Should we privatize highways?

[Sims2789]

I don't know, but it doesn't seem like a completely terrible idea.

For me to make a decision, I need to know how much per year each American pays (both on average and per economic group) per year for federal highway maintenance and construction. It might end up being cheaper to have each person who wants to drive to pay a flat fee to a private group of private highway owners than it is to pay that fee in taxes to the government. Or, we could charge per-use electronically.

It could end up being more expensive for most people, in which case I'd oppose it, since currently our progressive income tax means that (possibly even with loopholes and corporate welfare ) the rich pay more income taxes than the poor, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that most highway funding comes from income tax.

 

[Masquerouge]

I don't know, but it doesn't seem like a completely terrible idea.

For me to make a decision, I need to know how much per year each American pays (both on average and per economic group) per year for federal highway maintenance and construction. It might end up being cheaper to have each person who wants to drive to pay a flat fee to a private group of private highway owners than it is to pay that fee in taxes to the government.

It could end up being more expensive for most people, in which case I'd oppose it, since currently our progressive income tax means that (possibly even with loopholes and corporate welfare ) the rich pay more income taxes than the poor, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that most highway funding comes from income tax.

Interestingly, in France highways were built by the government, then tolls were placed until the highway were paid for, and then the highways were privatized and most of it (7,700KM out of 9,300 total) is now owned and operated by private companies - including maintenance.
So mosts highways have tolls. I don't remember how much it is, it can be quite expensive if you're alone in your car, but it's usually the cheapest way to go form A to B compared to train and planes.

 

[Sims2789]

Interestingly, in France highways were built by the government, then tolls were placed until the highway were paid for, and then the highways were privatized and most of it (7,700KM out of 9,300 total) is now owned and operated by private companies - including maintenance.
So mosts highways have tolls. I don't remember how much it is, it can be quite expensive if you're alone in your car, but it's usually the cheapest way to go form A to B compared to train and planes.

Manual tolls would be a nuisance on every onramp, so the companies would have to use a unified electronic payment system. You put a device in your car, enter a highway, and it automatically charges you and charges to the right company. Having ten devices would also be a nuisance.

 

[Masquerouge]

Manual tolls would be a nuisance on every onramp, so the companies would have to use a unified electronic payment system. You put a device in your car, enter a highway, and it automatically charges you and charges to the right company. Having ten devices would also be a nuisance.

yes, the most recent tolls have a drive-by option, when you just need a magnetic card.

 

[GinandTonic]

Seems an awful idea.

Not a free market but a captive market - zero meaningful consumer choice.

A captive market does not create free market competion driven savings, but does allow profit to be extracted from the system. Thus, the market is less free than the gov inviting bids for given roadbuilding/ mantance tasks. Thus the industry becomes less efficient.

Also roads are often built to not only the high-use areas, but to the under-developed areas in the desire to stimulate those areas. If the gov/ taxpayers still picks up the tab for the inherently unprofitable routes the thing becomes a farce.

See also - the privatisation of British Rail, and how it now costs the tax-payer more for a worse service, but some corps made a mint cherry-picking.

 

[Shadylookin]

No. privatization of roads means tolls and tolls means a slowdown in transportation. Not to mention it's just another regressive tax

 

[bhsup]

Ugh, I hate turnpikes. I vote no.

 

[m4gill4]

I don't even have time or patience to explain how TERRIBLE of an idea this is.

Next you'll be saying let's privatize the police and fire dept.! and privatize the libraries! Privatize the schools and the zoos and the parks, and the judiciary!

I think only those with lots of money should be allowed to enjoy anything!.

We could charge for entry into nat'l parks, charge to drive on the freeways, charge to borrow a book, charge to save a life, charge to enforce the law

No money? YOU CAN"T DRIVE. Take that, you filthy proles.
Have an emergency? Get a job! Oh wait, you can't because you can't drive to work because you're too poor because you can't drive to work because you're too poor because you can't drive to work because you can't drive because you're too poor because....

Ok I guess I did have time.

 

[downtown]

Highway funding comes from the gas tax

 

[innonimatu]

It's imbecilic too invest in a better road network and then discourage its use by installing tolls. Everyone benefits, directly or indirectly, from better transport infrastructure, and that makes it one of those obvious and non-controversial things that are part of a government's responsibility. Ancient empires built and maintained the major road networks. Even medieval kings did that. Among the first things that modern states did was taking over and opening toll roads and bridges, in order to promote economic growth (and cultural uniformity, and other things, but that's another story).

Now some governments are handing over highways to private "investors", who in fact invest and risk absolutely nothing - the contracts usually stipulate that the government will make up for any shortfalls in revenues. A perfect example of socialized costs and privatized profits.
Oh, and (at least in my country) somehow the privatization contracts tend to go to consortiums controlled by construction companies and banks that heavily finance political parties... I saw a recent financial yearly report from the largest highway operator and about half their revenue became profits. All for the public interest, of course. Now the thieving bastards are talking about roads being privatized as well.

 

[Sims2789]

Highway funding comes from the gas tax

That's important; I thought it was from the income tax. 60% of the federal gas tax goes toward transportation (link) but some funding comes from elsewhere.

I don't even have time or patience to explain how TERRIBLE of an idea this is.

Next you'll be saying let's privatize the police and fire dept.! and privatize the libraries! Privatize the schools and the zoos and the parks, and the judiciary!

I think only those with lots of money should be allowed to enjoy anything!.

We could charge for entry into nat'l parks, charge to drive on the freeways, charge to borrow a book, charge to save a life, charge to enforce the law

No money? YOU CAN"T DRIVE. Take that, you filthy proles.
Have an emergency? Get a job! Oh wait, you can't because YOU CAN'T drive because you're too poor because you can't drivebecause you're too poorbecause you can't drive because....

Ok I guess I did have time.

Poor people don't drive anyway. They take mass transit, which the rich constantly refuse to fund.

People who drive have enough money for car insurance and usually have enough money to purchase a car in the first place (sometimes they borrow it from someone), so, if the cost to use private roads aren't too high, it won't be more expensive even for most drivers, and people who can't afford cars won't have to pay anything for roads. I don't believe that only people who use government services should pay for them, but not charging poor people for highways would help balance out corporate welfare.

If roads aren't developed in undeveloped areas, so what? It's not the government's responsibility to develop them. Maybe trains will be viable without government support for highways (while we're at it, we could close Amtrak*).

If privatization is more expensive for most people, which I think is likely since the top few percent have disproportionately high incomes, I won't support it.

*But slowly so as to not create a vacuum in the Northeast.

 

[warpus]

Manual tolls would be a nuisance on every onramp, so the companies would have to use a unified electronic payment system. You put a device in your car, enter a highway, and it automatically charges you and charges to the right company. Having ten devices would also be a nuisance.

Nah, you don't need cards. Set up cameras to take pictures of license plates of cars entering/leaving a highway, and send the bills via snail mail. Problem solved.

I'm surprised how many Americans are against the privatization of highways. Why can you privatize health care, but not the highways?

 

[sourboy]

Because we need to destroy more of the planet via more tax payers money?

No.

 

[bhsup]

Poor people don't drive anyway. They take mass transit, which the rich constantly refuse to fund.

*looks around* No mass transit around here...

 

[Masquerouge]

*looks around* No mass transit around here...

This MUST mean there are no poor people then!

 

[innonimatu]

Nah, you don't need cards. Set up cameras to take pictures of license plates of cars entering/leaving a highway, and send the bills via snail mail.

Unfortunately there are far better systems, starting with using RFID tags on the cars. Without these systems drivers might actually get pissed of with waiting times at tolls or simply fail to pay. With them they will install a device on the car a pay from their bank accounts - a private tax. Entirely voluntary, of course, you'd be free to use the old road system, getting stuck in local traffic, instead of the tax-payer/government and EU financed, and now privatized privatized, highways. Often built on land expropriated by a fraction of its value on behalf of the "public interest", by the way.

I blame the EU funds and the corruption they fed. There is no worst thing that easy money handed over for politicians to spend.

 

[m4gill4]

I'm surprised how many Americans are against the privatization of highways. Why can you privatize health care, but not the highways?

And our privatised healthcare is just soooooooo equitable

 

[Sims2789]

*looks around* No mass transit around here...

I guess that mass transit is more expensive in less densely populated areas, which have poor people just like the inner cities. I hadn't thought of that.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm for it. Make the riff raff consider car pooling, public transportation, and driving only when necessary. Clears up the roads for those of us where the hit the in the pocketbook wouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

[m4gill4]

I'm for it. Make the riff raff consider car pooling, public transportation, and driving only when necessary. Clears up the roads for those of us where the hit the in the pocketbook wouldn't be that big of a deal.

Wow this guy makes my point for me. I hope you're being sarcastic.