It Is Time for the US to Sell Its Highways

[phantom power]

Is there any other country in the world that would be so goddamned stupid as to think private (and possibly foreign) ownership of their transportation infrastructure is a credible idea?

Honest to god, NNadir's mercury-poisoning hypothesis is looking less satirical every year.

It’s difficult to imagine a person not having heard the old axiom “Buy low, sell high”, and it is prudent advice when you are making financial decisions. It’s the second part of that adage that might warrant a look at our strategy for infrastructure improvement in this country. If you are looking to make the maximum amount of money by selling something you want to sell that something when it’s at its highest value. I wonder then, is it time for our government to sell its infrastructure? You know, since the effects of Peak Oil are beginning to make themselves felt, the value of the infrastructure developed to serve cars running on cheap oil will decline each year into the future; starting soon. Selling high might mean selling soon.

Now, I don’t think we should sell all of it, by any means. We should keep the ports and the train lines, but is now a good time to start selling our roads, highways and airports? There has been news recently of other governments selling their infrastructure (check here for one opinion or here for a story about Pennsylvania, and this guy has the same idea I do, although he doesn’t tie it to Peak Oil), and considering the value of these items in an energy scarce future I would contend that their value will never be higher. In fact, there is already plenty of news about airlines facing massive losses. (And starting to charge for baggage, pillows and normal drinks) How valuable will an airport be if we don’t have airlines? Or what if the ones we do have are marginally profitable? I say it’s better to sell now while the full force of Peak Oil hasn’t quite made itself felt.

I would say the same about roads and bridges. Now, you can’t sell every bridge because you wouldn’t want it to be impossible to cross a river in the future, but the states could certainly lease some of them to companies looking for stable investments. They could at least see some return on all the money we’ve sunk into them. You could say that this is not “fair” or it might smack of fraud, but I would say that it isn’t. If these companies and profiteers can create our current credit crisis, and then look for a bailout from Uncle Sam, they should be smart enough to see through this and see the future for what it will be, but most likely they won’t.

The deal in Pennsylvania applies to just 469 miles of the 3.9 million miles of roadways in our country. Assuming that we could sell (or lease like in PA) 1% of these roads we could raise just over $1.3 Trillion dollars (assuming the same pricing per mile) which would go a long way to building our necessary rail infrastructure. Granted, this figure is obviously not really manageable, but with some effort I would expect we could recognize a fair portion of this number. Rail infrastructure, which has a much longer lifespan than roads, and also a higher carrying capacity, is where we should be focusing these infrastructure dollars.

http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=3331

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Very, VERY goddamned stupid!

Management of the roads is a national defense and public safety issue. At the beginning of the "Good Roads" movement around the turn of the last century, some roads were privatized, allowing the owners to charge whatever they wanted to users. There were no standards and the nation's roads were hodge-podged together. The federal government recognized that, because it was a public safety issue, it was best to put city, town, county and state governments in charge of construction & maintenance, with the fed chipping in money to help build and upkeep the roads.

Really, do we REALLY want KBR - the SAME company that, through shoddy workmanship and corner-cutting, electrocuted several members of our armed forces while they showered - in charge of bridge maintenance???

[kentauros]

5. Not only that...

Really, do we REALLY want KBR - the SAME company that, through shoddy workmanship and corner-cutting, electrocuted several members of our armed forces while they showered - in charge of bridge maintenance???

Not only that, but you can bet restrictions will be put in place, such as either not being allowed to sue when that bridge collapses on your family due to bad or no-maintenance, or only getting very low caps for settlements/compensation.

Someday, we're going to have to figure out that "tax" is not a bad word.

[Rhiannon12866]

10. I agree. If the same company that was responsible for electrocuting our poor troops was ever

put in charge of maintaining our roads, I'd be forced to return to riding my old bicycle, like the "Free Credit Report" guy, no matter how many dirty looks I got from creepy old ladies. As it is, I hold my breath when I cross certain bridges...:scared:

[Cooley Hurd]

11. Ironically, the Good Roads Movement was started by bicyclists...

:hi:

[Rhiannon12866]

13. Well, either we need more of them or the ones we have had better get on the stick!!!

:rofl:

We'll both see you soon, and we're coming by car, at least this time around... *keeping fingers crossed* :hi:

[MercutioATC]

2. ...yet they want to lower taxes...

This is nothing more than a tax on commuters, it's just a private entity collecting it.

[phantom power]

3. As I understand it, most of these "privatize the roads" things get floated...

because the state in question has budget problems, and they're so desperate to solve them without raising taxes that they're basically willing to sell their own seed-corn.

I think voters in Ohio approved a ballot initiative to sell off one of their toll roads. It saps my will to live.

[Javaman]

6. This was floated last year when the price of asphalt shot up, as it is doing once again.

so many towns and small cities are getting squeezed by its high price.

the last thing we need is to privatize the roads.

perhaps an alternative green type of "asphalt" needs to be invented.

[MercutioATC]

7. "Green" asphalt exists.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n10_v141/ai_12033403

Oh, but the law cited in the article has been repealed due to lobbying by firms that apply asphalt.

[Javaman]

9. Why would they repeal the law?

it seems like a win win for everyone. cheaper for the cities, more product for the asphalt companies, the price is a bit higher but even in the article it states that if they can make it last 3 months longer it will be cost effective.

it doesn't make sense.

[MercutioATC]

14. It costs twice as much to apply, but lasts four times longer.

If you're a company that resurfaces roads, that's a bad thing.

[Javaman]

15. ahhh the old predestined obsolescence. nt

[XemaSab]

4. Not just a tax on commuters, but a potentially crippling tax

In California, there's a private freeway somewhere in SoCal that I've never been on, but most of my experience with tolls is on the bridges. It costs anywhere from 3-5 dollars to cross every bridge in the Bay Area.

If the choice is to pay 5 bucks to go to work on the freeway or sit through 20 miles of gnarly street traffic, I don't know what people will do. If you have to work for minimum wage, and fully 2 hours out of 8 are just to pay to get to work and back, our economy will go into the tank immediately.

[MercutioATC]

8. Especially because they're not going to offset the revenue gain to the state with tax reductions.

Taxpayers will pay the same road taxes AND additional fees from private "road owners".

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. Saves alot of money

At least until somebody else is in office.

Guess it's not just Subprime credit risks looking to buy Negative Amortization Loans.