doing ever since the French Revolution.

I don't know about your state; but in CA I think CalTrans does a pretty decent and efficient job. An when I drive across Nevada every summer I seldom see any workers just standing around the constant road repair work on I-80, which that state keeps in beautiful shape.

About sophisticated GPS systems for tracking and billing drivers' use of toll roads. The government would not be doing this. The company with the lease on the highway would do it. No different than your phone company keeping a record of your calls or your ISP keeping a record of the web sites you visit (if they are so inclined).

Ed Weldon

Hey Ed whu know answers to my first post?

LOL

His/her post is as you put it before.

"Most of what I see are "head in the sand" comments so far. But I'll try to comment on each one."

What real information has he given zero everything is his opinion.

I will reply to each of your paragraphs:

Pa.1 Thanks for the objective fairness

Pa.2 History bares me out in all cases. Did Wilson say that Social Security would be robbed blind; only then to be used as a tool of terror, over the very citizens it was meant to protect? As far as elections: We are stuck because it is never the candidates that are the problem. Rather it is always the winners of the elections. This is a fundamental principle of humans-we are all corruptible with power, and the carrot of re-election soon becomes overwhelming, and blinding. For you to say that govt would not 'unfairly' do anything is slightly naive- Govt always does what Govt can get away with. 2009-2010 legislative years are proof that Govt has no bottom, and will not listen to it's own electorate, if the balance sways to far in either direction.

Pa.3 No do not live in CA-- I have a hard time believing any "Trans" is wholly unsubsidized, but even if it was it is such a small and limited scope. You realize there are a lot of Americans who do not live in or near big cities? All of the "trans" on the east coast are subsidized and lose big money each year. Ironically though; those who are most in favor of big Govt are also forced to ride the Govt trans. Meaning they are the only ones forced to risk their own lives, while the driver text's or provides free lap rides; so ultimately I am in favor of 'locally' subsidized public trans.

Pa 4. So you believe a successful private business man would see it as a profitable venture to extend free credit to all driver's (16+ years old in my state) at a month at a time, for the traveling they did? Let's say your 16 year old doesn't pay last month's bill. So the business man has to now enforce no free rides, by what means?

Again - I like privatizing, but you do not understand the economics of free enterprise. What you are proposing would quickly deteriorate to a yearly mileage tax, enforced each registration period by govt, or something even worse.

This won't be free enterprize it would be Highway Robbery execpt by being done at a larger scale by the private sector. Just take a look at Banks or Wall Street how much damage they can do if left to their free will.

The Interstate system has been in place for ober 50 years under government control, which always private contractors do all the work for them.

You pro guys still can tell be who's has the capital and knowledge to know how to run our interstate system. Who?

Mevel123 -- Here's my reply to your counterpoints; same numbering sequence:

1. You're very welcome.

2. We both agree on the corruptability of elected officials in general though my feelings are a bit less intense than yours. BTW you'll like Social Security more when it starts sending money to you rather than the other way around.

3. Sorry I didn't clarify what Caltrans actually is. It's the CA organization charged with maintenance and improvement of all the California state highways. They clear snow, fix little things, contract out the big maintenance and construction projects. Their substantial and very experienced engineering department does design and specs for many projects and administers the construction contracts. They don't run any of the transit systems or anything like that. California is a very difficult place to do mass transit profitably; so these operations are under constant political attack.

4. About free credit to deadbeats. To make it really work the highway operator needs to have a level of control both technically and legally by which it can shut down the operation of any vehicle remotely for cause or effectively deny access in the first place. A legitimate cause would be not paying one's bills. The pain of having to pay a tow truck to remove such a "dead" vehicle from the highway property would be an excellent "hot stove" deterent. Repeat offenders could be "impounded" for security until bills are paid. The remote shut off capability technology is here today and is already built into all GM cars with OnStar. Having that technology onboard and detectable before the vehicle accesses the private roadway would help a lot. Serious miscreants with no onboard electronics could well face citation for criminal trespass, an authority easily conveyed to selected and trained security employees of the highway leasee operator. Currently in CA the Fastrac system for bridge tolls is set up to bill and collect unpaid tolls and suitable penalties. Doesn't work in every case but is still pretty effective.

Ed Weldon

Point four:

So now your taking about Corporation taking over for government as being big brother.

All cars being retro fitted with an automatic shutoff. At who's expense?

bakerjohn -- on point 4 -- No, I'm saying the property owner or leasee as the case might be has a right to determine how and whether you drive on property he has legal control over. An part of the deal will be you don't drive there without a transponder. Who pays for it is strictly a contract negotiation issue.

Ed Weldon

Fact one taxes haven't increased in 99.9% of the states for road construction and maintence for the last 15 years.

Fact two material prices have gone up close to 100% (example asphalt in '96 was $46 a ton now its $460 a ton.

Fact three fuel cost have gone up

Fact four equipment costs have gone up (new/used equipment, parts, cost of repairs, etc.

Fact five labor cost are the sample if not lower

Fact six people what newer and better roads so they can get from point A to Point B the fastest.

Fact seven people do not what to pay any addition amounts to go from point A to point B

So lets see what that gives us we have an ever shrinking fund for roads and roads maintenance; we have an ever increase cost for the service to build the roads and the maintenance; and we have a public that wants better roads but doesn't want to pay curent cost for the new roads and the maintenance of thos roads.

So because people don't want to pay more but want more and more from our failing road system what choices do we have?

We can scale back. PA for right now isn't in the new road business it's all maintanence and repairs(this includes winter which is about 40% of there budget). PA is closing none essencial roads and bridges. The public is really pissed off now they are limited in getting from point A to Point B the fastest

We can sell off/lease our four lane highways (biggest huddle this will face is that they are owned by the federal government not the state, see my military comment before) This if aloud by the feds would generate money for the coffers but it must be directed to the highway funds only. Another problem who will be a loud to purchase them. A corporation with a lot of capital, they should have highway experience, should be a from the USA only, etc.Another problem will be tolls as stated before the public does what to pay any extra so why would they want to pay taxes already in place and tolls. How will this affect commerece with trucks (since one truck equals around 10,000 cars in damage) will they be charges more will this cause the prices for everything to sky rocket? The public would really be pissed off. Expensive tolls, no one to hold accountable for failing roads, not liking other countries owning major parts of America, weakening of our military, higher cost from products.

We could do is do what the most Americans do put their head in the sand and pretend it's not happening and do nothing. The public is in bliss, until the whole system comes crashing down.

How about this one for a try? We increase revenue to our highway funds to match what we need. It would be an increase for PA of $.05 a gallon of fuel plus a modest increase in fees of $5.00. The public would be pissed but guess what they would see all their roads being brought back to normal to '96 level.

Your lease/ sell propossion has some major flauls in it. They all stem back to the public once they fined out what a scam it is.

bakerjohn -- I agree with everything you say. It represents the alternative we have so far chosen. There is no question that private eterprise must take a profit out of any venture for it to survive. That means money goes to them, not us the citizens as a whole. Our hope is that private enterprise can improve efficiency enough to make up the difference and then some. And that we can crunch the numbers and come up with the "everybody wins" contract before the signing.

I like that word "Hope". It is the bane of every corporate accountant's existance. And it has fueled a multi-billion, nay multi trillion if you count investment banks, dollar gambling industry.

Of course it is all a scam that the voters face. History has shown all the way up to today that people and institutions that frivolously squander their wealth and credit inevitably become victims of the worst scams in order that they simply survive their mistakes.

Ed Weldon

Not to nit-pick, but:

"Fact one taxes haven't increased in 99.9% of the states for road construction and maintence for the last 15 years." If only one state increased taxes for roads it would be 98% who have not.

"Fact two material prices have gone up close to 100% (example asphalt in '96 was $46 a ton now its $460 a ton." Your example is a 1000% increase.

With regards to Ed's proposistion, I'm not comfortable with land held in public trust being sold to private entities. The idea of leasing these assets to private entities has merit. But, if a private company can make money off tolls, why can't the state? I live in area with little paved roads, but the most pleasant interstate drive I've had was a toll road through Ohio. The Ohio turnpike was well lit, well maintained, had clean reststops, good coffee and even fresh bread at these turnpike reststops. Is this an example of private or goverment run? I think it cost me maybe $7 to cross Ohio on the turnpike.

I think it costs about $75 to cross the Ohio pike in a class 8 vehicle and close to $200 from Chicago to NYC but I think these costs were about ten years ago. I traveled from Balto - R.I. four trips including the bridges cost about $1000 for semi; don't blame the farmers for the cost of food LOL

"Fact two material prices have gone up close to 100% (example asphalt in '96 was $46 a ton now its $460 a ton." Why must we continue to use it?

What other material would you use chewing gum?

Cherry Concrete is okay but peach is sublime

Hi Ed,

Interesting idea. I think most of the technical issues have already been solved. There are plenty of toll roads and bridges now in operation. Many use electronic tolls, and are efficient at collecting money and avoiding congestion at the toll gates, and the rates are generally reasonable. Technically this is a no-brainer, and financially it would be a great chance for states to refill their coffers. If even ten percent of our population was as decent and thoughtful as you are I would think that this is also a no-brainer from a business stand point. But I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

My concern is that domestically the unholy 'revolving door' alliance between government (Federal, State, and Local) and certain business sectors would eat this up. For example, Wall Street could lean on their friends at the Fed to print up a few trillion extra, who would then loan it to them at zero percent. That would be pretty sweet for them. With the recent SCOTUS decision allowing unlimited campaign contributions from corporations, there is a significant chance that legislators won't be entirely focused on cutting the best deal for their constituents. Would we allow other nations who are our economic competitors (and perhaps future military competitors) to bid? Could Russia buy I40? Could Pakistan buy I95? If no, how many lawyers would it take to craft a law that wouldn't be in conflict with WTO or other existing treaties? Where would the cash strapped States come up with the money to pay for that legal talent? If we didn't want to let China or Saudi Arabia bid, how could we resist the debt leverage they already have over us?

In a better world I think your idea would make a lot of sense. My concern is that the same corruption in high places and willful ignorance in low places that has landed us in this mess would prevail and make a hash out of your good idea. IMHO this is not a technical problem, it's a people problem.

johnfotl-- I share your concern about this highway leasing thing becoming such a big deal that people with less than honorable intentions would come forward as exploiters. The investment banker creativity and still liberal US securities laws that gave us the credit default swaps and the crash of 2008 are still around. No doubt plenty of scheming is still going on and looking for oportunities. Also I feel our current fad of electing inexperienced new legislators with new (and radical) ideas will not markedly improve theintegrity of the elected officialdom as a whole.

With respect to foreign investment in "sacred" pieces of our nation's assets I'd note some examples of such things that already quietly came about:

The Panama Canal was given back to the nation of Panama some years ago and last I heard was operated by a Chinese company.

There is a French conglomerate that is quietly buying up dozens of small US privately owned municipal water companies.

And of course the Chinese, who are sitting on buckets of US dollars are regularly buying up a variety of US assets beyond the US Treasury securities they already buy. And they'll sell them again if the price is right.

I think we overrate the national defense aspect of our highway system. Its primary defense value is in immediate tactical defense of our homeland against massive ground force attack. This is a very remote scenario in modern warfare. Most serious military material movement today is by train, ship and aircraft. So what if Russia buys I40? Do you honestly think they would or could push a button and stop a convoy of tanks from rolling down that highway?

Ed Weldon

No I'm not too concerned about the military aspects - tanks pretty much go where they want. But I could see a situation where say China owned several different roads, and that they would quickly find out that some roads carried mostly domestic goods heading for domestic markets, while others carried mostly their products. Would this give them an incentive to selectively tear up some roads for 'routine' maintenance (kind of like what the refineries used to do in California), giving their products a bit of an advantage? Who would have the weight to stand up and make the accusation? They, like the refineries, would have the song and dance worked out in advance, and an army of lawyers and congressfolk ready to do battle. Even if someone did point the finger, wouldn't the whole thing be tied up in the courts for years? Didn't the railroads exploit their position back when they had a chance - high rates for farmers in the midwest, low rates for their 'friends' back east? We might need to take Henry VI's advice, and 'kill all the lawyers' (just kidding).

But seriously we have a problem in this country where the best and brightest seem to have abandoned useful careers in science, engineering, and manufacturing to concentrate all their mental power on just making money. I agree that it is almost impossible to regulate finance - they have most of the money, most of the brains, and own most of the politicians.

If there is a solution it is probably the one that worked well in the past (when you and I were young): take the fun out of piling up money for its own sake by imposing confiscatory taxes on the highest income brackets. I'm sure you remember how well the economy functioned in the 50's and early 60's, when top rates were over 90%. The currently popular idea that rich people drive economic growth (supply side economics) is class warfare (by the rich on the rest of us) all tarted up in economic jargon.

The states are broke partly due to reduced tax levels in this recession, and partly because they bear much of the cost for unemployment and other social safety net programs, but the big long term problem is the underfunded retirement accounts for their aging workers. These programs were well enough funded until Wall Street swindled the money. Now that they are sitting on all that cash they are the most likely to benefit from privatizing our roads. Think they would play nice this time?

And this really is a pity, because otherwise your idea is excellent. But as I said earlier, this isn't a technical problem, it's a people problem.

Well, johnfotl -- I think we fairly quickly burned this topic and have all pretty much agreed that selling the highways to solve the financial plight of the states is probably unworkable simply because nobody, myself included, really likes the bitterness of the medicine.

Basically I think the states might as well employ the technology themselves to charge for the use of the highways up to a fair break even point apportionating it fairly and managing it in a way that sane people will support. Just don't bother with profiteers.

Problem is, are there any sane people left beside us obscure CR-4 internet debaters?

I kind of wish that the Google people weren't so full of themselves that they refuse to listen to any outside ideas. The required system is a natural for their computer skills because it would be so data intensive.

Which brings me to respond to your other comments. Besides, after my fairly intense effort today to keep up with this topic and respond appropriately I think I deserve an opportunity to drift into an OT rant. Please johnfotl; don't take this personally.....

It's easy for you and me to say tax the rich at 90% like in the 50's. But our value systems are different from theirs in enough actual cases to make such a program politically impossible. There's a demographic bell curve peak somewhere in the $500K annual salary range that absolutely abhors paying one more penny of taxes. I have several of them in my extended family and circle of friends. They have made it into a religion of sorts where belief transcends any form of logic or common sense. We're not talking the likes of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates here. Or even the nouveau riche Wall Street billionaire bond traders. It's the ones further down the list who are just smart and crafty enough to have made their smaller fortunes but too stupid and full of themselves to realize their place in the world.

Very ironically most of these people are 2nd amendment nuts who think it is a great idea for someone to walk around with 9mm Glock in one pocket and a couple of loaded 30 shot magazines in the other. Now fast forward to the streets of Cairo. Imagine if all those disaffected and disenfranchised Egyptian kids with their useless college degrees were so equipped? I think it would have turned out a bit different than it did.

Now let's imagine that 2 million 20 somethings "children who were not left behind" and learned their algebra but who can't get jobs show up on the Washington DC Mall with their pocket full of 2nd amendment "rights". Doesn't look so good, does it?

But wait! There are jobs to be had emptying bed pans. Here's the perfect application for that algebra. A 5 liter bed pan is 1/3 full and the patient weighs 350 pounds. Is there enough room in the 8 liter bucket which is already full to the 3/4 mark or will two trips to the toilet down the hallway be needed? But, you say the bucket isn't needed. Take the bed pan right to the toilet in the room. OOPs, you forgot!! the insurance company will only pay for a bed in a 50 person ward and the "technician" will pass out from the gasses emitted by the accumulated excrement before she walks the distance to the toilet. So the bucket and the algebra are a critical need.

OK, enough of this dreary tirade. There are emerging discussions about the subject of actually teaching our students the things they will need to know to do the real jobs of the future. Perhaps the distortions of the algebra thing are a passing fad and will ruin only the educations of a segment of our youth. Got to remember there are only so many engineering and technician jobs in our economy. Training 10 times the needed number so there will be good competition for the available slots may help the multinational corporations; but it rapes the souls of our citizens. And I use the word "rape" advisedly.

About Wall street playing nice. ......... They won't. Unparallel wealth in a large social group combined with the money resources to put themselves above the law brings out the most base animal instincts in the traders. Blame it on testosterone or just the lower life form coding in their genetics. They are out of control wild animals caring little for the discomfort or fate of their prey. They only care about themselves and the religion of acquisition and power. (blame Michael Lewis for my attitude).

It is critically important to the republic to put them in the cages where they belong and realize the real price of allowing their creativity to run wild.

Ed Weldon

Great rant! I agree that this supply-side 'theory' is essentially more faith (and naked self-interest) than science, even by the dismal standards of economics. My hope is that many of the folks here on CR4 who run small businesses will begin to see through this scam, and realize that other than the word 'business' they don't have much in common with the big banks, insurance companies, oil companies, etc.. Now that the banks don't like to work with small businesses, and many big corporations are starting to put their small business suppliers on net 60, 90, or 120 days (effectively using them as free banks) this unity of purpose may begin to fray. I'm going to bail now. It's been an interesting discussion, and I am awestruck that you have taken time to respond to nearly every post. I'd tell you not to give up in your search for common sense solutions to our massive problems, that most 'good' ideas don't always work out, and blah, blah, blah, but I think you already understand that. Looking forward to your next one.

It not for troop transport but supply that's why Eisenhower pushed for it. With out a steady, fast line of supply any army no matter how great is doomed. Just look at WWII the Germans with the Battle of the Bulge even though they where beating us the loss why they ran out of fuel. Patten had to slow and then stop his advance because he out ran his supples.

Planes, ships and trains are vialable to but they have their weakness. Trains are stuck to a rail system and are slow, plus they don't always reach everywhere you need them and you still need truck transportation to get to the main location. Planes can only handle small payloads then you still have to transport the supplies. Ships are to slow to go from coast to coast. I'm not would about the next time Russia or china decides to invade us I'm worried about the next terrist attack, maybe a dirty bomb, chemical, biological warfare, etc. When we need to get troops and supplies to a location fast and some corporation or foreign country is holding 30 miles of I80 as hostage.

Hi Ed, here in the UK our politicians have been talking about this for the past 13 years, but as yet it hasn't happened. The only difference is that instead of selling the roads to anyone, the government keeps them and raises money from them, a lot of money, the amounts of money we are talking about is phenomenal, and it would be able to cut our income tax by half, or more. The problem is that too many people are against this, and our politicians are scared of upsetting people too much these days! But it is a great idea, and it would generate so much income that our country would be very rich again!

Xanasax

Correction the government would get it's share and the corporation that owns the highways would get theirs. But you and the rest of the county would get taken, by having to pay more for everything. Increased transportation taxes, fuel costs, now you have to pay tolls, all products would increase, companies would leave to cheaper counties. Sounds like a win win situation to me.

xanasax -- good to hear from the UK. We heard from a contryman of yours yesterday in reply#2 but I think the thread quickly outran his interest.

That 13 year number is instructive. That's probably what would happen here if our Feds have to play in it. It's beginning to look like that would be our biggest roadblock also.

Ed Weldon

An example from Panama:

Two modern freeways have been built in Panama in recent years, funded primarily by allowing the contractors to run the highways as toll roads to recover their construction costs.

1. Tolls are too high for the average commuter. It is unlikely that one is going to use a toll road when it costs the equivalent of half a day's work to get to and from work. Ergo, the toll roads are essentially private, traffic-free avenues for the affluent (traffic-free until one reaches the congested areas where one is headed, that is).

2. Because the majority of commuters can not afford to use the more efficient roads, congestion on the alternative routes increases, multiplying the generation of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, while increasing the amount of time for commuters to reach their destination.

3, Because the contractors have not yet recovered their original investments (due to much lower traffic volume than originally projected), maintenance is slighted. Coupled this with the shortcuts taken by the contractors to save on construction costs, and one has a rapidly deteriorating "asset" that is of limited value to a very limited portion of the community...

An additional comment- many years ago, when I still lived in the US, my idea of the perfect vacation was to jump on the interstate and drive coast to coast- my favorite being I10, Jacksonville to Santa Monica. An observation from those days:

The States with the lowest tax rates (sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc.) had the best-maintained roadways.

I never fully understood how some states could do more with less...

cwarner - good to hear from you today -- I'll try to answer all three of your posts #60, #64 an #66 in one shot:

1. #60 - two new highways: Sounds to me as if they had a lousy business plan for building the roads and really didn't understand their market. This would would hve been much easier to get right if they had been purchasing exixting toll roads with a previous "sales" history. That's a trap any entrpreneur can fall into.

2. #64 - "The States with the lowest tax rates (sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc.) had the best-maintained roadways. I never fully understood how some states could do more with less..."

I think this has a lot to do with the complex interelationship between demographics (especially population distribution), economics and politics. Nevada fits that description. California is the opposite.

3. #66 - Thanks for the clarification on the Panama Canal. My memory of that comes back now. Shoulda checked my facts beforehand. Google is great for quick answers in these situations. I just did the Google check I should have done before. It took me all of a minute.

Ed Weldon

You forgot number of trucks and number of roads that the state has.

CA is #2 in number of roads and bridges to maintain Nevada #40. Population millions more trucks and cars use CA roads than Nevada. Yet CA gets a the same cut of a pie whose size hasn't changed in 15 years.

Pretty simple more trucks/cars, more roads to take care of same or less funding. Not that had to figure out if you know the truth.

I haven't read all the postings in this thread yet. Maybe I'll get time tomorrow. But here's MY opinion:

I've ALREADY PAID for the roads proposed to be sold and paid taxes to maintain them. If the various gov'ts should sell said roads, I want a share of MY contribution returned to my pocketbook based on my 47 years of driving an estimated 12000 miles per year.

Then, and only then, would I agree to consider privatization and conversion to toll roads. And only then if there is a guarantee that no further monies would be extracted from my pockets for subsidizing the now privatized roads for ANY reason other than usage of said road.

These are MY roads and YOUR roads and my reps will get load earfuls of noise if they should try to ease them out from under me without just compensation, not just transferring money into general funds for them to squander.

FWIW

Hooker

I hate to tell you this. Hooker and I am generalizing here. Virginia may be unique and not properly described by my comments to follow.

You see, you probably already got your share of your contribution returned. Here's how they did it. You never saw the money. They used it to purchase goods and services that benefited the state as a whole (which inludes itty bitty Hooker). Then since they didn't have enough money to pay for all these goods and services they borrowed it. And kept borrowing it until the interest on the loans started looking as big as the other purchases.

Now I hope you enjoy all those goods and services and especailly the interest payments that if continued will buy the good will of the people that keep lending you, as an itty bitty part of the state of Virginia, all the money you don't want to pay in taxes. Which of course won't do you much more good than the money they borrowed.

Clear on all that? ...... OK, but are you any happier now than you were before? ..... I didn't think so.

Ed Weldon