Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama to unveil infrastructure funding program (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I understand (16+ / 0-)

    But there has never been an interstate highway constructed via anything other than a private-public partnership. Every major federal project is a partnership with the private sector. Has always been thus and always will be.

    As for your prediction, I'm not sure I understand. I do not think this proposal offers private partners an ownership stake in what they are building, or the right to collect tolls. What am I missing?

    Thanks.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

    by The Termite on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 07:45:01 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  i think the assumption is the P3 (7+ / 0-)

      means someone's going to charge for use of the facility, and in most cases, that's not the case at all.

      Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

      by terrypinder on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 07:55:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand where the cynicism comes from (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, Mr MadAsHell, terrypinder

        But I don't think we're talking about beefing up I-5 by renaming it "Chik-Fil-A Way" or anything.

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

        by The Termite on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 08:05:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's hardly the issue (2+ / 0-)

          (and I'm sure you know that); increasing the split between rich/poor on all fronts should be something Dems oppose, not support, and certainly not propose.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 09:01:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bryduck

            I just haven't jumped to the conclusion that this initiative is a giveaway to the rich. I've decided to wait until that claim is supported by, like, evidence.

            Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

            by The Termite on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 09:48:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Historical trends don't matter? (0+ / 0-)

              It's not like we're conjuring up images of something that hasn't been happening, but your mileage varies. No biggie.

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:38:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  UM, yes it is. The City of Chicago implemented (4+ / 0-)

        three PPP's and all three of them involve the private company charging for use and hiking up the costs for citizens.

        The Chicago Skyway, which has seen higher toll rates almost every year since the deal.

        Chicago Parking Meters: ridiculous rate increases and longer hours, including 24 hour meters.

        Chicago Underground Parking, all saw an increase in costs.

        All of these projects involved the loss of public control over the rates coupled with a loss of permanent revenue for the city. Additionally, many of the funds acquired are for corporate profit rather than being used for transportation infrastructure moving forward.

        So the City basically sold us out for a few billion dollars to pay some bills.

        Now asshole Rahm Emanuel is talking about privatizing our water supply in the same way.

        PPP not the answer we are looking for

        Hey, maybe we'll look back on this someday and wonder if we could have prevented getting the water shut off to the poor and needy.

        Here's the more rosy write up about these deals from the City of Chicago, for those who don't live here and therefore don't know what a load of shit these deals were, bYAY Privitizationut want to believe that PPP's are the way to go.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 10:41:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ranger995

          The parking meters in particular are obnoxious.  All revenue goes to a consortium that isn't even based in Illinois.

          The entire purpose of having parking meters in the first place is to have revenue for city streets. It is not to provide free money collection stands for some random investors.

          The city has also been told that closing streets for festivals will make the city liable for money they aren't able to collect for parking that day.

          If I lived in Chicago, I'd have organized a late-night blowtorch brigade one those meters.

          "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

          by Reepicheep on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:12:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, MPociask, ranger995, Eric Nelson

      lots of road projects have been 100% publicly funded, paid for with tax money, not borrowings, and not financially supported by private parties paying any part of the costs of design, acquisition or construction.  Some individuals and companies choose to donate land for tax benefits that accrue to them (ie, if they don't wish to reinvest the condemnation award, they still avoid the tax and may get a deduction against other gains.)  Some people are still civic minded and give the ROW for the benefits to themselves and their local community because they don't need the money.

      These public private partnerships on road are a different kettle of fish.  I've done road acquisition through purely public funds and these private agreements for years,  they are not the same.

      •  The devil will certainly be in the details (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CWinebrinner, wader

        The point I was trying to make is that the Federal government cannot bring these projects to fruition without the public sector, and never has. You need to employ private contractors who can solve problems of scale. You need to create incentives for businesses who suffer as a result of major construction impediments.

        If "partnerships" in this context means ceding public land ownership to corporations and passing on the right to command rents and tolls, then I'd agree it's specious, but I don't read that in the article.

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

        by The Termite on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 08:14:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hiring contractors (6+ / 0-)

          to do design work, environmental studies and actually build the road is not what a PPP is.

          PPP agreements are flexible, but frequently a developer has a large industrial park it needs to get off the ground, it will help the economy if successful and provide jobs locally.  So some mixture of federal/state/local money is joined with the developer who may donate land, a certain amount of funds, or undertake to cause construction of part of the road system though generally not the actual roadbeds.  The road ways for the park are part of the local road system and allow through traffic, and improve transportation overall, and may allow adjacent areas become suitable for further development.  As others have noted, other roads, bridges, may become toll structures with the private partner providing ongoing management and collect fees and a management fee.  These are much more likely to be new projects than repair of existing infrastructure, though with bridges it can be mixed, it is sometimes cheaper to build a new bridge than repair one that is in very bad condition, or to build a parallel structure to double lanes, keeping the old bridge in place while the new is constructed, then swapping traffic while the old is repaired and then the new/old bridge provides twice the old lanes when completed.

    •  Construction isnt the problem, ownership is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, maryabein

      Corporations arent going to repair highways and bridges for free.

      The scheme is to use austerity and freezing of funds as an excuse to "lease" or sell highways to corporations who then charge the public to use them with the "promise" that the money will be used for repairs.

      This is nothing more than DC kabuki for pols of both parties to profit from giving away public roads and highways. As soon as the deals are made, the crooks in the WH and Congress move on to lucrative jobs in private sector businesses who profit from said deals.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 08:56:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site