Private toll roads gathering speed

[Tony]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3260459 ...full article

The next road you travel — and pay a toll to use — could be privately owned.

Looking for ways to finance highway projects without hitting the public treasury, Congress appears set to pass a proposal to encourage private ownership of new toll roads.

The provision, part of the highway spending bill now being hammered out by a Senate and House conference committee, would allow private companies to raise up to $15 billion for highway projects with bonds that are exempt from federal income taxes.

While the proposal has broad support in Washington and the business community, the idea of private highways has incited grass-roots opposition in some states, with some saying the government — not a profit-seeking company — is the proper owner of the public's roads.

Not sure what to think of this.

 

[crimresearch]

And if these new owners decide that they don't want certain people to use their roads, will the market forces correct that?

 

[Luke T.]

And if these new owners decide that they don't want certain people to use their roads, will the market forces correct that?

Certain people. Like the cops.

Guess they'll have to have private cops. And if I don't pay the speeding ticket, does that show up on my credit report?

Market forces. What are we going to have, six alternate roads running parallel to each other?

JERRY: What's this?

KRAMER: Well, you know, those annoying little bumps on the lane-lines? (makes noise - bum, bum, bum, bum, bump)

JERRY: Isn't that some kind of safety thing?

KRAMER: Well, I had to pull 'em up if I'm gonna widen the lanes.

JERRY: What the hell are you talking about?

KRAMER: Ah, you know how in planes they got first class? More leg room, better ride? Well, I'm bringing that concept to mile one-fourteen.

 

[varwoche]

Take a right turn on the New Diet Coke Tollway and you're almost there. Libertopia that is.

 

[Darat]

What caught me was not the fact of private roads - I mean why not - but the fact that the private roads would be subsidised by the government or in other words all tax payers.

To then call them "private" is well... misleading.

 

[CBL4]

We could also go back to the idea of public toll roads. There was a toll road in Northern Virginia which was very effective and popular. It cost 85 cents to drive about 20 miles. Once it started to get popular, the tolls were used to widen the road. This made it so it was the only major road in the DC area which was not always packed during rush hour.

CBL

 

[Jocko]

What caught me was not the fact of private roads - I mean why not - but the fact that the private roads would be subsidised by the government or in other words all tax payers.

To then call them "private" is well... misleading.

Never mind that you cannot build much of a road without condemning a fair amount of privately-owned land, and you can't seize private land by eminent domain for the benefit of another private entity...

...er...

Never mind.

I guess that's okay as long as the "right" private entity gets it, huh?

 

[Jocko]

We could also go back to the idea of public toll roads. There was a toll road in Northern Virginia which was very effective and popular. It cost 85 cents to drive about 20 miles. Once it started to get popular, the tolls were used to widen the road. This made it so it was the only major road in the DC area which was not always packed during rush hour.

CBL

If it's a case of getting value for your money, count your blessings. IL's toll roads are some of the most congested, poorly maintained highways in the state. But they're the only direct route to most heavily-traveled destnations, so it's not value you get for your money.... it's insult on top of injury.

Plus, you now have to pay DOUBLE tolls unless you use a state-supplied transponder which beams your identity at every toll plaza. There has been a great deal of talk about using these signals to issue speeding tickets if the time between scans doesn't jibe with the distance. They already have your name, address and credit card on file, of course.

Some system, huh?

 

[Cleon]

Never mind that you cannot build much of a road without condemning a fair amount of privately-owned land, and you can't seize private land by eminent domain for the benefit of another private entity...

...er...

Never mind.

I guess that's okay as long as the "right" private entity gets it, huh?

Yowch. Didn't even think of that...I have a bad feeling Libertopia is going to come by trampling over a lot of people's rights.

 

[CBL4]

If it's a case of getting value for your money, count your blessings.

Tolls need to be a true user fee. The money collected need to used for maintaining the roads they are collected on only. If they are used for other roads or the general fund, they stink.

The Dulles Toll road had transponders which were great because they sped up the toll plazas. They did not charge extra nor did they use them for speeding tickets. They were simply to speed up traffic and reduce expenditures. Almost all commuters used them and most other people did not.

CBL

 

[shanek]

Why not do like they did when roads were private? The first transcontinental highway was paid for with funds from the car and tire manufacturers, who have the most to profit from a good road system. By the same token, get some of the gas/oil companies to contribute. You could also get UPS, FedEx, and other shipping companies to pitch in. The transcontinental highway was also paid for partially with private buy-ins of $5.

There are options other than tolls.

 

[shanek]

What caught me was not the fact of private roads - I mean why not - but the fact that the private roads would be subsidised by the government or in other words all tax payers.

To then call them "private" is well... misleading.

I can see your point, but from what I read they're tax-exempt, not subsidized. So you're "paying" for it the same way you're paying for the JREF (even if you're a noncontributor).

(Well, not you, you're in the UK, but you get what I'm saying.)

 

[shanek]

Never mind that you cannot build much of a road without condemning a fair amount of privately-owned land,

They didn't need to condemn land to build the first (private) transcontinental highway.

 

[Kerberos]

Certain people. Like the cops.

Guess they'll have to have private cops. And if I don't pay the speeding ticket, does that show up on my credit report?

Market forces. What are we going to have, six alternate roads running parallel to each other?

Well they'd be competing with the free governement roads leading that leads to the same destination (some must exist), so it's not as if they have umlimited abbility to charge anything they like.

 

[Kerberos]

They didn't need to condemn land to build the first (private) transcontinental highway.

Good thing the world hasn't changed one bit the last 100 (or whatever) years. ETA: And that all roads are like the transcontinental highway.

 

[shanek]

Good thing the world hasn't changed one bit the last 100 (or whatever) years. ETA: And that all roads are like the transcontinental highway.

Ah. So the government can justify siezing anything through eminent domain as long as it's declared eminent domain for that purpose long enough. Riiight...

20 years from now it'll be, "See? We need government and eminent domain to build Wal-Marts! There'd be no Wal-Marts without government!"

Me: "But, 30 years ago, Wal-Mart didn't need eminent domain to build."

K+20: Good thing the world hasn't changed one bit the last 30 years. ETA: And that all Wal-Marts are like the first ones."

So much for skepticism...

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

They didn't need to condemn land to build the first (private) transcontinental highway.

If you're talking about the Lincoln Highway, it didn't need to condemn any property because it simply designated pre-existing roads to be part of the new "highway." It wasn't a "private" highway.

One reason the LHA concentrated on publicity was that it could not afford to build the highway. In short, Henry Ford had been right. Fisher's idea that the auto industry and private contributions could pay for the highway was abandoned early. For the most part, the LHA used contributions for publicity and promotion to encourage travel over the Lincoln Highway, as well as to encourage State, county, and municipal officials to improve the road. The LHA did, however, help finance construction of short sections of the route. For example, the LHA arranged contributions from the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company to build the "cut-off" that was intended to relieve Mr. Thomas and his horses of their role of helping stranded motorists near Fish Springs. (Goodyear President Frank A. Seiberling was President of the LHA for many years.)

Source

 

[Kerberos]

If you're talking about the Lincoln Highway, it didn't need to condemn any property because it simply designated pre-existing roads to be part of the new "highway." It wasn't a "private" highway.

Source

You mean Shanek has been twisting facts to make them fit his political agenda?

 

[crimresearch]

Maybe it is reality which has been twisting the facts to keep them from fitting a certain political agenda?

 

[Kerberos]

Ah. So the government can justify siezing anything through eminent domain as long as it's declared eminent domain for that purpose long enough. Riiight...

20 years from now it'll be, "See? We need government and eminent domain to build Wal-Marts! There'd be no Wal-Marts without government!"

Me: "But, 30 years ago, Wal-Mart didn't need eminent domain to build."

K+20: Good thing the world hasn't changed one bit the last 30 years. ETA: And that all Wal-Marts are like the first ones."

So much for skepticism...

Congratulations on missing the point entirely, that one road could be built almost a hundred years ago without using eminent domain doesn't prove that it's realistic to do it always, because it was a different time and other roads are built under different circumstances like fx (partially?) not on top of existing roads or government lands.