Should the states lease their toll roads to the private sector?

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

[Rothman]

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

[ilpt4u]

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

[hbelkins]

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.

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.

[CardInLex]

Is INDOT's newest section of I-265 (unsigned, signed as SR 265) this type of arrangement?

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

[ilpt4u]

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.

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

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[CardInLex]

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

[froggie]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[Joe The Dragon]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[Joe The Dragon]

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)

[kphoger]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

[bwana39]

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.

[Gnutella]

No.

[UCFKnights]

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!