[ Note that Reason has promoted the idea of private toll roads for a long time - I believe their previous efforts led to the privatization of the Indiana Toll Road and Chicago Skyway. ]
Study: States Can Lease Toll Roads to Fund Other Infrastructure, Pay Off Debt (https://reason.org/news-release/study-states-can-lease-toll-roads-to-fund-other-infrastructure-pay-off-debt/)
Why Governments Should Lease Their Toll Roads - The nine states studied here would have significant net proceeds from leasing their toll road systems via long-term public-private partnerships–even after paying off outstanding tax-exempt toll road bonds. (https://reason.org/policy-study/should-governments-lease-their-toll-roads/)
Frequently Asked Questions: Why Should States Consider Leasing Their Toll Roads?
Why lease an asset? Won't toll rates go up? Isn't this a terrible time to consider leasing infrastructure? (https://reason.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-why-should-states-consider-leasing-their-toll-roads/)
Pittsburgh Post Gazette: California foundation pushing for Pennsylvania to lease toll roads to private operators (https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/08/26/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Reason-Foundation-privatization-PennDOT-Gov-Tom-Wolf/stories/202008250138?fbclid=IwAR1bjnQWj_FcARwh55ttKrmZrSCC4JRqiEp54byvT_dXiU2TCGy6iL7WFGw)
This idea has worked out SOOOO well for the Indiana Toll Road and Chicago Skyway...
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 27, 2020, 01:31:29 AM
This idea has worked out SOOOO well for the Indiana Toll Road and Chicago Skyway...
Reason (not me) would respond by stating (correctly) that the bankruptcy of the first owner of the Indiana Toll Road concession contract cost Indiana taxpayers nothing, though bondholders (bondholders could have lost money, and probably did).
The ITR deal wound up a boon to the taxpayers, because the state got a second bite at the leasing apple and the improvements that had been made by the original lessee. The continued construction of I-69 in particular was a beneficiary of the ITR deal(s).
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 27, 2020, 01:31:29 AM
This idea has worked out SOOOO well for the Indiana Toll Road and Chicago Skyway...
As others have noted, the company that leased the ITR went bankrupt because they overpaid so much, meaning that the state got way more money than it was worth. That money went towards finishing I-69 and upgrading US 31.
If you regularly use the ITR, you may not think the massive toll increases and poor road conditions are worth it, but for everybody else it's been a great deal.
Personally, I'd be more in favor of leasing toll roads to fund projects elsewhere (like what was done in Indiana, and would be logical in some other states where the toll roads are used more for cross-country travel than by local state residents) than the privatization of toll lanes like has been done in the DC area, which results in restrictions on improvement/widening/capacity-increasing projects the state DOT can do in surrounding areas or adjacent roads.
Yeah, given what's happened in Indiana, we really shouldn't privatize toll roads at all. High tolls, shit infrastructure. That's what private industry does.
Also see: ON 407. Sure, the infrastructure is actually good in that case, but the toll rates are very high and structured in a way that is downright predatory. If you bill by mail, you get huge surcharges for that. If you have a transponder, you have high fees for
that. All users pay a per-trip fee in addition to the actual toll rate for the section traveled. The only "good" way to deal with ON 407 is to avoid it entirely.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 07:22:33 AM
If you regularly use the ITR, you may not think the massive toll increases and poor road conditions are worth it, but for everybody else it's been a great deal.
Toll roads shouldn't be used as cash cows to maintain unrelated infrastructure. Full stop. The feds stopped PA's plan to toll I-80 for very, very good reasons.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 27, 2020, 12:20:27 PM
Personally, I'd be more in favor of leasing toll roads to fund projects elsewhere (like what was done in Indiana, and would be logical in some other states where the toll roads are used more for cross-country travel than by local state residents) than the privatization of toll lanes like has been done in the DC area, which results in restrictions on improvement/widening/capacity-increasing projects the state DOT can do in surrounding areas or adjacent roads.
If I remember right, Indiana's deal with I-90 has the same restrictions.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 27, 2020, 12:20:27 PM
Personally, I'd be more in favor of leasing toll roads to fund projects elsewhere (like what was done in Indiana, and would be logical in some other states where the toll roads are used more for cross-country travel than by local state residents) than the privatization of toll lanes like has been done in the DC area, which results in restrictions on improvement/widening/capacity-increasing projects the state DOT can do in surrounding areas or adjacent roads.
InDOT has that restriction on the ITR lease. It has been discussed on posts about the Illiana and a potential upgraded US 30 across Northern Indiana
Gotta love it when introducing the Private Sector limits competition!
If I-69 in Indiana needs toll money to subsidize its construction, it should have been built as a Toll Road, not taking value from the ITR lease in far Northern Indiana and spending it in Southern Indiana
Quote from: hbelkins on August 27, 2020, 12:20:27 PM
Personally, I'd be more in favor of leasing toll roads to fund projects elsewhere (like what was done in Indiana, and would be logical in some other states where the toll roads are used more for cross-country travel than by local state residents) than the privatization of toll lanes like has been done in the DC area, which results in restrictions on improvement/widening/capacity-increasing projects the state DOT can do in surrounding areas or adjacent roads.
A few thoughts:
If cash from toll road leases is used to build or improve highways (as it was in Indiana), fine.
But in many states, there will be
enormous pressure on elected officials to pour those dollars into transit subsidies (either capital or operating) - a potentially large expenditure of money to fund what often has little or limited benefit.
Regarding non-compete clauses, I think the first was in Orange County, California in the CA-91 (Riverside Freeway) corridor. In the D.C. area, these currently apply only in the Virginia part of the region, though they could be coming to Maryland as well.
Personally, the report had a sloppy feel to it. There was a big debate on privatizing roads about a decade ago, and most of the proposals went nowhere. I think the Indiana example shows that there's also a hazard to the investors, and every company and private equity group out there is well aware of it, so don't expect them to bid for billions on these roads as well.
When I read it, they would mention the "New Jersey Turnpike", not the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. There's a big difference between the two, because the GS Parkway's revenue is several hundred millions of dollars. The numbers seem to say NJTA, not just the Turnpike, and later on in the report it did allude to both the Turnpike and Parkway.
There was also a big tie-in to Covid-19, basically to say that this will infuse the states with much needed money. This is the EXACT reason why toll roads shouldn't be privatized. What if they decided to go private in 2009? There wouldn't be any opportunity to make up the money now or when the next big disaster strikes. What if the agreement stated that if a certain level of revenue wasn't reached, tolls could be raised higher? That would certainly be true this year. What if a key component of the infrastructure had an issue, like the NJ-PA Turnpike Bridge's crack? How fast would that have been responded to?
And finally...the report threw out a bunch of numbers in terms of what privatization would get the state...but did they really mean anything? It's not like the report stated what the private companies would actually offer the states in exchange for running the toll road.
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually know anything at all about Indiana. Every road decommissioned has come with an agreement between INDOT and the city/town/county, where in most cases the state pays the locality a lump sum to take over the road. Not a single time has INDOT "dumped" road mileage onto anybody without an agreement. In some cases, localities have asked to take over roads in order to do construction projects that weren't going to be on INDOT's radar.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually know anything at all about Indiana. Every road decommissioned has come with an agreement between INDOT and the city/town/county, where in most cases the state pays the locality a lump sum to take over the road. Not a single time has INDOT "dumped" road mileage onto anybody without an agreement. In some cases, localities have asked to take over roads in order to do construction projects that weren't going to be on INDOT's radar.
Heh. How is it Hoosiers are so easily duped into thinking a one-time lump sum for a perennial cost is a good deal?
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:23:52 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually know anything at all about Indiana. Every road decommissioned has come with an agreement between INDOT and the city/town/county, where in most cases the state pays the locality a lump sum to take over the road. Not a single time has INDOT "dumped" road mileage onto anybody without an agreement. In some cases, localities have asked to take over roads in order to do construction projects that weren't going to be on INDOT's radar.
Heh. How is it Hoosiers are so easily duped into thinking a one-time lump sum for a perennial cost is a good deal?
For someone who is so simple-minded that they only see that, it's not a good deal. For someone who understands that a locality can take that lump sum and invest in the area to bring in a larger tax base through business and residences, it can be a good deal.
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:23:52 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually know anything at all about Indiana. Every road decommissioned has come with an agreement between INDOT and the city/town/county, where in most cases the state pays the locality a lump sum to take over the road. Not a single time has INDOT "dumped" road mileage onto anybody without an agreement. In some cases, localities have asked to take over roads in order to do construction projects that weren't going to be on INDOT's radar.
Heh. How is it Hoosiers are so easily duped into thinking a one-time lump sum for a perennial cost is a good deal?
Same way Big Business does it. Next Quarter/Short Term thinking, without Long Term concern. Usually with Elected Officials the concern is at least the next 2-6 years, depending on Term Length
Public property/assets leased to a private For-Profit operation should be illegal, and that goes beyond Roads. But heh, give the Hoosier State credit. They got paid!
Only if the roads are completely paid off.
I would be much more amenable to private companies building new toll roads themselves, paying a fee to lease numerical designation, rather than taking over existing roadways.
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 27, 2020, 12:59:21 PM
If I-69 in Indiana needs toll money to subsidize its construction, it should have been built as a Toll Road, not taking value from the ITR lease in far Northern Indiana and spending it in Southern Indiana
Tolls on I-69 would likely not be able to be self sufficient due to lower traffic volumes, and largely in state traffic until the whole corridor is built out, whereas the Turnpike is heavily traveled, mostly by out of state, and has excess revenues.
Granted, I would like to see the Turnpike eventually widened to 6 lanes and revenues diverted to I-69 could've helped pay for that. Either way, as a toll road, if widening is desired, more bonds can be issued to pay for its construction to be repaid by continuing toll revenue.
I thought the Tolls on SW Indiana I-69 were killed for Political reasons. I thought the tolling study showed they would work?
I'm just going by what I remember reading, years ago. I wasn't a member here on the forums so I wasn't part of any discussion at the time
I'll try searching the forums, see what I can dig up
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:28:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:23:52 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually know anything at all about Indiana. Every road decommissioned has come with an agreement between INDOT and the city/town/county, where in most cases the state pays the locality a lump sum to take over the road. Not a single time has INDOT "dumped" road mileage onto anybody without an agreement. In some cases, localities have asked to take over roads in order to do construction projects that weren't going to be on INDOT's radar.
Heh. How is it Hoosiers are so easily duped into thinking a one-time lump sum for a perennial cost is a good deal?
For someone who is so simple-minded that they only see that, it's not a good deal. For someone who understands that a locality can take that lump sum and invest in the area to bring in a larger tax base through business and residences, it can be a good deal.
A pittance of a one-time payment can't do all that.
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 09:34:43 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:28:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:23:52 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually know anything at all about Indiana. Every road decommissioned has come with an agreement between INDOT and the city/town/county, where in most cases the state pays the locality a lump sum to take over the road. Not a single time has INDOT "dumped" road mileage onto anybody without an agreement. In some cases, localities have asked to take over roads in order to do construction projects that weren't going to be on INDOT's radar.
Heh. How is it Hoosiers are so easily duped into thinking a one-time lump sum for a perennial cost is a good deal?
For someone who is so simple-minded that they only see that, it's not a good deal. For someone who understands that a locality can take that lump sum and invest in the area to bring in a larger tax base through business and residences, it can be a good deal.
A pittance of a one-time payment can't do all that.
Hammond took over IN 312 from the state. They've upgraded the road and already have new businesses opening.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually know anything at all about Indiana. Every road decommissioned has come with an agreement between INDOT and the city/town/county, where in most cases the state pays the locality a lump sum to take over the road. Not a single time has INDOT "dumped" road mileage onto anybody without an agreement. In some cases, localities have asked to take over roads in order to do construction projects that weren't going to be on INDOT's radar.
And are there possibly additional payments on top of that? I probably know only enough to be dangerous, but when a Michigan state route is decommissioned and the road transferred to a county or other local jurisdiction (like Indiana, it requires an agreement between the state and locality), not only is there a one-time payment for immediate repairs/improvements, or the state repaves or reconstructs the road, but usually there also is a small annual Act 51 payment to the locality specifically to fund maintenance for that road.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 28, 2020, 08:38:54 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 27, 2020, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 27, 2020, 06:06:28 PM
ITR lease was a failure. Indiana's decommissioning of state routes to save bucks because they got suckered is enough evidence for me.
Not sure where you're getting that from. Neither of those things has anything to do with the other. The ITR lease paid for new terrain of I-69 and US 31, among other things. The decommissioning of state routes is so INDOT can focus on highways rather than city streets.
Pfft. Baloney. Decommissioning is to save the state money and dump road mileage onto municipalities as an unfunded mandate.
I'm trying to figure out if you actually know anything at all about Indiana. Every road decommissioned has come with an agreement between INDOT and the city/town/county, where in most cases the state pays the locality a lump sum to take over the road. Not a single time has INDOT "dumped" road mileage onto anybody without an agreement. In some cases, localities have asked to take over roads in order to do construction projects that weren't going to be on INDOT's radar.
And are there possibly additional payments on top of that? I probably know only enough to be dangerous, but when a Michigan state route is decommissioned and the road transferred to a county or other local jurisdiction (like Indiana, it requires an agreement between the state and locality), not only is there a one-time payment for immediate repairs/improvements, or the state repaves or reconstructs the road, but usually there also is a small annual Act 51 payment to the locality specifically to fund maintenance for that road.
Whenever a transfer is made, the only information released is that the locality receives money in exchange for taking over the road. Nothing more specific than that is mentioned, and I haven't bothered to dig around for it. I just know that there are several cases where localities immediately improved those corridors and attracted businesses.
Privatization means higher cost to road users and less flexibility for transportation planning so hell to the no.
Once Indiana is done spending the cash they got from the ITR, they'll be broke again and unable to afford the maintenance on all the shit they built with that money. So they'll either have to raise taxes/fees or let the roads go to hell. Meanwhile, ITR users will still be getting jacked by a private company because they are/will put profit over their captive market of users. A decade from now, it will be the worst of both worlds for drivers in Indiana all to placate some short-term political agendas.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2020, 11:32:24 AM
Privatization means higher cost to road users and less flexibility for transportation planning so hell to the no.
Once Indiana is done spending the cash they got from the ITR, they'll be broke again and unable to afford the maintenance on all the shit they built with that money. So they'll either have to raise taxes/fees or let the roads go to hell. Meanwhile, ITR users will still be getting jacked by a private company because they are/will put profit over their captive market of users. A decade from now, it will be the worst of both worlds for drivers in Indiana all to placate some short-term political agendas.
That money has been spent, and the state still manages to maintain its roads. The state consistently operates on a balanced budget and has a treasury surplus. It never has, and never will be a bad deal for the state. The state won huge on that deal.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 28, 2020, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2020, 11:32:24 AM
Privatization means higher cost to road users and less flexibility for transportation planning so hell to the no.
Once Indiana is done spending the cash they got from the ITR, they'll be broke again and unable to afford the maintenance on all the shit they built with that money. So they'll either have to raise taxes/fees or let the roads go to hell. Meanwhile, ITR users will still be getting jacked by a private company because they are/will put profit over their captive market of users. A decade from now, it will be the worst of both worlds for drivers in Indiana all to placate some short-term political agendas.
That money has been spent, and the state still manages to maintain its roads. The state consistently operates on a balanced budget and has a treasury surplus. It never has, and never will be a bad deal for the state. The state won huge on that deal.
Baloney.
http://chestertontribune.com/Indiana%20News/1210121%20new_study_says_indiana_toll_road.htm
There is also a bit of a Double Standard on these Toll Road leases: It is ok to lease out the Toll Road to a Private Operator and use that revenue on a roadway other than the Toll Road, but if the regular Toll Revenue from state/Public operation is used for anything other than Toll Road administration and construction/maintenance, then that raises big red flags and is often widely criticized
If a state wants to subsidize its transportation or general fund with Toll Road revenue, do it PA Turnpike style and keep it in-house. Of course, the more traditional and appropriate method to generate that revenue would be something like a fuel tax, license plate registration fees, DL fees, other sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes and/or expanding the use of Tolls to collect the money on roadways that need the additional revenue for their creation (I-69), expansion/upgrade (US 31), or ongoing maintenance
I'm not sure if Indiana funds its local roads (city/county/township) the same way Kentucky does, but here, it doesn't really matter whether the state or a local entity maintains the road, the state funds it through a statutorily-required allocation of gas tax revenues.
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 28, 2020, 05:27:34 PM
There is also a bit of a Double Standard on these Toll Road leases: It is ok to lease out the Toll Road to a Private Operator and use that revenue on a roadway other than the Toll Road, but if the regular Toll Revenue from state/Public operation is used for anything other than Toll Road administration and construction/maintenance, then that raises big red flags and is often widely criticized
If a state wants to subsidize its transportation or general fund with Toll Road revenue, do it PA Turnpike style and keep it in-house. Of course, the more traditional and appropriate method to generate that revenue would be something like a fuel tax, license plate registration fees, DL fees, other sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes and/or expanding the use of Tolls to collect the money on roadways that need the additional revenue for their creation (I-69), expansion/upgrade (US 31), or ongoing maintenance
Except the Pennsylvania legislature has raided the turnpike revenue stream to fund transit. It's why tolls in Pennsylvania keep going up. Act 44, I think it's known as.
Is INDOT's newest section of I-265 (unsigned, signed as SR 265) this type of arrangement?
Quote from: Rothman on August 28, 2020, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 28, 2020, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2020, 11:32:24 AM
Privatization means higher cost to road users and less flexibility for transportation planning so hell to the no.
Once Indiana is done spending the cash they got from the ITR, they'll be broke again and unable to afford the maintenance on all the shit they built with that money. So they'll either have to raise taxes/fees or let the roads go to hell. Meanwhile, ITR users will still be getting jacked by a private company because they are/will put profit over their captive market of users. A decade from now, it will be the worst of both worlds for drivers in Indiana all to placate some short-term political agendas.
That money has been spent, and the state still manages to maintain its roads. The state consistently operates on a balanced budget and has a treasury surplus. It never has, and never will be a bad deal for the state. The state won huge on that deal.
Baloney.
http://chestertontribune.com/Indiana%20News/1210121%20new_study_says_indiana_toll_road.htm
From a newspaper in a town whose residents use the Toll Road a lot. Not an unbiased source.
Quote from: CardInLex on August 28, 2020, 06:47:34 PM
Is INDOT's newest section of I-265 (unsigned, signed as SR 265) this type of arrangement?
No, that's just a case of INDOT (and KYDOT) taking their time to get it signed.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2020, 06:34:40 PM
I'm not sure if Indiana funds its local roads (city/county/township) the same way Kentucky does, but here, it doesn't really matter whether the state or a local entity maintains the road, the state funds it through a statutorily-required allocation of gas tax revenues.
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 28, 2020, 05:27:34 PM
There is also a bit of a Double Standard on these Toll Road leases: It is ok to lease out the Toll Road to a Private Operator and use that revenue on a roadway other than the Toll Road, but if the regular Toll Revenue from state/Public operation is used for anything other than Toll Road administration and construction/maintenance, then that raises big red flags and is often widely criticized
If a state wants to subsidize its transportation or general fund with Toll Road revenue, do it PA Turnpike style and keep it in-house. Of course, the more traditional and appropriate method to generate that revenue would be something like a fuel tax, license plate registration fees, DL fees, other sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes and/or expanding the use of Tolls to collect the money on roadways that need the additional revenue for their creation (I-69), expansion/upgrade (US 31), or ongoing maintenance
Except the Pennsylvania legislature has raided the turnpike revenue stream to fund transit. It's why tolls in Pennsylvania keep going up. Act 44, I think it's known as.
It is also why PA tried to implement tolling on I-80, but the Feds shot it down, as Act 44 or whatever it is called, required that some of that toll revenue would be spend on roads/projects/transit other than I-80, which was not considered a "valid" reason to the Feds to implement tolling on an existing Free Interstate that did get federal funding for construction
Call me crazy, but if states are now on the hook for the maintenance and upgrade and costs of Interstate highways, the Feds shouldn't have a say in how a state administers that roadway, beyond design standards. If a state wants to raise funds via tolls on roadways, more power to them, assuming that it is done via proper legislative or direct ballot measure initiatives
I'm not usually one to cry "states rights!" but if a state decides tolls on their roads are an acceptable way to generate revenue, I don't see the problem with it. And if the citizens of said state don't like it, there is the ballot box for that, too. It would be different if the Feds were still giving mileage-based interstate funds to each of the states
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2020, 06:34:40 PM
Except the Pennsylvania legislature has raided the turnpike revenue stream to fund transit. It's why tolls in Pennsylvania keep going up. Act 44, I think it's known as.
Act 44 was the original law that was devised by disgraced ex-State Sen. Vince Fumo (D-1 (Philadelphia)) to toll all of I-80 in Pennsylvania and divert the resulting revenue to SEPTA and other Pennsylvania transit agencies. When the tolling of I-80 was rejected by the USDOT under both the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations (since the federal programs do not allow for new tolling of existing "free" Interstates to fund things other than highway improvements in the same corridor), then the game was changed to extract massively more toll revenue from customers of the existing PTC toll road system and divert that money to transit subsidies. Eventually (after Fumo was indicted, convicted and sentenced to federal prison for corruption), Act 44 was superseded by Act 89, which still remains in place.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 28, 2020, 06:49:43 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on August 28, 2020, 06:47:34 PM
Is INDOT's newest section of I-265 (unsigned, signed as SR 265) this type of arrangement?
No, that's just a case of INDOT (and KYDOT) taking their time to get it signed.
I wasn't speaking of the I-265 signage specifically. Rather, I was speaking about the East End Partnership agreement. The road and toll bridge are maintained by a private group. The new section of the roadway even features "End INDOT Maintenance" signs. https://goo.gl/maps/715F5JsWwF4nuRu37
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2020, 07:01:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2020, 06:34:40 PM
Except the Pennsylvania legislature has raided the turnpike revenue stream to fund transit. It's why tolls in Pennsylvania keep going up. Act 44, I think it's known as.
Act 44 was the original law that was devised by disgraced ex-State Sen. Vince Fumo (D-1 (Philadelphia)) to toll all of I-80 in Pennsylvania and divert the resulting revenue to SEPTA and other Pennsylvania transit agencies.
A reminder that SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County were by far not the only ones to receive money from Act 44. PennDOT themselves got huge infusions from Act 44 and Act 89. It was the Pennsylvania Legislature's way of funding part of the state's huge bridge backlog.
From the motorist aspect, privatizing toll roads is bullshit. Look at the Chicago Skyway. The Skyway used to be $1.50 for using the bridge before the city had sold it to a firm sometime around 2005. The current toll for cars is at $5.60. An increase of $4.10 in 15 years.
The positive is that the firm did do a major rehab of the Skyway investing $120 million.
So it really is a mixed bag and completely depends on the business.
Personally, I would rather the states and cities maintain ownership of their tollways.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 01, 2020, 08:29:35 PM
From the motorist aspect, privatizing toll roads is bullshit. Look at the Chicago Skyway. The Skyway used to be $1.50 for using the bridge before the city had sold it to a firm sometime around 2005. The current toll for cars is at $5.60. An increase of $4.10 in 15 years.
An increase of 273%.
Back then, if I remember correctly, the toll on I-88 was 40 cents. Now it's $1.50–an increase of 275% over the same period of time.
So maybe it has nothing to with the public/private ownership.
Quote from: kphoger on September 02, 2020, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 01, 2020, 08:29:35 PM
From the motorist aspect, privatizing toll roads is bullshit. Look at the Chicago Skyway. The Skyway used to be $1.50 for using the bridge before the city had sold it to a firm sometime around 2005. The current toll for cars is at $5.60. An increase of $4.10 in 15 years.
An increase of 273%.
Back then, if I remember correctly, the toll on I-88 was 40 cents. Now it's $1.50–an increase of 275% over the same period of time.
So maybe it has nothing to with the public/private ownership.
Actually, the tolls that were 40 cents are 75 cents if you have I-Pass or EZ Pass. Only the cash and online tolls are $1.50 on I-88 for York, Meyers and Aurora. DeKalb and Dixon went from 95 cents to $1.80 for I-Pass and $3.60 for cash.
Maybe with rules like must take out of system ez-pass with no added fees.
Fee caps.
Don't need an other 407 ETR with there high fees and high transponder rent fees.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 17, 2020, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 02, 2020, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 01, 2020, 08:29:35 PM
From the motorist aspect, privatizing toll roads is bullshit. Look at the Chicago Skyway. The Skyway used to be $1.50 for using the bridge before the city had sold it to a firm sometime around 2005. The current toll for cars is at $5.60. An increase of $4.10 in 15 years.
An increase of 273%.
Back then, if I remember correctly, the toll on I-88 was 40 cents. Now it's $1.50–an increase of 275% over the same period of time.
So maybe it has nothing to with the public/private ownership.
Actually, the tolls that were 40 cents are 75 cents if you have I-Pass or EZ Pass. Only the cash and online tolls are $1.50 on I-88 for York, Meyers and Aurora. DeKalb and Dixon went from 95 cents to $1.80 for I-Pass and $3.60 for cash.
Yeah, I wasn't factoring discounts into my math. I consider the cash toll to be the real toll, and any lower rates to be mere discounts offered as an incentive.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2020, 11:19:10 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 17, 2020, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 02, 2020, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 01, 2020, 08:29:35 PM
From the motorist aspect, privatizing toll roads is bullshit. Look at the Chicago Skyway. The Skyway used to be $1.50 for using the bridge before the city had sold it to a firm sometime around 2005. The current toll for cars is at $5.60. An increase of $4.10 in 15 years.
An increase of 273%.
Back then, if I remember correctly, the toll on I-88 was 40 cents. Now it's $1.50–an increase of 275% over the same period of time.
So maybe it has nothing to with the public/private ownership.
Actually, the tolls that were 40 cents are 75 cents if you have I-Pass or EZ Pass. Only the cash and online tolls are $1.50 on I-88 for York, Meyers and Aurora. DeKalb and Dixon went from 95 cents to $1.80 for I-Pass and $3.60 for cash.
Yeah, I wasn't factoring discounts into my math. I consider the cash toll to be the real toll, and any lower rates to be mere discounts offered as an incentive.
some roads don't have cash any more pay online or we bill you (some with fees per trip that are high)
The point remains, though, that the cash fare has increased by approximately the same factor on the Skyway as it has on the E-W Tollway over the same period of time.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2020, 03:59:39 PM
The point remains, though, that the cash fare has increased by approximately the same factor on the Skyway as it has on the E-W Tollway over the same period of time.
The cash rate is the sucker/tourist rate, though. Most users of the road will be paying the transponder rate, which for Illinois Tollway tolls is
half the cash rate.
The Skyway, meanwhile, does not appear to offer any discount. So for someone with a transponder the rate of increase there has been double what it was for Illinois Tollway tolls.
Regarding the original premise... I am in principle opposed. Public infrastructure does not belong in private hands.
For all the discussion of Indiana in this thread, I don't see any mention that Indiana ending up raising their gas tax anyway after leasing their toll road.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 18, 2020, 10:43:52 PM
For all the discussion of Indiana in this thread, I don't see any mention that Indiana ending up raising their gas tax anyway after leasing their toll road.
They decided to just deal with the years of lower funding, to the system's detriment.
Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2020, 11:20:13 AM
A reminder that SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County were by far not the only ones to receive money from Act 44. PennDOT themselves got huge infusions from Act 44 and Act 89. It was the Pennsylvania Legislature's way of funding part of the state's huge bridge backlog.
Fumo designed Act 44 to give some money to all Pennsylvania transit agencies.
But the biggest shares (by far) went to SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh).
TXDOT of course has partnerships with private (primarily Spanish) companies to build and maintain toll roads.
Texas used to have long-term maintenance contracts (Primarily with VMS) on the free Interstates. They seemed to do a good job.
No.
I don't have a problem with it, especially if the private company is held to a high standard for both improving the road and maintenance at their expense. I too would prefer if the private company was forced to build it as well.
Any agreement where the state isn't allowed to build/improve other roads or granting a company exclusive rights to managing all toll roads, or anything to that nature sounds extremely corrupt and wrong.
Florida has a good number of bridges and a few roads that are privately owned and maintained. Nothing wrong with that!
I'm with Gnutella. NO! I don't object to the private sector building and operating toll roads, bridges, etc, as long as the public doesn't have to pay for any of it, including the ROW. If a business needs government help to have a profit, it's a welfare recipient.
Quote from: skluth on October 20, 2020, 02:32:52 PM
I'm with Gnutella. NO! I don't object to the private sector building and operating toll roads, bridges, etc, as long as the public doesn't have to pay for any of it, including the ROW. If a business needs government help to have a profit, it's a welfare recipient.
I have mixed feelings about such projects. Regarding right-of-way, if the project involves building toll lanes parallel to an existing "free" road (the original toll lanes on CA-91 (Riverside Freeway) were an example of that; as are the under construction I-66 managed lanes in Northern Virginia between U.S. 29 at Gainesville and I-495), then public right-of-way is nearly
always involved.
I am generally unsupportive of private ownership of what are essentially public goods. It tends to devolve into competing, and potentially opposing, priorities that cause unnecessary friction and inflexibility, as seen in the fiasco that is the Ambassador Bridge and its replacement.