gkrykewy said:
No. By talking points, I mean that you're arguing from an ideological fantasyland with no correspondence with reality. Your examples are all IFs and SHOULDs, but I'm telling you from the perspective of a transportation professional that they're AREN'Ts.
Major highway/rail projects would require staggering tolls to recoup their costs, which would mean they would not be used, which would mean they don't get built. If private interests were banging down the doors of government to pay for infrastructure projects, believe me, they would be welcomed with open arms.
Private interests are starting to agree to fund building. In many cases, building of roads have stalled, and government is turning private to finish them. It seems to be the way America is turning in general.
And I guess Canada too. They're turning private to help finish construction.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/08/29/6609686-cp.html
Pennsylvania Turnpike? Likely turning private.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673288,00.html
Also in the article above, "There are 71 projects worth $104 billion being considered for private development by state and local governments, according to the publication Public Works Financing
...
Deals in which the private sector actually builds new infrastructure are usually a better bargain for the public. The state or city gets a new stretch of highway or a bridge or a tunnel, and it shifts risk to its private partner--a genuine benefit. If construction costs spike or expected traffic doesn't materialize, that's the company's problem. "We've had some governments say to us, 'I don't really need to be in that business,'" says Mark Florian, who oversees infrastructure deals for Goldman Sachs. These so-called greenfield projects are starting to catch on. And some states are getting savvy about how to structure the terms. The 50-year lease for Texas' State Highway 130, for example, includes a revenue-sharing clause that nets the state 4.6% of gross receipts at first and up to 50% as traffic increases--just in case the road proves more valuable than predicted.
And even though 2007 has placed a few speed bumps in their way, public-private partnerships are almost certainly here to stay. Many of the financiers who run infrastructure funds actively drum up deals--some states allow unsolicited bids, and bankers have fanned across the country in response--and the big global players in infrastructure have set up shop too. Worldwide, somewhere from $50 billion to $150 billion worth of equity is waiting to be invested in infrastructure of all stripes (including assets like airports and water systems), and much of that is trained on the U.S. "U.S. infrastructure needs lots and lots of capital, and it's not obvious where all that money is going to come from," says Murray Bleach, who runs U.S. operations for Macquarie. "The potential is huge." With all that cash waiting in the wings, other concerns may not stand a chance."
Or this article which complains that public roads hurt the environment.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0308c.asp
So, anyway, yes, there is recently great interest in private firms in buying and building infrastructure. Right now it's up to government to decide whether to give it to them. And things seem to be swinging towards the private route. My only concern is the non-competitive clauses they write up. They need to get rid of those.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/10/backlash-from-p.html
"But states are getting crafty about how they partner with private firms, demanding a share of the revenue, quality standards and more competitive bidding. Unless motorists suddenly warm to a hike in the gas tax, privatization is unstoppable."
