Selling America's Transport Assets

[Roger Morton]

With the nation’s infrastructure in rapid decay and the seeming lack of sufficient funding and concern to reverse the trend, some governmental entities have sold rights to their highways to private entities that will perform repair and maintenance while collecting the tolls.

An example of this is the Chicago Skyway, ownership of which has moved through a 99-year lease -- at a cost of $1.83 billion paid to the City of Chicago -- to a partnership known as the Skyway Concession Co., made up of a Spanish company and one from Australia. A deal for the Indiana Toll Road brought a $3.8 billion payoff to that state’s treasury. Operation of the 157-mile turnpike also went to Macquarie-Cintra, the same company that has the Chicago Skyway deal.

Using these transactions, and others, as an example, some state governments are looking to sell or lease to private entities their public roads, as well. The solution would bring immediate cash to their state treasuries while serving to get the specific roadway infrastructure upgraded.

Is this a good thing?

See Indiana Moves closer to selling its toll road

[cargoman]

Would you sell the driveway to your house just to pay this month's utility bill?

Or maybe you want to buy the wife a new dress with hopes of getting lucky?

Silly ideas all.

Selling the turnpike is not simply outsourcing a la getting rid of the city sanitation department.

It is a political quick-fix.

[translogistique]

It is becoming a fact of hard buisness that languishing ports in North America is coming increasingly under a close scrutiny of Dubai Ports - which is good for globalization and not for the state involved. So the debate on public vs private ownership of transport infrastructure is going in all economic groups everywhere.

Prof Philbert Suresh
www.translogistique.org

[dkberry]

What do you mean by "and not for the state involved"?

Is it better for the the port to languish, lose business, contribute lower tax contributions, employ fewer, take risks in its business operations to make or attract more business/money?

Issue of public vs private ownership is not the point. I assume by public you mean the local municipality. Private or public corporation ownership will always be superior to public ownership if there is any reason for the facility to operate effectively. Only thing public transportation facilities do is ... create jobs ... and lose money.

Best thing that could happen to US ports would be for DPWorld or other entity with capital to invest to acquire them. Any thoughts about port security being at risk are unsubstantiated. Anyone who has been to Dubai knows this.

If port security under DPW ownership were a concern ... then why aren't shipping from DPW run ports worldwide restricted like TSA restricts flights from airports with poor security standards?

To often critics make security an issue ... on the assumption that "foreigners" will be lax on security. These are private or publicly owned companies. It is bad business for them to not protect their balance sheet. They sure have as great if not greater stake in our ports than we do. They actually want to invest in them.