From the 11/15/05 Toledo Blade:

 

 

Turnpike extends toll rollback

More time cited to weigh truck measure's effectiveness

 

BEREA, Ohio - The Ohio Turnpike Commission decided yesterday to extend its truck toll rollback through the end of 2006.

 

Initially approved for an 18-month period that began in January, the rate reduction averages 25 percent and was part of a package of measures, also including a speed-limit increase, that the commission implemented to try to lure truckers away from parallel secondary routes.

 

.....

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051115/NEWS11/511150380/-1/NEWS

 

Although not Ohio, I thought some might be interested in what our neighbors to the west are up to.  I'm sure this is a concept that will continue to grow as states continue to be strapped for cash.

 

Indiana offered $3.8 billion for Toll Road

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060123/NEWS02/601230417

By Theodore Kim

[email protected]

 

A foreign consortium offered Indiana $3.8 billion to operate the Indiana Toll Road, Gov. Mitch Daniels announced today.

 

 

What's also encouraging is that Indiana's DOT (at Gov Daniel's direction) is re-organizing and has formed a rail division which is already cooperating with states like Ohio and Illinois on their rail plans.  Let's hope some of this lease money will be used on passenger rail and transit projects.

I think that this plan, combined with the sudden interest of states like Virginia in paying contractors to build and operate toll roads begs a serious question.  If it is so profitable for private companies to operate toll roads, then WHY IS GOVERNMENT LITERALLY GIVING MONEY AWAY?

 

It's like selling someone your house just so they can rent it right back to you.  How is this positive for taxpayers?

^ Probably because it gets the state a lot of money right away and they don't really care about the long term...the current administration will be long gone by then.

This is one idea from Governor Mitch Daniels that I support.

 

Tolls will almost certainly increase, but that was in the works, anyway. Governor Daniels had already announced his attention to phase in increases that will double auto tolls and increase commercial truck tolls fourfold. If commercial users have to pay their fair share of the cost of operating the toll roads, that will help to level the playing field for the freight railroads (although it will probably still fall a little bit short).

 

There's been discussion of making the proposed I-69 extension between Indianapolis and Evansville a toll road, and even a some whispering about making all the interstates toll roads. If the leases were structured properly, the change could be a benefit to many communities.

 

Indiana has a state statute limiting the number of lane-miles of highway the state can maintain, and that has been maxed out for many years. Every mile of new interstate construction results in the state turning over equivalent lane-miles of former state highway to the counties to maintain. County property tax payers have been picking up all that cost.

 

In addition, all the real estate consumed by construction of new expressways and their interchanges and related facilities disappears from the property tax rolls in the counties, and the shortfall has to be made up by businesses, farmers and homeowners.

 

In my opinion, an appropriate lease agreement would require the lease operator to cover all maintenance and operating expense, reimburse the state for traffic enforcement and emergency services, and pay the county property taxes on the assessed value of the land and improvements. Tolls should be structured to allow the operator to recover all his costs and make an attractive return on investment.

Part of the reason why states are considering this is because they don't see gas prices going down. Indeed, the price for oil futures are higher into 2008 than they are now. There are simply not enough supplies. So how does this relate?

 

Higher fuel prices mean slower or no growth in demand for fuel (less driving, more hybrid cars and increased use of alternative fuels). That translates into restricted growth and possibly even a decline in gas tax revenues. How transportation is funded in the future is already starting to become a big point of discussion in preparation for the next federal surface transportation reauthorization, as the current authoritization is due to expire just two years from now.

 

Putting tolls on public roads is one option. Leasing or selling highways to private interests is another. A BTU tax is also on the table (basing your vehicle use tax on its energy efficiency measured in British Thermal Units). One this is for certain: the way you pay for highways today is not how they will paid for in the coming years. If change isn't made, the highways you drive will be in much worse condition.

Okay, so add tolls to the Interstates.  That, I get.  Drivers in the U.S. have not been paying the full cost of driving since the invention of the automobile.

 

What I don't get is why a private entity needs to profit off this.  To me, it's just an idea from the ideological school that claims public sector = bad and private sector = good.  If someone is making a profit off public infrastructure, shouldn't it be the public? 

 

Other countries, like France, use this model, taking tolls from the Autoroutes and using them to fund the passenger rail systems.  Under what is proposed here, potential revenue streams for alternate modes of travel would be diverted to privately held companies and removed from consideration for providing improved public infrastructure. 

 

But hey, someone will get rich out of the whole deal, so that makes America better, right?

Don't be surprised if you see this happen with the Ohio Turnpike.  I have it on pretty good authority that at least one of the gubernatorial candidates is being advised to take such a position.  But I would only support such a move if all or at least most of the revenue from selling the operating rights went to improve and expand other modes, especially rail and mass transit.

If a similar lease of the Ohio Turnpike occurred, and chances are it will happen, what might that mean financially? And, what do we as transit/rail/urban advocates do about it? Do we wait until it happens or start floating some non-highway funding suggestions ahead of time to avoid having to go on the defensive? As you might tell by my tone, I favor the latter.

 

So, I came up with a little estimate. Consider that:

 

+ The 157-mile Indiana Toll Road generates $90 million per year in toll and concession revenues, and was offered a 75-year lease for $3.8 billion;

+ The 8-mile Chicago Skyway generates $45 million per year in toll and concession revenues, and was leased for 99 years to the same group in 2004 for $1.8 billion;

+ The 241-mile Ohio Turnpike Authority generates more than $200 million per year in toll and concession revenues.

 

Based on that data, the Ohio Turnpike might be leased for as much as $8 billion to $8.44 billion!

 

For the sake of conservatism, I'll stick with $8 billion.

 

What can you do with $8 billion? A multi-modal transportation modernization and enhancement program.

 

> Ohio Hub System (freight and high-speed rail) -- $3 billion (intra-Ohio investment only)

> Urban roads reconstruction -- $3 billion

> Transit systems enhancement -- $1 billion

> Short-line, regional freight rail system enhancements -- $500 million

> Rural road safety improvements -- $500 million

 

I await your comments.

I'd have to know more. What happens to all the projects that get funded by the $90M now? Is there anyway to predict if Ohio will actually make money on the deal or project what the turnpike might make by and through 2080? 

so they are not even keeping this money in the states. That's sad. If i was a Indiana I would be furious that my tax money was made to build something then sold to an foreign entity. If it's in Ohio  i wouldn't support it. Look at all the revenue they would be giving up in the long run. NO WAY.

 

The $90 million in annual revenue generated by the Indiana Toll Road is used to pay for the operation and upkeep of the toll road. The entire $90 million would not be used to retire the private company's acquisition loan. The balance would be used to continue the road's operations. I don't know how the funds would be split up or any other particulars. My suggestion is to look at how the revenues from the Chicago Skyway are being used by this same company.

 

As for keeping the money in the states, the lease payment would likely be for the state to use at its discretion, just as it was for the City of Chicago (which owned and operated the Skyway). Most of the costs of building and operating these toll roads was paid for by motorists' tolls, not taxes. Perhaps the other bidders were domestic companies, I don't know. But since their bids were too low, the state (or in the case of the Skyway, the city) must award the bid to the highest and most responsible bidder. Responsibility means their capabilities, not where they receive their mail.

 

The Ohio Turnpike Commission would be giving up revenue just as it would be giving up costs. And no other roads in Ohio are funded by the Ohio Turnpike Commission. As in Indiana, the Ohio Department of Transportation would likely be the recipient of the $8 billion. And, since it is a one-time lease payment, the state could do what it wants with it -- statewide.

What would the State of Ohio do with 8 billion dollars...  well let's think of all the different ways states have used their tobacco settlement money.  Sure a good portion went to treating effects of people smoking but lots of it went into vaguely relevant pet projects, not really making any great change at all...  Which reminds me a lot of our good buddy Mr. Stark, and his philosophy of concentrating development to really make a change.  If you split up 8 billion dollars into tens or hundreds of little projects we will net virtually nothing.  As the landscape is today I would see no doubt that the money would be diluted in such a manner; so yes KJP, we should start now.

Danindc et all:

 

it seems maybe some of us are familar with Asphault Nation

 

if not, read it.

Since we don't make a dime off the highway now and its just a lease, I think it might deserve consideration. The only thing I wonder about now is the possibility to make it profitable. Lets say the state is straped for cash and wants to raise the toll to support the state budget, that option is gone.

I'm with you KJP.  I'd like to see Blackwell better define "transportation infrastructure".  A little too vague for my liking, but that's the typical politician.  I also don't like that it is midway down the list of his proposed uses for the revenues.  Given that non-highway transportation modes have pretty much been left to go begging over the years, I would submit that the biggest share should go into intercity rail development, local mass transit, bikeways and pedestrian improvements.  Improve the infrastructure and you make the rest of his "spending list" an easier task. 

I hate Toll Roads!

 

I drive the Ohio turnpike for 118 miles, the entire Indiana toll road, the Tri-State tollway near Chicago, and the Ronald Reagon tollway west of Chicago!

 

 

Money money money $$$

I hate 'em too.  But I'd hate 'em a lot less if I knew the $$$$ were going into something that got me where I want to go without having to always reach for the car keys.

Toll Road plan passes first test

 

BY PATRICK GUINANE

[email protected]

317.637.9078

 

INDIANAPOLIS | The governor's $3.85 billion plan to lease the Indiana Toll Road withstood its first challenge Tuesday, advancing to the full House on 14-10 party-line vote.

 

No Democrats voted for the measure, even after the House Ways and Means Committee limited the governor's privatization powers to roads and bridges by removing the references to ports, airports and rail facilities originally included in House Bill 1008.

 

More at:

http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2006/01/25/news/top_news/7fcae283d03b2fcc862571010013ea39.txt

 

The concept of tolls, while not overly popular, does introduce more of the private marketplace into what has traditionally been a government-dominated service -- highways. And it makes more sense to introduce this to interstate highways, given their limited number of access points. I'm surprised that this capitalist nation didn't insist on it.

 

Ironically, a friend of mine pointed out today that in China, all new "interstate" highway construction is financed by tolls under privatization agreements. One of the world's last remaining "communist" countries uses private financing for building new roads. Meanwhile the "capitalist" United States uses governmental processes to build, maintain and operate highways funded mostly by taxes. What’s wrong with this picture?

 

We’re too busy attending fund raising dinners by lobbyists to notice we are being surpassed as a world economic power…

 

By the way, I sat down and estimated how much money Ohio could generate if it leased all of its intercity interstates to private operators. Here is a rundown....

 

Ohio Turnpike - $7-8 billion

Interstate 71 - $6-8 billion

Interstate 75 - $6-8 billion

Interstate 70 - $5-7 billion

Interstate 77 - $3-6 billion

Interstate 76 - $1-2 billion (non-turnpike section)

Interstate 90 - $2-3 billion (non-turnpike section)

Interstate 80 - $1 billion (non-turnpike section)

 

Total .... $31 billion to $43 billion

 

We could build the world's greatest high-speed rail system and urban transit network with that kind of money! Think of the jobs, the refocusing of investment back into the core cities, the sustainability and environmental enhancement that we could gain from this -- all with making our interstate highways part of the private marketplace.

Funds generated would be used for broad categories of economic development including the following:

 

• Ohio energy development including alternative and clean coal resources as well as conservation and efficiency improvements;

• Ohio Venture Capital Fund;

• Revolving development loan fund;

• Turnpike corridor development;

• Transportation infrastructure;

• Universal Broad Band access;

• Higher education scholarship fund for engineering, technology and science students;

• K-12 science and math program support;

• Technology specific worker training.

 

Lease of the turnpike would require legislative action to authorize the transaction after an open bidding process. "By soliciting bids and segregating the proceeds, we can provide for market driven development activity free from political influence," he said.

 

######

 

 

See... It's already started...  and this is just the beginning... this is only one man (okay maybe his whole election campaign staff but still a small amount of people)

This appears to be from the Akron Beacon Journal. I'll bet the reporter never asked motorists "if the state could greatly improve its transportation system by leasing the Ohio Turnpike, would you support it?" Of course, if you ask someone if they would be willing to pay the same product more without offering something of greater value, they're never going to support it. Stupid media....

So this is something you're advocating, KJP? 

 

To take the example of the Chicago Skyway, $2 billion for 99 years.  That's only $20 million a year in present dollars--a drop in the bucket for a city the size of Chicago. 

 

Aside from a sudden influx of cash, what do they get?  Is the road surface any better?  Are services better?  Is road plowing and salting better?  The only difference is that a company is making profit off drivers.  I argue that if it's profitable to operate roadways, then the states should just raise the tolls and keep the money for other state projects.  It doesn't make sense to throw money at private companies when it could be put into other infrastructure projects.

 

You know as well as I do that transportation is inherently an unprofitable enterprise unto itself.  Why, then, are we seeing so many companies frothing at the chance to pay billions to build and operate toll roads?  Could it be because the states are introducing externalities (read:  inefficiencies) into the market which make it possible to generate these profits? 

I'm not sure why you spread the lease payment across 99 years. The lease may be for that long, but the lease payment is a single payment to the state. I advocate it because of its possibilities for coming up with significant capital money for rail, that cannot be garnered any other way. If we keep squandering opportunities like this for generating major investment dollars for a 21st century transportation system that can withstand resource limitations and protect the environment, then we will have nothing but painful ways left of coming up with the funding. That's assuming our economy is still capable of generating the funds we need in a post-peak oil world.

 

Instead our leaders piss money away like drunken sailors rather than make targeted, catalytic investments for the 21st century. Here's an opportunity to set the course.

I understand what you're saying, KJP.  It *is* a method of obtaining a large amount of capital at once.  It doesn't help, though, that people in Columbus decide to "invest" in a 3rd lane each way on I-71 instead of rehabbing a rail line.  There's still fat that can be trimmed to obtain large amounts of capital.  I just don't like the idea of introducing inefficiencies and waste (profit to private companies) for a one-shot deal.  It's not unlike using a rainy day fund to balance a budget.

 

I know that there is only one lease payment, up front.  You have to account for the opportunity cost of not being able to collect the tolls for 99 years, hence the averaging.  I suppose from the perspective of collecting a lot of capital at once, it's a feasible idea.  I'm very queasy about privatizing things like infrastructure, which, as even Alexander Hamilton argued, was one of the two primary functions of federal government.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS11/602220447/-1/NEWS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published February 22, 2006

 

Extension of toll cuts is on Turnpike agenda

 

By DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

 

A six-month extension of the Ohio Turnpike's reduced commercial vehicle tolls is on the agenda for a turnpike commission meeting tomorrow morning.

 

.....

Dems decry Toll Road plan

 

BY PATRICK GUINANE

[email protected]

317.637.9078

 

INDIANAPOLIS | Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has failed to make his case that leasing the Indiana Toll Road will benefit the state as much as it will private investors, Senate Democrats charged Thursday.

 

As the Times first reported a month ago, one of the firms involved in the Toll Road deal has promised investor profits of at least 12.5 percent.

 

Macquarie Infrastructure Group, the Australian half of a Spanish-Australian partnership that has offered $3.85 billion for a 75-year Toll Road lease, last month told potential investors they could see an internal rate of return as high as 13.5 percent.

 

http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2006/02/23/news/lake_county/3f6c1dbe7697a9178625711e0007324e.txt

Toll road privatization is one of the few Mitch Daniels ideas that I support, along with making the proposed I-69 extension a toll road. Unfortunately, I think he's going to screw it up just like he did the daylight saving time issue, and we'll end up with something more messed up than before he screwed with it.

 

You'd think he'd been taking lessons from the President -- oh, wait ... :roll:

Metro Investment Report

http://www.metroinvestmentreport.com/mir/?module=displaystory&story_id=332&format=html

February 2006

by David Narefsky & John Schmidt

 

Public-Private Financings Are Providing Billions for Infrastructure

 

Chicago and Indiana have made billions by partnering with private financers on infrastructure assets. Attorneys David Narefsky and John Schdmit explain how California can reap similar benefits.

 

Public-private financing is emerging as one of the most innovative and efficient ways to pay for and maintain major public infrastructure projects. Few people understand these partnerships better than David Narefsky and John Schmidt, both of Meyer, Brown, Rowe, and Maw LLP. They helped broker what are, to date, the two largest public-private deals in the country – the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road – which have garnered billions for their public clients. MIR was pleased to speak with Mr. Narefsky and Mr. Schmidt about both the finer points of public-private financing and its potential to support California’s ambitious investment plans.

California is considering a strategic infrastructure investment plan that involves the passage of more than $68 billion in bond financing and the utilization and leveraging of private equity. Your experience in Chicago, representing the mayor in privatizating their Skyway, would be instructive. Generally, what public benefits does privatization offer?

 

More at link above:

Indianans suspicious of toll road deal

By Theodore Kim, USA TODAY

 

INDIANAPOLIS — The deal seems simple: An overseas consortium has offered Indiana $3.85 billion to take up all maintenance, operations and revenue on the money-losing Indiana East-West Toll Road for 75 years.

 

The political realities of privatizing one of the Midwest's most important roads have proved to be anything but simple for the deal's architect, Gov. Mitch Daniels.

 

Find this article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-27-indiana_x.htm 

 

My perception from near the front lines is that a lot of local opposition is based on the misinformed belief that the toll road presently turns a profit for the state. Another source of displeasure in Angola and other small towns along US 20 is the fear (probably accurate) that increasing tolls will cause even more truckers to go through their downtowns to avoid the toll road. Some of the towns, Angola among them, are already being trampled nearly to death by the parade of 18-wheelers all day and all night.

 

Public confidence is deteriorating in Daniels' ability to act in good faith or to carry out his plans without unintended consequences. Many people feel that his changes to time zones were bungled and only made things more ridiculously confusing than they were before, and the BMV Director's mostly unilateral decisions to close numerous small-town license branches has gone over badly with older rural voters who now have to brave bigger-city traffic, long waits and surly, impersonal service when they need to transact business with the BMV.

Good read noozer.  I'm glad to see some support in Ohio for this idea, but I don't think Blackwell has the right idea for putting the money to use.  If Blackwell wants my vote, he's going to have to spend a little more time defining these "pet projects" and less time attacking his competitors.  I'm not going to agree to sell a major state asset, and give blank checks to dozens of politicians.

 

I'm pretty suprised that the article only referred to "modernizing" Ohio's transportation system, and didn't mention rail.  I hope they're not thinking that modernization means adding lanes.

According to free market think tanks, "modernizing" means being able to drive anywhere you want at 100 mph unimpeded. 

 

While I support a market-based approach to highway transportation (tolls), I do think there is the potential for disaster when "leasing" publicly-owned resources to private firms.  Indiana is whoring the Toll Road for a 75 year period.  Does anyone really think the $3.8 billion is going to last 75 years?  If not, then what they're really doing is a one-time fix--not a permanent, sustainable policy change. 

 

What do you do when you run out of highways to sell?  Do you sell the State Capitol to a private company in order to add more lanes to I-71?

It all depends on what is done with the capital raised from the lease.  If it is used intelligently to spur (or stop the loss of) economic development, then the decision might pay for itself over the course of 75 years.  If the capital is squandered on pet projects like body armor for police dogs, then it's a complete failure.

The reason the Buckeye Policy Institute author didn't mention rail specifically, is that they have been historically against concpets like government support for passenger rail or local mass transit & light rail. They have fought every light rail levy vote in Ohio for well over a decade or more.

 

But I have to agree that Blackwell needs to be more specific as to where the $$$ go.  We've already been through one scandal.... "Coingate" .... where people played fast and loose with the cash.  We don'tr need another one like that ever. 

It was only a matter of time before Pennylvania began consdiering this....

 

Lawmakers propose allowing privately operated toll roads

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

BY CHARLES THOMPSON

Of The Patriot-News

 

Two legislative leaders on transportation issues said yesterday they want Pennsylvania to consider privately built and operated toll roads as a way to deal with increasing highway traffic.

 

Reps. Richard Geist, R-Blair, and Keith McCall, D-Carbon, said public-private partnerships have worked well in other states, including Virginia, Texas and Florida, and could bridge Pennsylvania's gap between highway project wish lists -- which Geist said now exceed $30 billion -- and available public funding.

 

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1141208789183110.xml&coll=1

If taxpayers have already paid for those roads, then we don't have to spend any more money on them right? Wrong!! I can't stand when that cliche is used. It's a cop-out for avoiding a debate over expanding the use of tolls, which I contend was one of the greatest mistakes of the interstate highway system. It removes a major equalizing factor from the supply-demand equation -- price.

 

Thus, if the demand for the use of a highway grows so much that it becomes congested, the only solution is to increase its supply (ie: widen it) in the absence of tolls. If pricing were part of the equation, it could be considered more often and help to rein in sprawl -- or at least to put a more accurate price on it.

 

So don't tell me taxpayers have already paid for a particular highway -- taxpayers are NEVER done paying for a given highway.

Yeah, let's build elevated decks and viaducts, 'cause that's the easiest thing to do. 

 

Morons.

OK, here's All Aboard Ohio's position paper (prefaced with a one-page overview) on the idea of leasing the Ohio Turnpike....

 

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/Turnpike_Lease_PP-BP.pdf

 

....with the short answer being: "Nice idea, but only if you use the proceeds for diversifying the state's transportation system to cope with the challenges of the 21st century."

What a surprise, not. :-)

 

The more I think about it, why not if we can pay for the hub plan. If that fails, at least it wasn't straight tax dollars.

You know it wouldnt' be so bad, if the money was staying in the state by a local private company, but this money is going overseas. Wtf is this country coming too. We're selling our souls.

 

From our ports to are airlines to our highway to our railroads. This country is fucked.

The profits may be going out of state, but the lease revenues are staying here. But I'd be interested to see who the other three bidders were for Indiana Toll Road. I don't know if all of them were international or if at least one was domestic. If some of the lease revenues were for high-speed rail (or at least a more modest 110-mph version of it), much of the train equipment would be manufactured outside of the U.S. Montreal-based Bombardier is the largest rail passenger car manufacturer that's closest to the U.S. General Electric has a huge locomotive plant in Erie, PA. And many components are still manufactured in Ohio and rail cars are often assembled here (like at GE's large Apparatus Shop in Cuyahoga Heights).

Posted on Fri, Mar. 03, 2006 

 

General Assembly

 

Toll Road lease clears Senate

Meeks sees pluses in ‘toughest issue I’ve ever had’By Niki Kelly

The Journal Gazette

 

INDIANAPOLIS – Gov. Mitch Daniels’ divisive transportation initiative passed the Senate Thursday by a 29-20 vote, with several Republicans voting against privatizing the Indiana Toll Road.

 

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Robert Meeks, R-LaGrange, supported the measure despite the possible political cost, noting the hundreds of road projects and thousands of jobs that would result from the plan.

 

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/14008320.htm

March 14, 2006

 

Toll Road deal struck, but vote may be close

By Theodore Kim

[email protected]

March 14, 2006

 

State lawmakers predicted close final votes on Gov. Mitch Daniels' Major Moves plan today, even as leaders said Monday they had forged a compromise bill.

Word of a deal came as the General Assembly raced toward adjournment today of a session that began in January during which legislators took up issues ranging from property tax reform to abortion rights.

But Daniels' Major Moves road-building strategy -- which is anchored by a 75-year plan to lease out the Indiana Toll Road to an Australian-Spanish consortium in exchange for an immediate payment of $3.85 billion -- has eclipsed the Statehouse agenda.

 

 

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/NEWS02/603140439

Daniels signs road bill into law

580 Toll Road workers get letter about job options

By Niki Kelly

The Journal Gazette

 

INDIANAPOLIS – Just hours after lawmakers approved his plan to lease the Indiana Toll Road for billions in cash, Gov. Mitch Daniels on Wednesday signed the legislation into law and sent a letter to Toll Road workers about their future.

 

But most of the talk was about the potential political cost to Republicans who supported the Major Moves initiative despite opposition from their constituents.

 

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/14112750.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06081/674324.stm

 

Editorial: Not E-Z in Ohio / A neighboring turnpike is technology-challenged

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

Millions of Pennsylvania motorists already know and appreciate the convenience of electronic toll collection on their own turnpike and in other states -- until they see those "Welcome to Ohio" signs on the Ohio Turnpike.

 

 

.............

And someone has finally stood up for the opposition.

http://www.slate.com/id/2138950/

Good article.  But what the authors miss is that all of the proceeds from the toll road lease are being plowed back into more roads.  What about rail and transit projects?  This is the weakness of plans like this: they do nothing to bring about balance and choice in our transportation systems.

That's the key: what is this money being used for? Is it being used to maintain the status quo, or to create a basis for long-term, exponential enhancement of wealth and economic development while respecting the finite world in which we increasingly live? In that regard, I agree with the author. It reminds me of what Ohio did with the tobacco lawsuit settlement funds. Instead of investing it wisely for long-term economic growth, the state pissed the money away on short-term projects and programs that ultimately increased costs for state government with little spin-off benefit. It may have helped win some re-election campaigns, but I get tired of politicians thinking only as far as the next election (or business leaders only to the next 90 days). That's where this country comes up short compared to others, and is why foreign investors increasingly have the money buy stuff here while our investors don't. It's time to fit our nation with some corrective lenses to improve their long-term vision. I support leasing the Ohio Turnpike, but only if we use it to evolve the state's transportation system for the 21st century.