Ohio Turnpike to be Privatized?

[The Premier]

Ohio Governor John Kasich is looking at the possibility of privatizing the Ohio Turnpike. For right now, this is not happening because the economy is still not in good shape. Either way, selling off the turnpike IMO is not a good decision because it generates money to the state.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5007
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/gov_john_kasich_hasnt_dismisse.html

[Landshark]

Ohio should make the Ohio Turnpike a regular freeway.  Encourage, not discourage people from traveling to/through your depressed state. 

[The Premier]

Agreed. There was something being mentioned about the Turnpike to stop collecting tolls in the 80s. Needless to point out that did not happen.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

If it happens, it'll occur this year with Ohio's budget deficit. Right now, I'd say 60-40 the OTC goes private.

[Revive 755]

If the Turnpike should be privatized, how likely would it be that the speed limit would go higher than the 70 mph limit coming into effect in April?

[Brandon]

No, it should not be privatized, nor should it be made a freeway.  How do you pay for the maintenance?  Dump it on cash-strapped ODOT?  Privatizing is the mistake they made in Greece (as well as Indiana).

[Sykotyk]

Privatization: Short term money for a long-term loan, essentially.

The issue is, if a private company thinks they can come in, hand over a few billions, and over 99 years (or whatever) make that money back, maintain the road, AND turn a profit to make it worth their while,... then the government should do exactly that and cut out the middle man. Why funnel motorists dollars overseas when they could stay here and then be diverted to other road projects.

If you've driven the Indiana Toll Road since they've privatized, you'll realize they're very shoddy in how it is maintained. Massive potholes in the right lane. Toll lanes where the gate fails to operate properly (and this happens on a consistent basis). Why? Because they're not looking to break even, they're looking to turn a profit.

[Henry]

After reading about the situation in Indiana, privatization is a bad way to go.

In this day and age of EZ-Pass, I'm surprised that the old toll gates are still up, especially when in other parts of the country, more toll plazas are ditching the gates for electronic payments where you zip through a scanner that deducts charges from your account.

[vdeane]

In the northeast you have a lot of occasional users who won't drive on a road if they need a transponder or will pay a heavy fee for processing the licence plate.  I still don't see why you need gates though - the Thruway uses cash payments, and it doesn't have gate arms.

[J N Winkler]

I tend not to favor privatization deals, but as a general rule it is not possible to say that a private company will uniformly underperform a state agency, even in a sector such as this one where comparative costs of private and public ownership are relatively easy to calculate.  Each proposed privatization agreement has to be evaluated on its merits.

I opposed the Indiana Toll Road privatization, but my concerns with it had more to do with the agreement exempting the concessionaire from Indiana's open-records statute and not requiring the concessionaire to turn over construction documentation to the State of Indiana until after the lease period expired.  In theory this meant that if I wanted to obtain construction plans for signing on the ITR, and the concessionaire refused to cooperate, I would have to wait fifty years and then file a request with Indiana DOT or a successor agency.  (In this connection it is worth noting that most of the overseas companies involved with American highway privatizations have been Spanish or Australian.  Spain and Australia both have weak cultures of transparency.  The Spanish have actually been ahead of Europe at large in putting construction documentation online for highway projects, but this applies only to the public sector, and the Spanish understanding of the principle of publicity is much different from that prevailing in the US.  For example, Spain has no separate law guaranteeing public access to governmental information, and that access is regulated through a broader statute on administrative proceedings which provides that a government agency can deny public access to any document if it relates to a file which is outside a publicity period and relates to a government action which is not finished.  For example, if an agency releases an anteproyecto for a major subway project, that anteproyecto is fully available during a period of public inspection, and is then closed to the public.  If an agency advertises a construction project, then the proyecto for that project is available until bids are opened, and then it is closed to the public until after construction is finished and the project is finaled.)

However, it is increasingly becoming unusual for DBFOs and other highway privatizations not to have open-records pass-through provisions.  For example, Michigan DOT now inserts pass-through provisions in its DBFOs which require private companies to make records related to the DBFOs accessible to the public as if they were a Michigan state agency.  (The fact that Michigan's open-records law has a punitive cost-recovery provision which makes it useless is a separate issue.)  Moreover, the ITR concessionaire advertises construction projects electronically, so it is possible to obtain the construction plans by monitoring its lettings as if it were a state DOT.  The main difference between it and Indiana DOT is that there is no post-letting availability of plans--if you don't catch it before bids are opened, you are out of luck.

For what it is worth, when the ITR privatization deal went through, the consensus was that the private company had overpaid (i.e., the state got a better deal than it could have expected).  So all the problems the ITR has developed under the concessionaire have to be balanced against the additional construction the $3 billion lump-sum payment has made possible in Indiana.  (I don't know, though, whether the calculation of relative advantage takes into account indirect effects related to toll collectors' pensions.  The ITR concessionaire staged a mass firing of toll collectors, who were employed on more or less the same terms as state employees.)

I don't think privatization of the Ohio Turnpike is likely because I see no obvious source of economies or organizational efficiencies other than cutting employee numbers or compensation.  I also don't support privatization because, unlike the vast majority of turnpike agencies, the Ohio Turnpike Commission is transparent and responsive.  Why fix what is broken?

[agentsteel53]

if an agency releases an anteproyecto for a major subway project, that anteproyecto is fully available during a period of public inspection, and is then closed to the public. 

there's no Julian Assange out there who keeps hosting the anteproyecto documentation even after it has been officially re-classified as top secret?

[J N Winkler]

Nope.  No Julian Assange figure in this sector, alas.  Just an American tourist who goes with a pen drive to the provincial delegation where copies of the anteproyectos are kept (on both hardcopy and CD), copies them, and marks himself as a real nerd by taking pictures of the patio before he goes.

[Landshark]

No, it should not be privatized, nor should it be made a freeway.  How do you pay for the maintenance?

Gas tax revenues.  Dying Ohio needs the lifeblood of a freeway.  Tolled mainlines = rust belt.  

[Sykotyk]

The problem, Landshark, is the gas tax revenue doesn't currently cover the state well enough as it is. Throwing on 200+ miles of maintenance will require raising that tax. Something a Republican will be steadfastly against to their detriment.

The gas tax gets worse every year that fuel economy of cars increases and inflation increases. Gas taxes should be pegged to inflation and adjusted yearly based on an average of the fuel economy of all passenger cars on the road (and the same can be done for commercial vehicles). That would've stopped a lot of these funding problems that keep growing year after year.

Sykotyk

[Brandon]

No, it should not be privatized, nor should it be made a freeway.  How do you pay for the maintenance?

Gas tax revenues.  Dying Ohio needs the lifeblood of a freeway.  Tolled mainlines = rust belt. 

Gas tax = potholes and unwidened freeways.
Tolls = smooth and wider freeways.

Take our experience around Chicago as an example.

[Stephane Dumas]

Gas tax = potholes and unwidened freeways.
Tolls = smooth and wider freeways.

Take our experience around Chicago as an example.

Also add Quebec as another exemple. We got the higher gas tax in Canada... >_<

As for privitazation, selling the current toll road might be risky. However what if it was for a all-new toll road project? I checked this old thread at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=425.0

[The Premier]

That would be a totally different story. Yet even with an all-new toll road it could carry some risks. One of the toll roads in Texas (I don't know which) is one example.

[triplemultiplex]

So, sell off a publicly built piece of infrastructure to some company so that now in addition to paying tolls for the upkeep of the roadway we have to pay for this hypothetical company to turn a profit?  Or are they just going to skimp on maintenance so they can keep tolls 'low' and still make money? Either way I predict any such arrangement ending with some sort of taxpayer subsidy for the hypothetical company, maybe even a total buyout.   The employees lose their jobs and the executives descend on the their golden bailout parachutes.  And another short-sighted privatization winds up costing more in the long run.  Count me against.

Although it is an interesting thought experiment to try and hold highway infrastructure to the same standard some demand for public transit.

[The Premier]

Although it is an interesting thought experiment to try and hold highway infrastructure to the same standard some demand for public transit.

I would like to see that happen, because we expect our roads to be efficient and free of potholes.

[Henry]

Although it is an interesting thought experiment to try and hold highway infrastructure to the same standard some demand for public transit.

I would like to see that happen, because we expect our roads to be efficient and free of potholes.

That, and the only good pothole is one that's been paved over!

A thought just came to me: The turnpikes can keep their tolls, but I say replace all tollbooths with transponders that communicate with EZ-Pass users, and cameras to snap up the license plates of non-EZ-Pass users for billing in the mail, similar to what's being done on the ICC in Maryland (and that's an interesting concept they're using over there!). Traffic would flow more continuously, and there'd be no need to stop, except to get off at an exit.

[vdeane]

Except then you force people without transponders to pay a hefty fee or stay off the road.  Additionally, other than the Thruway, I don't know of any transponders without a monthly or yearly fee so you're forcing occasional users who may not have enough usage to justify a transponder off the road.  Plus some people don't like the idea of pre-paying their tolls by putting money on the account.

[Landshark]

The problem, Landshark, is the gas tax revenue doesn't currently cover the state well enough as it is. Throwing on 200+ miles of maintenance will require raising that tax. Something a Republican will be steadfastly against to their detriment.

The state needs to grow.  That's the problem.  The public sector needs to take a temporary big hit so the state can implement some competitive growth measures to attract people, money, and business.  Dumping the tolls is a nice start.  As more people move, travel to/through Ohio and buy gas, the gas tax revenues (as well as sales tax. lodging tax, etc) will increase too.

Again: tolled mainlines = rust belt

[Landshark]

Gas tax = potholes and unwidened freeways.
Tolls = smooth and wider freeways.

Not from my experience.  The freeways we have out west are superior to those rust belt tollways.

[Henry]

Except then you force people without transponders to pay a hefty fee or stay off the road.  Additionally, other than the Thruway, I don't know of any transponders without a monthly or yearly fee so you're forcing occasional users who may not have enough usage to justify a transponder off the road.  Plus some people don't like the idea of pre-paying their tolls by putting money on the account.

It was merely a suggestion! I never said anything along the lines of "they should actually do it."

[InterstateNG]

The problem, Landshark, is the gas tax revenue doesn't currently cover the state well enough as it is. Throwing on 200+ miles of maintenance will require raising that tax. Something a Republican will be steadfastly against to their detriment.

The state needs to grow.  That's the problem.  The public sector needs to take a temporary big hit so the state can implement some competitive growth measures to attract people, money, and business.  Dumping the tolls is a nice start.  As more people move, travel to/through Ohio and buy gas, the gas tax revenues (as well as sales tax. lodging tax, etc) will increase too.

Again: tolled mainlines = rust belt

Every road in the Midwest could be free and that wouldn't change the region's fate one bit.

It's not like the Ohio Turnpike is difficult to avoid either.