By state legislative mandate, Central Puget Sound voters will in 2007 be looking at some sort of big-ticket funding package for the next phase of regional roads projects, and at a regional roads and transit agency re-org proposal. In this next and subsequent phases of the region's necessary work, additional state gas tax and MVET hikes are going to have a hard time winning approval. Tolls? Perhaps less so. Is it time to seriously consider offloading public road assets to the private sector for redevelopment, or examine public-private funding partnerships for looming highway and bridge expansion and rehab projects here, such as the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, I-405, and the mammoth improvements that are needed to unsnarl and repair I-5? A change in federal law could be required to allow tolls on roads built with (update: edit) federal highway funds.
I'm wondering thanks to a SF Chron article published today. It's titled, "Selling off public assets part of Mineta congestion plan - Transportation chief pushes for private partnerships." U.S. Transportation Sec. Norman Mineta, former San Jose mayor, Democratic congressman, and Bill Clinton appointee, has come out strong for private funding of major regional road projects to cut congestion. In addition, Mineta is proposing a category of federal grants that would force regions to prioritize projects which would actually reduce congestion. Amazing concept, eh?
Washington -- Saying that port, highway and airport tie-ups are strangling the U.S. economy, Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta outlined on Tuesday what he called an ambitious national strategy to combat congestion. Several aspects of the new Bush administration program are likely to generate controversy, including plans to encourage the sale or lease of public roads, bridges or other transportation infrastructure to private investors. The administration also expects criticism on a "Corridors of the Future" project in which local and state governments will be asked to compete to gain fast-track approval for three to five major projects that would slash congestion by the greatest amounts....Sales of public transportation facilities in the past few years have set off a flurry of interest among public officials....The sales have included Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's decision to reach a 99-year, $1.9 billion lease deal for the Chicago Skyway, a toll bridge, and Indiana's pending $3.8 billion, 75-year lease of the state's toll road. The new operators will run the tollways and bridges, maintain them and get the right to raise tolls to pay off the debt they incur by entering into the deals.
.....The proposal for private partnerships builds on studies such as one released last January by a blue-ribbon panel of the National Research Council. "The federal government should encourage states to experiment with arrangements for tolling and private-sector participation in road development," the report said. This is one area that could require a change in law because, until now, the federal government has not allowed tolls to be charged on roads built with federal highway monies.
I-5 in particular is ridiculous morass of twisted illogic (certain ramp placements and required lane shifts in particular); worn down pavement; and generally grave dysfunction. The actual projected costs to upgrade it are fairly staggering. Maybe our regional decision-makers should seriously consider lobbying for clearance to sell I-5 in Washington state to a private owner, conditional upon specified major upgrades and the public benefit being funneled back into the project to keep tolls lower. Of course, private ownership of roads might not be attractive to labor unions. But sooner or later, that tail has to stop wagging the dog.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 17, 2006 06:12 PM | Email ThisAnd all that the regional politicians want to do is fund mass transit fantasies.
I'm for anything that would take power out of the hands of regional politicians and put it into the hands of leaders who must make real business decisions that are accountable to real investors.
As long as leaders like Nickels and Sims continue to play with Federal and State Monopoly Money and treat our transportation needs like a child's game, there will be nothing but gridlock in the Puget Sound's future.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 17, 2006 06:44 PMCreation of congestion is part of the master plan of forcing everyone into public transportation. Democrats will never give up their control.
Posted by: BananaLand on May 17, 2006 07:49 PMDoes that mean that all those toll roads back East were built with PRIVATE funds? I don't think so. Most are part of the federal Interstate Highway System, aren't they?
Posted by: Mac on May 17, 2006 08:05 PMBut to the major point, why do you assume that private ownership of a highway monopoly would be better run?
Because it's a monopoly situation you have to set up all sorts of contractual agreements stretching over many many decades and that would become so involved and inflexible you'd end up exactly where we are now.
Posted by: David Sucher on May 17, 2006 09:41 PMThose sales were done to shore up sinking coffers, or in the part of the SkyWay avoid long overdue maintance costs.
Posted by: Ryan on May 17, 2006 10:01 PMIt's a shame. $3 gasoline changes the calculations. $.25 more in gas tax would be a bargain, if it reduced congestion. WSDOT and Seattle aren't interested in reducing congestion if it involves more road capacity. They are only willing to provide "alternatives."
Posted by: South County on May 17, 2006 10:42 PMThe bottom line all the plans I see will only aid mass transit and lawyers. Not one move to improve the congestion. I wonder why that is. It sounds similar to welfare. Just do enough to make it like you are doing something but not enough to make a difference or fix the issue.
Posted by: David Anfinrud on May 18, 2006 07:36 AMHmmmmmm isn't he the Clinton fool who said can't profile the bad guys at the airports.
The stench of Clinton stay's with us for quite sometime. I have to wonder why GW hasn't fired this fool yet.
It could go well or it could go very wrong. It all depends on the quality of the leash that customers have. Some things in private enterprise are not good for consumers: a monopoly is one of them. I'm not saying it's not the right way to do it, but I think we the people need a say on booting the owners and what the price will be.
Given the our history here, am I the only one smelling a Vulcan or a Gregoire buddy?
Posted by: Andy on May 18, 2006 08:39 AMJust to clarify (and slightly correct) something you wrote:
"Central Puget Sound voters will in 2007 be looking at some sort of big-ticket funding package for the next phase of regional roads projects, and at a regional roads and transit agency re-org proposal."
First, the re-org proposal that is discussed in that article you linked to will just be a report setting out some proposals that a group picked by the Governor will be making to the Legislature. Unless the legislature next session changes it, this "re-org" proposal will NOT be something on the 2007 ballot that the voters will have any say over.
Also Matt, it does not appear you have grasped what HB 2871 actually did. It mandates that both RTID and ST put new tax and bond and spend proposals on the 2007 ballot. Moreover, they will be joined together -- neither will become effective unless the other is approved by voters as well.
Let's say you want the RTID roads package. You vote yes on it. What you also just did is cast a yes vote for the new sound transit tax and spend package. That is because the new ST proposal requires not only that voters approve it, but also that a majority of the voters voting on the RTID proposal vote yes on the RTID measure. In other words, the ST package requires two sets of yes vote majorities -- one on the ST proposal, and another on the RTID proposal. Vote for RTID's roads package, and you are also simultaneously cast a yes vote that the Sound Transit tax package requires as well (whether you want that or not).
This is a ploy to absolutely hump taxpayers, and keep the unaccountable slimes running ST and RTID in control of huge amounts of money to further their craven personal agendas.
Would Seattle residents be a better off on the weekends with just a little more lane capacity on I-5 and an east west corridor at either 85th or 110th? I think we have a shot at getting some of this lane capacity immediately after the Seattle government and the Seattleists (Seattle + socialist = seattleist(n,adj) -tically(adv), "They seattleisted (verb) east KC on the CAO.") keep their promises on sidewalks.
I've been wondering about RTID districts for sidewalks. The state would forgive property taxes on the value increase do to the new sidewalk. The forgiven revenue stream would help pay for the sidewalks.
Needs help from reporterward.