Toll-road fever no bargain for consumers
By
Henry Lamb
January 20, 2007
Across the country, state
highway officials are almost giddy about the prospects of selling the
right to build toll roads to private investors. Financial
wizards have learned how to amass gigantic pools of capital to pay the
states for the privilege. Prestigious
financial institutions
are promoting the new method of financing infrastructure as the greatest
development since sliced bread.
Left out of the equation is the
consumer – the poor working stiff who has paid exorbitant local, state
and federal taxes on every gallon of gasoline he ever purchased so that
highway officials would have the funds necessary to construct new
highways as needed and keep them in good repair. Under this new scheme
for financing infrastructure, the poor working stiff gets to continue
paying the exorbitant gasoline taxes and pay an additional "toll fee"
for the privilege of driving on a highway for which his tax dollars
should have already paid.
Abuse of the consumer doesn't stop
there. Toll roads are profitable because the operators not only
get the toll fees, they get revenue from the concession contracts as
well. Concessionaires must raise their prices to cover the contract
costs. They can because they have no competition in toll road corridors
from other vendors. The toll road user must pay whatever the
concessionaire charges for gasoline, food and whatever other services
that may be available.
Traveling on a non-toll roadway, a
consumer may choose from an incredible array of restaurants, service
stations and other vendors, all eagerly competing for his business. On a
toll road, the consumer is stuck with whatever food, gasoline and other
services the toll operator chooses to make available. The vendors have
no competition, and the price for goods and services is always higher on
a toll road than on a non-toll road.
Yet, politicians and economists
hail this new form of infrastructure financing as a great example of
free-market ingenuity. Nothing
about the scheme is "free market."
In the first instance, the land on
which a road is to be constructed requires the eminent domain power of
government. Free market entrepreneurs would have little hope of
acquiring sufficient right of way without the power of eminent domain.
Very few functions in society can be performed better by government than
by a free market; highways is one of those functions.
If gasoline taxes are not sufficient to
provide the roadways required, they can be raised. The consumers, who
are the taxpayers, can control the quality of their highway system by
allowing, or not allowing, an increase in the gasoline tax.
Should a special roadway become
necessary, such as the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor project,
which requires more funding than current taxes allow and which will
benefit a narrow, definable consumer group, government could
obtain the funding through bond sales tied to the future toll revenues.
This is essentially how the private sector raises the funds, by pledging
future revenues. The difference is the profit taken by the private
sector; this profit could stay in the
pockets of the consumers if the project were constructed and operated by
government officials. Moreover, the consumers might have some hope of
oversight by elected representatives if the project were operated by the
government.
When government turns over the right to
operate a toll road to a private operator, the consumer is at the mercy
of the contract agreed to by the initiating government and the operator.
These agreements tend to be for many years, binding future generations.
The Trans-Texas Corridor agreement with
Centra-Zachry lasts for 50 years. Centra, a Spanish company, partnered
with an Australian firm in a 99-year contract to operate the Chicago
Skyway, and a 75-year contract to operate the Indiana Tollway.
The users of these facilities
will be paying handsome tolls, premium prices for food and services, in
addition to the exorbitant gasoline tax, for most of the rest of this
century.
What makes this form of infrastructure
financing so attractive to highway officials is the initial cash payment
from the private-sector operator. The city of Chicago was paid $1.83
billion for the right to operate the Chicago Skyway. The Indiana Tollway
deal produced $3.85 billion for state officials. And the Texas deal will
produce a total of $7.2 billion for state officials.
This is just too much money – all at
once – for government officials to resist. No, it will not be used to
reduce gasoline taxes, or any other tax, for that matter. Government
will simply find ways to watch it evaporate long before the contract
expires. Government benefits from the cash windfall; the private
operator and its financiers benefit from consumer revenues; and
the consumer – the poor working stiff – gets to
pay the bill.
Henry
Lamb is the executive vice
president of the
Environmental Conservation Organization
and chairman of
Sovereignty International.
|