Like TURF
Follow TURFMichigan 'bridge' bill opens door to privatized toll roads
Congressman Paul Opsommer wisely acknowledges that Michigan ought not to open the door to controversial sweetheart toll road deals called public private partnerships (PPPs) simply to get one bridge fixed. This is how the lobby operates, find some sort of crisis (in this case, a bridge badly in need of repair) to exploit to get broad sweeping changes through that ordinarily would NEVER pass the legislature. Buyer beware!
Opsommer: 'Bridge' bill actually would open door to toll roads
By Michigan Congressman Paul Opsommer
Lansing State Journal
June 10, 2010
If taxpayers call an elected official to complain about new toll roads, should they accept "Sorry, it's out of my hands"? Should they accept a tolling contract that was only approved by Michigan Department of Transportation? Should they accept future tolling decisions made as a result of one project in Detroit?
House Bill 4961 is wrongly being understood as the "Detroit River International Crossing bridge" bill. In reality, it changes Michigan law.
Currently MDOT must have bills passed in order lease, toll, or increase user-fees. HB 4961 would strip that and allow MDOT to not only create a bridge in Detroit, but also enter into tolling elsewhere in the state through a "public-private partnership (P3)" that allows third-party tolling.
P3s work like this: The government leases a public asset, like a road, to a private company. The term of the lease varies between 35-99 years. The state gets a large upfront payment and the private company gets to charge tolls to make a profit. In other cases, P3s are used for a private company to build (and temporarily own) something, and the state pays 'rent' through a combination of tolls and backend tax dollars for months where drivership is low.
The Legislature needs to determine if we should build the DRIC via a P3, or let the Ambassador bridge build another span. Regardless of which you prefer, the point is that HB 4961 allows for more than just the DRIC and gives MDOT exclusive control of tolling projects elsewhere.
The bill defines infrastructure as "any new or existing domestic or international highway, lane, road, bridge, tunnel, overpass, ramp, interchange, ferry, airport, vehicle parking facility, rail facility, intermodal or other public transit facility" or "facility used in the transportation of persons, goods, substances, vehicles, information, or matter of any kind," even for property merely "desirable." When eminent domain could be used to take private property away from one person and turn it over for the profit of another, we shouldn't rely on a word that ambiguous. Some small protections were added before passing out of the House (all Lansing area Republicans voted no on this bill), but not nearly enough. The grass-roots National Motorist Association has said they will not support any bill that permanently strips legislative approval.
Why risk it? All of our bridges were constructed via specific legislation that did not grant MDOT new powers. It would be bad policy to cede tolling approval for the sake of one DRIC project. Also, it is important to note there is no "free bridge" as the $550 million dollars Canada would "give" us is a loan that would be repaid through tolls on Michigan drivers. (Speculation is that the Canadian pension fund OMERS would be a 99-year investor.) The Legislature would have no say in toll increases, which would be set by MDOT and the investor.
For those wondering if getting out of those contracts would be impossible and make the State Police headquarters boondoggle pale by comparison, you're right.