Like TURF
Follow TURFWhat is the free market solution to roads?
Though Mr. Dixon doesn't see an issue with a foreign company being involved, the foreign ownership as it's being done through PPPs grants a monopoly over public infrastructure which is wholly different than a consumer buying a foreign car or buying another type of good or service from a foreign company. Consumers freely choosing between options is one thing, but the way PPPs are structured, consumers don't really have a choice of whether or not to pay the extra tax to use the road since it's being built with their money (whether they take it or not), because of the non-compete clauses that artificially limit free or other tax-funded alternatives, and due to the fact that virtually all new roads in Texas are slated to be toll roads which forces motorists to take them by limiting other alternatives.
A Modest Proposal: The Trans-Texas Corridor
By Patjdixon - Friday May 28, 2010
The population of Texas is increasing. Traffic on existing roads is becoming heavier by the day. Governor Rick Perry has been promoting the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) as part of the solution for some time. Although it seemed the TTC was dead, it reportedly is still alive. There is strong public opinion against the TTC.
Where do Libertarians stand?
When I first read the headline years ago about a private company using its own money to build a freeway in Texas, I thought it was great. It seemed to be a Libertarian dream come true. Finally, it can be proven that the free market can provide roads without the coercive power of taxation.
However, as time went by I came to understand the concerns people have with the TTC. Primarily, the TTC grants this company a virtual monopoly on transportation along the corridor. The legislation supporting the TTC prevents development or improvements of roads that would compete for traffic on the TTC. This is not a free market solution.
Additionally, where is the benefit to the taxpayer? Texas adds a $0.20/gallon tax on fuel in order to fund state transportation. If taxpayers are taxed on fuel purchases to build roads, which are then converted to toll roads, and then have to pay tolls in order to drive these roads while continuing to be taxed on fuel, aren’t we being double taxed? Presumably the private operation of the road should reduce the financial burden on drivers and taxpayers, not increase it.
Consider this as a possible solution:
What if you could drive a toll road without paying a state sales tax on fuel? Then the driver could have a real choice, the private operator would have a fair chance competing with government transportation, and there would be no need to grant a monopoly to the private operator.
How would this work? If you have ever driven the Pennsylvania Turnpike, you notice that there are service plazas in the median. These reside completely on the right-of-way. The proposal would be that if a fuel service resides entirely on a private operator’s property, they would not be subject to the state fuel tax. Fuel service that touches taxpayer funded roads would remain subject to the tax.
Logically, a person driving a private road should not be forced to pay taxes to maintain other roads. Assume we have road G (government) and road P (private). When I am on road G, I am imposing wear and tear on the road and occupying space that adds to congestion on road G. I should pay to fix the wear and tear maintenance as well as provide funds to add lanes or other roads to reduce congestion on road G. If I am not on road G, I am not adding to congestion, maintenance, or expense of road G. Why should I be forced to pay for it? If I am on road P, my tolls on the road can be used for the maintenance and capacity expense on road P.
So, you could drive on a private road, pay tolls, and save $0.20/gallon on taxes (road P), or continue to pay taxes on government roads (road G). There wouldn’t seem to be any reason to prevent development or improvement of competing roads. Seems to me to be a fair choice.
Now, let’s talk about eminent domain. This has been used as an argument against the Trans Texas Corridor. My record on city council demonstrates my dislike for eminent domain. The popular opinion of policy makers is that it would be impossible to build roads without the power of government to take your property by force. There are policy experts at the Reason Foundation that have told me this is not necessarily true. I don’t believe that there is necessarily a difference between one road or another using eminent domain to purchase right of way. However, having a private operator able to build a road up to 1,200 feet wide by forcing you off your property seems a different matter. I would support prohibiting eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another. This means that a private operator would have to negotiate property acquisition the way the rest of us do, by offering the owner a deal that is worth it to them. There are lots of people that would sell property for the right price.
Another argument against the TTC is that it would be a foreign company, Cintras-Zachary, operating the road. I don’t care. We have a lot of people employed by companies like Samsung, Honda, and IKEA? Do you complain about them? This foreign owned company issue is a non-argument in my opinion.
Therefore, a proposal that eliminates state fuel taxes and eminent domain for private road operators would be much more appealing. This could be free market solution to the vexing problem of transportation.